Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than185 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

we seem to have just missed an edit conflict at that user's talk page. Most of their edits today have been borderline disruptive, so I wonder if you might consider self-reverting to avoid mixed messages? Your call.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)09:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's fun lol. Typically, when I welcome problematic people, I send a standard welcome and write a new section for the warning, but you seem to have already done that. As disruptive as they may or may not seem (i haven't really looked into it), I do think it is worth at least being welcoming, so they feel they can still correct themselves and feel welcomed. That's just my personal feeling though, so I won't be reverting. Thanks for the tip! I plan to follow the AfD for the next week and if I decide I feel a certain way, maybe then I'll !vote that way. At least for now though, I would prefer to stay on the sidelines.guninvalid (talk)09:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,@Guninvalid:
I partially disagree with your closure of the requested move that was recently discussed atTalk:June 2025 Los Angeles protests. Even if no consensus exists about the last word of the title of that page, I think that a relatively clear consensus exists in favor of removing the word "June" from the title. If you agree, perhaps you can amend your closure to reflect this. Otherwise, I may open a new move discussion. Thanks! –Gluonz^talkcontribs21:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloUser:Gluonz. Maybe, but that was still a minority opinion, and not the central question in the proposed move. If you think that removing the month could have support, you may open a new RM or take it toWP:AN. For what it's worth, I wouldoppose removing June perWP:CRYSTALBALL.guninvalid (talk)22:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guninvalid. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Throning, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)03:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to find the information for the infobox.Zaptain United (talk)20:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi @Zaptain United. I saw this when you posted it but I thought you posted this on AWF's page. I don't know, I don't really know much about aviation much in general. I'm just a Wikipedian who watched a shitton of Mentour Pilor and Mayday Air Disaster. I just know some WP policy and some operational stuff about planes; that's it. Sorry for the inconvenience.guninvalid (talk)20:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guninvalid. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission ordraft page you started, "Throning".

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.Liz^Read!Talk!02:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:JEL classification codes on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(trialing replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (talk|botop)16:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atCategory talk:Presidential election templates on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(trialing replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)13:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great flattening, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed asStub-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk)09:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guninvalid. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Soul's Remnant, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)05:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Pacu Jalur on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(trialing replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)07:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:ANO (political party) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(trialing replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)11:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guninvalid. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:CVE-2025-1094, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)19:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)02:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You referred to notability on theChen Weihua talk page, although I don't think you were making any claims about whether the subject itself was notable. I would like to hear your opinion on the article's notability though. I don't think there's any chance of an AfD being worthwhile if an IP were the only one making the case.

1. WP:PSTS, part of the policyWP:OR: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." orWP:REPUTABLE, part of the guidelineWP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
2. Most of the article's overview of Chen's career and education are based on profiles that are published by outlets he is affiliated with (universities, newspapers). These profiles are usually submitted by the subject and are only subject to stylistic edits. They are not independent. What remains are a series of articles published that mention or discuss Twitter arguments he has gotten into in the past five or so years.
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ira Brad Matetsky (2nd nomination) closed as delete, with the cited rationale: "I am particularly persuaded by 28byte's remarks about the "problems with piecing together a biographical article about someone about whom no proper biography has been written in reliable sources. You get woefully incomplete and outdated scraps of information that do not cohere into a proper, comprehensive narrative about the man’s life and career." We should take this into consideration for all BLP articles, frankly." Do you see this case as analogous?

103.87.254.62 (talk)02:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, looking through the sources, a number of them are obviously garbage. I think I'll go ahead and start a AfD. I can't see him meetingWP:BLP orWP:NJOURNALIST.guninvalid (talk)03:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article atPolitical violence in the United States. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:21st century political violence in the United States and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk |contribs)11:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: Would this be able to be moved over the redirect?Political violence in the United States is a redirect to civil disobedience which isn't the same thing.guninvalid (talk)16:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...or rather it was until yesterday.guninvalid (talk)16:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Congrats, yousurvived the Charlie Kirk move discussion. Thanks for all you've done during this time.Babysharkb☩ss2(DEADMAU5)17:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks lmaoguninvalid (talk)17:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Syngenta on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)10:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guninvalid. This message concerns theArticles for Creation submission ordraft page you started, "CVE-2025-1094".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with ourdraftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simplyedit the submission, and remove the{{db-afc}},{{db-draft}}, or{{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!DreamRimmer bot II (talk)19:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Passengerpigeon was:

This draft's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Snowbreak: Containment Zone and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Passengerpigeon (talk)03:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Guninvalid!Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Passengerpigeon (talk)03:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guninvalid. Your question has been answered at theTeahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions arearchived after 2–3 days of inactivity. Message added byjolielover♥talk09:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC). (You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Hello. You recently reverted an edit on 2025 California Prop 50. You appear to have made a mistake regarding your removal, so I reverted it. An organization's own webpage is considered a valid source. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered byreliable sources,which may include the organization's own website or official social media accounts. News media is itself a reliable source. Based on your criteria, I noticed that you did not remove other endorsements that fell under the exact same criteria (endorsements published by the media organization itself), nor did you remove media endorsements from effectively every election page on this website. I figured you made a mistake when reading the sources.BobSmithME (talk)09:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above: using the flawed criteria about 'primary sources', almost all of the organizations & media endorsements in major elections like the2025 New York City mayoral election or2024 United States presidential election would have to be removed.

Please consultWikipedia:ENDORSE @GuninvalidAesurias (talk)10:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:North Korea on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)03:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloGuninvalid! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Notability of news orgs and finding sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread. See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done bylowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byKiranBOT, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk)03:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Operation Sonnenblume on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)03:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Benjamin Netanyahu on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)22:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)14:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recordkeeping note: This is in reference toWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#RfC: Proposed new naming convention for elections in communist states. Will update with archive when available.guninvalid (talk)08:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Short summary:

1. In liberal-democratic systems, an election is:
   1. A stand-alone event;
   2. Centered on competition for power;
   3. Determining which party or coalition governs;
   4. Based on individual votes expressing preferences.
2. In communist state systems, an election is:
   1. A stage in the continuous process of people's participation and political renewal;
   2. Conducted within the existing power framework, not to change it;
   3. Designed to affirm the unity of the people, not express division;
   4. Managed throughtransmission belt mass organizations, not parties in competition.
3. And this means that communist state constitutions and practice made elections only one step in a cyclical process of governance:
   1. Nomination through transmission belt mass organizations.
   2. Consultation and discussion about the nominees
   3. Formal election, typically with near-unanimous approval.
   4. Continuous accountability — deputies or delegates were expected to report back and could be recalled.

I have written and created the articlessupreme state organ of power,unified power, andcommunist state constitution. I am also planning to create an article titled "Communist state elections" (or "Elections in communist states") and "System of state organs of power", as well as improving articles that I have already created, such as thepermanent organ of the supreme state organ of power. Wikipedia is lacking many basic articles on communist states, and I have taken it upon myself to create them and improve the existing ones. To make a cohesive article structure that make sense both factually (and for our readers), the election names should also be changed.

But I woke up yesterday, and understood I was overthinking it. What about, instead of the2019 North Korean parliamentary election, we go for2019 North Korean supreme state organ of power election, or instead of the1984 Soviet legislative election, we go for1984 Soviet supreme state organ of power election? Would that be an acceptable compromise?TheUzbek (talk)08:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In short, @TheUzbek, I simply don't agree that elections in ML theory differ eniugh from Western democratic elections to warrant a title change. That's what they're based on, after all. In fact, while ctrl+f-ing, I noticed that the very first paragraph of theSSOP arricle section on elections clearly states that according to ML theory, elections are indeed elections. I do think it's justified to strike "parliamentary" from many of these titles, but adding SSOP would, again, be overlyWP:PRECISE at the cost of beingWP:CONCISE. I think it's worth putting SSOP in thefirst paragraph of the articles, if not the first sentence, but I don't buy that it's worth attaching to the titles. If for no other reason, because the strongest silly American has no idea what that is, and the weakest North Korean doesn't speak English.guninvalid (talk)08:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you are for striking parliamentary, we have already moved places. As for the average American, do they even know that these states organised elections? I do not buy it. To your point regarding election; I am at a bit of a loss about what you mean. Election means election, and in that way all elections are similar. All countries have states, but the states differ and we, therefore, call them by other names: democracies, fascist, communist, dictatorship etc. However, they all share more similarities than what they like to admit. They all have legislatures, heads of state, heads of government, judicial institutions etc. But we use these terms to highlight the differences. So, yes, you are right, elections in communist states are elections, but the election system is very different from that found in liberal democracies and elect another type of legislature with another set of powers.

Do you understand? :)TheUzbek (talk)08:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the warm reply. I do agree with your comment, but my overall thoughts are that while it's definitely worth differentiating between the systems of elections, I disagree that it must be done at the article title level. Hell, the USA and UK election systems are not very similar either, and the 1792 US election has very little in common with the 2024 US election. We differentiate these when possible, so UK elections to Parliament are parliamentary elections, and US elections to Congress are congressional elections. But all elections taken on Election Day altogether are just called elections, with parliamentary, gubernatorial, and presidential separated into their own articles. So I do think it is worth specifying the organization being elected in the title, but for the singular election day event electing to all organizations statewide, keep the status quo.guninvalid (talk)08:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition, points 1 and 4 of your Western democracy election description could, at least nominally, apply in Soviet elections. By their collapse, points 1-4 applied. It can be argued that point 1 doesn't apply, but it's hard to argue that in a sense that doesn't also apply to USA elections. Points 1-2 of your communist elections could also apply in the USA and UK. The USA's existing power framework is theUS Constitution, and the UK's existing power framework isThe Crown. Point 3 can, at least nominally, also be applied to the USA and UK. Even point 4 can be argued to include the USA, especially given the historical power of the captains of industry(seeGilded Age andSecond Gilded Age^[a]). As for your conclusion, traditional lobbying exists just as much in USA elections as it does in Chinese or Soviet elections, perhaps far more. And while Western democratic elections tend to be nowhere near unanimous, sometimes they are: see the USA in1932,1936,1940,1944,1980, and1984.guninvalid (talk)08:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No they couldn't. Elections were not organised in these states to change government, even theoretically. The point was to mobilize the masses behind the communist state and its programme. There has been some cases of 4 in communist states, but in Cuba, North Korea, and China all elections above the grassroots are non-competitve.

"A stage in the continuous process of people's participation and political renewal". What I mean that these were elections that did not take place on a day. In some liberal democracies you have two days because you have two rounds. In certain communist states had more than 10 rounds. You also had to participate in nomination meetings. The amount of obligatory events exceeds that of liberal democracies. So no, they are not the same.

Yes, elections in both system seek to maintain the constitutional system. However, in liberal democratic system voters can change the government. You can't do that in communist states, at least in the sense understood in the West.

America does not have transmission belt organizations. It categorically does not.

For some apparent reason you are going out of the way of trying to reduce the differences.TheUzbek (talk)09:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it would be a very good idea to have aElections in communist states article or one of similar scope, and I'm frankly surprised one doesn't already exist. I think one useful idea is to link to such an article in the first sentence of an article, such as "The20xx Communist Stateelections took place on 1 Janueen, 20xx. The elections affirmed theSupreme state organ of power within the state..." Though in practice, it would be better to link to the corresponding country article, such asElections in North Korea.guninvalid (talk)08:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Scientology on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)15:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know I’m technically supposed to be on wikibreak, but I am going to briefly come out of said break because I have a complaint about an IP that you warned last month. I gave the IP a welcome template a couple weeks ago, and since then, apparently the IP has been following me around and editing stuff that I’ve either created or recently edited, and has been doing so in such a sneaky way that I didn’t even notice it until I accidentally opened my watchlist tonight and looked at it and noticed the above IP (182.185.42.137) had edited a bunch of redirects that I recently created. And while these were constructive edits, they were literally every redirect I’ve made in the last two weeks, almost as if the IP looked into my contributions history to follow me around, really creepy. If you have any doubts, go compare that IP’s contributions with my creations log. It was so many of them, I thought it was a new page reviewer or a patroller making those edits at first until I looked and saw it was an IP. I wouldn’t normally be assuming hounding/harassment/stalking, but given the IP’s previous warnings, including a level 4, makes me more inclined to believe it’s a NOTHERE case. What should I do? Should I send it to ANI, or what?Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!}02:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was apparently around the time you gave the warning. So apparently it’s been between around the 11th and 15th of October. I only just now discovered it.Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!}02:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh deer, not this goober again. I don't think taking this toWP:ANI would be prudent, just because I'm not sure what kind of administrative action is actually warranted. This kind ofWP:Wikistalking is indeed very strange behavior, but if it doesn't arise to the level of outright harassment, it'll be hard for any real action to occur, especially since none of their reverts truly seem like vandalism. The only action that might occur is a brief touch-grass break (which they've already said would not be effective) or anWP:IBAN, which would also not be effective. If anything, it might be better to take this to theWP:TEAHOUSE to see if anyone else thinks it's worth taking toWP:ANI orWP:AN.guninvalid (talk)08:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't even revert anything. That's the thing. All of these edits appeared constructive, to such an extent that normally they wouldn't be raising red flags. A few of them did show up as possible problems on the watchlist but that's it, probably a false positive. I initially thought it was like a new page reviewer or something until I looked at who made them. But it was the same IP on redirects and articles I had recently made. Like there were a bunch ofZIP code redirects (37738 and99723 were a couple of them, the ZIP code for Branson, Missouri, the ZIP code for Vail and Aspen in Colorado, etc.), there was an edit to thePatrick Morrisey article, there was an edit to thePI address redirect, one to theGreat West Virginia Derecho redirect, one to theMw scale redirect, one to theAzərbaycan Mərkəzi Bankı redirect (in Azerbaijani language), one toJuche 114 redirect, one toTe Pūtea Matua redirect (in Maori language), one toClub for no growth redirect, one toGoblu, OH andBeatosu, OH redirects, one toBundesrepublik Deutschland redirect, one toMount Paektu bloodline, and others. ALL of these were redirects that I created (except forPatrick Morrisey, but I did create redirects that lead to that article). In total there were probably at least 30 or 40 maybe more redirects that I created that this IP followed me around on.

If it happens again I will let you know, I will be watching my watch list like a hawk.Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!}17:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I am not taking it to the tea house is because they abruptly stopped editing after October 31, and there hasn’t been any following since your warning on October 15.Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!}18:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vrxces was:

This draft's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There's still no post-release coverage from reliable sources in-depth that would substantiate notability here, unfortunately. I'm not seeing a single review hit on Metacritic, so this may be difficult to do at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Soul's Remnant and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)11:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Recordkeeping note: This topic relates toDraft:2025 UC11.

discussion of how to improve Draft: 2025 UC11Joe Cerniglia (talk)20:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)I would like to add some comments here and am just creating this as a placeholder for now. If you have additional comments you would like to make, feel free. Thank you for your input.[reply]

It's a disappointment, but maybe not a final rejection. I am devoted to the subject, and realize it may take some time. I invite you to review the editorial comments in View History that I made to show my thought process for proof of the care with which I created this AfC. Despite the formality of my tone, which may have come across as NLP, there is a human writing this.

Let's start with the problem of the citations. You state they are "completely improperly formatted." Can you provide a little more feedback here? Many of them were hand-corrected by other Wikipedia reviewers on prior dates, to show me, as a first-time submitter, how to do them properly. They are not all in the same format, but I was under the impression that the author had a little bit of latitude on this point. Guninvalid, can we begin a conversation on this point? Many of them, although not all, used the citation templates. None are bare links. I am a first-time submitter, so I am a little unclear whether communication between reviewer and author are in any way common or expected. Let me know. I'm ready to learn.(previous unsigned comment left byUser:Joe Cerniglia (talk) at21:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, @Joe Cerniglia. Please seeHelp:Cite.guninvalid (talk)21:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this part is fixable. And I thank you. Notability is beyond my control, but the lack of it may have several reasons: a. It may be too soon. I would think the astronomy community moves slowly. b. The object did not impact Earth so there was nothing for the ordinary person to witness. There is more for me to edit, and perhaps say here. But this was a start. Thank you.Joe Cerniglia (talk)22:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this object is certainly notable, but your draft is not acceptable. Please fix your citation formats and resubmit, and I will be happy to accept it.guninvalid (talk)22:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the relevant Wikipedia policies, I can see now that there is merit in what you are suggesting, and that you are doing your best to apply relevant Wikipedia policies in light of their historical applications.

Therefore, the best thing for me to do is probably to retain the text of the ST section somewhere where I can find it later, and then trim this section backsubstantially to its original proportions when I first inserted it, while retaining some of the improvements I made to citations and verifiability. If I choose, I can attempt to write a separate Wikipedia article on synthetic tracking later, and that can become its own project. Rome wasn't built in a day. My problem is I may be trying to do that, and in the process, creating something that is not properly in the style of Wikipedia. I do not want to do this. I can stay within guidelines, and still find ways to keep the ideas of ST in a stand-alone, if it meets notability guidelines.Joe Cerniglia (talk)13:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now trimmed the section on Synthetic Tracking by more than 50%. (I have also trimmed preparatory comments I made on this Talk page, which have been superseded by later thinking that was more in tune with your editorial judgment.)

I have a question for you? Have these cuts eased your editorial concern that this section is evolving to be off topic? If no, then I will need to do more. If yes, would you consider removing the banner on the section that states that the section may be off-topic?

Additional update: The modifications have improved the ORES rating as shown.

ORES Prediction prior to cuts:FA: 31.3%GA: 31.2%B: 23.8%C: 11.1%Start: 1.9%Stub: .006%

ORES Prediction after the cuts:FA: 46.5%GA: 25.1%B: 15.5%C: 10.9%Start: 1.4%Stub: .005%

Message: ORES believes that your editorial direction is helping. Who am I to second-guess?Joe Cerniglia (talk)01:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update 11/22: I have rewritten the section to bring it back into alignment with the topic. I discuss these latest changes on the article's Talk page. Thanks for your feedback on this section.Joe Cerniglia (talk)01:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update 11/23: Hello again! Thank you for allowing this space for a conversation, and thanks for the idea of putting the synthetic tracking section under the heading "Orbit and Classification." While I understand the wish to subordinate this section to others to make it feel topical, I'm having trouble seeing how the methods the astronomers used to detect the object using synthetic tracking relate to the somewhat dryer list of orbital attributes of the object. However, I can see how the title of the section itself, "synthetic tracking etc, etc." is awkward and stands out. My doing it that way breaks the "template" of other asteroid articles by not only positing a section no other asteroid article has but also suggesting to the reader "this is something you should know about" without giving them any clue in advance of why they should. Therefore, I am proposing, and have enacted in the article, an alternative solution. Instead of subordinating this important section, I propose to give it a more generic name: Discovery Methods. By calling it that, or something like that, it signals to the reader that they will learn how the object was discovered, a question that any reasonable person might ask. That title also sounds like a generic topic heading rather than a novel idea an author is proposing, and it does the job a header should: It tells the reader which box has been checked rather than obligating them to figure that out as they go along.

Again, I appreciate the many changes you've made. It has helped grow and improve the article in countless ways. It is a privilege to collaborate with you.

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Guninvalid! Just leaving a message to ask whether you've consideredapplying for new page reviewer rights? I see that you're active at AfC, with some participation at AfD as well. I think you would be well suited to the role, though readingWP:NPP wouldn't go amiss! If you have time definitely consider applying for a trial run and maybe sign up forWP:AFCDEC25 too! If ever you want to chat with other new page reviewers, there is a Discord server for NPP specifically, listed atWP:Discord#Other servers! Thanks!11WB (talk)00:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @11WB! Nice to see you again. No, at this time I'm not interested in NPR rights, especially since the AfC backlog is bad enough as is. Additionally, there are other aspects of Wikipedia policy associated with NPR that I'm just not interested in learning at the moment. But perhaps I will in the future. Thanks!guninvalid (talk)10:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! The AfC backlog will definitely be reduced next month thanks to the drive. You are always welcome any time!11WB (talk)13:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloGuninvalid! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Is there a template for marking a section as out of scope?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread. See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done bylowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byKiranBOT, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk)03:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an editor who is doing something I can't even comprehend at this article. It's not vandalism, but the editor appears to have a vested interest in making the page say something that their source does not back up. The editor has improperly added warnings (they have now added a block warning, which I'm sure non-admins can't add) to my talk page. They have improperly started an RFC, then changed the meaning of the RFC halfway. They have engaged in egregious Synth and OR violations. They have removed or misquoted sources without reading the content of the source at all. They have apparently deliberately vandalized parts of the page to make auto reverts more difficult. They also apparently have such a limited grasp of the English language that they cannot engage in reasonable discussion despite the fact that most of the things they want have literally been put into the article after they added proper sourcing. I have no idea what to do with this editor.BobSmithME (talk)09:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it belongs atWP:AN.guninvalid (talk)09:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC