This is Aoidh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your comment by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment. Please indent your posts with a colon : if replying to an existing topic (or two colons :: if replying to a reply, and so on). For oversight requests please see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Talk page archives (Auto-archiving period: 14 days ) 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024

— xaosflux ^Talk 23:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👏👏👏 Congratulations! Tails Wx 23:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first successful RfA of 2023!! Congrats, however we have waited for so long... Thingofme (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Quick, who has the baton and the tshirt to foist shower upon on our new admin? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational, where's the baton? Tails Wx 00:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, I really appreciate it and appreciate everyone who commented at the RfA. Now I have quite a bit of reading to do. :) - Aoidh (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your 35% pay rise! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm a bit late (the RfA was closed in the middle of the night for me), but congratulations for an overwhelmingly positive RfA! I'm sure you'll make a great administrator; it makes me happy that the first successful RfA was closed on my birthday. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schminnte: Thank you, and I hope you had a great birthday! - Aoidh (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tails Wx: Dusted out of the archives and now on this very-much-live talk page :D ^Complex/_Rational 00:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Thanks for the interesting response to my question (Q8), hope to see you around more in administrative areas! echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I know you'll do great. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on a well deserved RfA. If you require anything at all from me, don't hesitate to ask. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I am glad you didn't need my !vote but sorry that I missed your RfA. I've been online only briefly in recent weeks due to recent eye surgeries but I usually check RfAs. So I am not sure how I failed to see it one of the times I was online. In any event, well deserved, congratulations and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are things going with the surgeries? I hope you are feeling better. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Aoidh. Thank you again for your openness to serving in this way. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not responding to each comment individually, but thank you all very much. I really do appreciate it, it's been quite a ride the past week or so and now that my talk page isnt quite so active I wanted to thank you all. @Arbitrarily0: thank you for nominating me and the kind words in your nomination. - Aoidh (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	A baton for you!
	As per tradition (since Tamzin began it for DanCherek's RfA), I happily pass the admin baton to you. Congratulations on passing RfA with flying colors and wielding the first new mop of 2023! Whether on Wiki or on Discord, don't hesitate to reach out to any of us for commiseration advice or second opinions. Good luck, and happy mopping! Complex/Rational 00:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm sure there will be no shortage of questions from me in the near future. - Aoidh (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me too - I remember when I was accepted at RfA, the feeling of relief and pleasure, and also bewilderment at all the new buttons that appeared in my Twinkle menu. If I can ever be of assistance, feel free to ping me (particularly with regard to any concerns about sockpuppetry which is my main area of activity at the moment). Girth Summit _(blether) 20:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that it's great that you joined the DYK team, we can always use more help mopping. You certainly stepped into a minefield on Template:Did you know nominations/Lithophane, but you seem to be handling it well! -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Aoidh! Congrats on the successful RfA.

You'd mentioned wanting to become a bit more familiar with DYK processes before adminning there. IMO the best way to become a DYK expert is to build a few preps, which you've done, so I think you're actually ahead of the game at this point. Everything you need to know about moving a prep to queue, you can learn by building preps. The PSHAW tool works for moving preps to queue. When I move a prep to queue, I do it before doing the re-checks, simply to signal to other admins that I'm going to check that set. Some prefer to do the checks first and just mark the set as being in use.

I do also think it's helpful to keep an eye on questions brought up by prep builders at WT:DYK, and (to a lesser extent but still worth paying attention to) complaints brought up at ERRORS. Hope this is helpful! Valereee (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thank you very much for the advice, I have done just that and checked through each entry thoroughly after promoting it (though I may use "in use" next time, not sure). I tried to do it sooner but the other admins are often pretty quick and by the time I look at it an hour or so after a spot has opened up it's already filled. It's hard to believe it's only been since the beginning of the year since I went to your talk page about helping at DYK, but once I have a bit more free time coming up soon I'm definitely going to jump in whenever I see spots open to do so. - Aoidh (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to be notified when someone is requesting assistance from a DYK admin, please consider adding yourself to ((DYK admins)). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandarax: Thank you, I had forgotten about that template. - Aoidh (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You recently blocked Ashwinjohn77 for WP:NOTHERE. I think this edit made after the block deserves revoking their talk page access, don't you? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the single short response directed at me in response to a block notice is enough to warrant revocation of talk page access. If it continues beyond just the single edit then that should be re-examined. - Aoidh (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have given another editor besides you the middle finger as well. I would recommend taking another look. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was prior to the block, and he hasn't edited since that day, I don't see that talk page revocation is necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your mention of the wikilinks during your RfA received my attention. I now wouldn't add wikilinks for people anymore. But Interwikilinks I still see as valid, if you do not change my mind.

I also have another issue. There are the silent interwikilinks (I call silent the blue ones that are actually interwikilinks), and then there are the red interwikilinks. The silent ones give the reader and the editor the impression that an article already exists, and then also they do not change into links to the article in the English language once they are created.

I asked for a script to show the silent interwikilinks in an other color, but with no success for now. My hope is that with a wellmeant raise of concern by an admin the tool might get created a bit sooner:) Or maybe you have an even better idea. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: If you're referring to Template:Interlanguage link, such as ((ill|Peder Sunesen|da)) producing Peder Sunesen [da], I've never personally used it to link a interlanguage biography, usually some building or something, but I personally would still apply the same standard to it, where if the context of the red link would show any resulting incorrect bio made with that same name in a negative light, I probably would avoid linking it, but it seems case-by-case as far as what the article the link is being placed in is saying and I'm honestly not sure about an easy answer for that since it's an atypical edge situation where there is an article, it's just not in English (that happens often but the ill template doesn't get used super often).

As for the silent wikilinks, I'm assuming you're talking about the usages that get populated into Category:Interlanguage link template forcing interwiki links? It does say on both that category's description and in describing the "forced" parameter for the ill template that This feature should not be used in articles under most circumstances. so I feel like perhaps some of the problem may be that it's being used in situations where it shouldn't be. - Aoidh (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for for the reply. I agree with you about introducing redlinks. But I am not sure if we are really writing about the same when I mention the silent interwikilinks or interlanguage links even though I agree with your mentioning that its being used in situation it shouldn't be.

The articles in the Category:Interlanguage link template forcing interwiki links don't seem to include the silent interlanguage links that I meant.

So I show I recent experience of today that triggered this discussion. I had also an example in the English language wikipedia but this one is from the French wiki. Tomoko Akane, (an ICC judge) had a silent wiki link to the German wikipedia but a French one was already created. So the link didn't turn blue for the French article. Same also happens in the English wikipedia if articles have silent interlanguage links. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You're not talking about someone using Template:Interlanguage link to produce something like Peder Sunesen [da], you're talking about someone using something along the lines of [[:fr:Géographie de la Normandie|Géographie de la Normandie]] to produce Géographie de la Normandie in place of the non-existent English-version Geography of Normandy. That seems to be a situation where Template:Interlanguage link should ideally be used but isn't, since that template is specifically designed to account for newly created local-language articles being created. - Aoidh (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such wls I call silent interlanguage links. It's a small problem, but I saw it on several occasions. Maybe I should add this Tomoko Akane example to my request, so then the developers understand the issue a bit better. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congrats for recently becoming a admin/sysop. I look forward to see you contributions. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Corvette ZR1: Sorry I missed this initially, but thank you! :) - Aoidh (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aoidh, I saw that you closed the discussion for delete for Jessica Nabongo. I would like to ask that you also deal with this incident: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123#Destructive_editing_by_User:Universalsunset. or tell me what needs to be done, so that I can actually edit the article. I see that you are a new admin. Sorry to tackle you with this. K.Nevelsteen (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@K.Nevelsteen: This ultimately looks like a content dispute which seems to be why the AN/I discussion was archived without any administrative action; there was nothing an administrator needed to do at that time. I will say though that sources like this do support the other editor's assertion, so this does not appear to be WP:OR. Replacing that with a statement that the fact is "widely reported" is WP:WEASEL and is sourced to the individual's book, which is less than ideal; claims like that need independent sourcing. That wording needs to be reworded, needs much better sources, and you shouldn't remove reliable sources simply because they contradict what you'd like the article to say.

My suggestion would be first and foremost to stop edit warring on the article back and forth with each other to avoid anyone being blocked or the page being protected (which would mean it could not be edited even if it was a version of the article you disagreed with). Continue discussion on the talk page without accusing anyone of anything (especially without evidence); focus on the content, not the contributor. If the discussion remains at an impasse, consider using WP:DRN to help resolve the dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at underlying reference to the link you tagged [1], then you will noticed it is source from Spotts herself. Universalsunset also speaks as if they have some type of contact/relation to Spotts.

As for "widely reported". She has been "widely reported" being first, but it is not official that she is first. She is also not second, because no sources say so. What wording is not a WP:WEASEL in this case? If you look at the edit history, I tried stating she was first with text saying it was disputed. It was reverted and is probably a hard pill for people on the opposition to swallow. What is neutral non-weasel wording in this case?

I'm trying not to edit war, but Universalsunset reverted all my changes, even when correcting the title of the book and the discussion for delete template; just blind revert. If that doesn't warrant some action, then I simply don't understand Wiki policy anymore. Rollbacks used to be a privilege and to be used sparingly. I am open for using WP:DRN, but not when ALL my edits are reverted; not edited in good faith, but simply reverted.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, you are both reverting each other. You may not be trying to edit war, but you're both reverting each other with vague or problematic edit summaries. I'm not sure what you mean by "blind revert" because they have made plain their issue with your edits on the talk page. You reverted their content wholesale and called the content they added original research, when it is very clearly supported by at least some sources; it is not original research. They may or may not have been revering all your edits, but from what I can see you're also reverting all of theirs. Given that you're both doing the same thing, are you editing in good faith? If so, extend the same courtesy to them and assume good faith on their part, and focus on the content. As for rollback, they do not have the Wikipedia:Rollback user right. My suggestion would be to take this to DRN and go from there. - Aoidh (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a disputed wording in the article, but not for the reasons that the other editor is bringing up; the dispute you're adding is she may have not visited all countries because Golan Heights is not technically Syria, when the dispute in question is that there was a prior person who made the same claim. As for the source I mentioned, it's not the only one. Even sources that "widely report" on her claim often point back to this CNN piece, which itself notes that the claim is just that and is neither substantiated nor uncontested, so why remove mentions of the contested part of the claim? The article should reflect what reliable sources say, and even many reliable sources that repeat her claim point out that she is not the first to make this "first" claim. It's not unreasonable to suggest that such content would belong in the article and would be WP:DUE, and I think making it clear that (1) it's a self-reported claim and sources at best say "the first Black woman to have documented this feat" and (2) she's not the first to make that claim would be a good compromise. Ideally "widely reported as being..." should be replaced by something like "claims to be" since that's the most accurate way to represent that for both of these individuals making this claim. It would also have the added benefit of making the article reflective of the sources. - Aoidh (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did edit in good faith. I did not revert the text, but tried to piecewise make changes with reasoning. Whereas the other user simply reverted everything and anything I posted. Note, that my last edit is a test, because I'm not going to waste my time if Universalsunset is going to do another revert when they come online.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contesting the other sources, just the one titled "CORRECTION:" the one you linked. So, please advise as to whether that is creditable according to Wiki policy. It is the only source that says Nabongo is second.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the dispute you're adding is she may have not visited all countries because Golan Heights is not technically Syria" those are not my words. Those are the word I'm trying to remove, since they don't have a source. Any mention of "she's first" (as you have suggested) is being reverted to "she's second" by Universalsunset; it is that simple. If no action is taken against Universalsunset then the article will state "she's second". Perhaps you should try and make the edit.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said the other use doesn't have rollback. Wiki has changed to include revert notifications. When do Revert notifications get generated? Screenshot-2023-03-31-at-11-48-24.png--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the simplest thing to do is to make clear in the article that this is a self-reported claim, not to word it in any way that gives an impression that it is substantiated, and not to remove mentions of the other woman's claim as it seems to reasonably relate to this individual's claim. That seems like a fair compromise and appears WP:DUE. If their concern is that this person is not truly "first" but "second", removing the impression that it's a substantiated claim would bypass that issue entirely, and often the easiest way to resolve an issue is to make is a non-issue. If you're working toward resolution in a meaningful way you're never wasting your time, and if you go into DRN showing that you're willing to collaborate constructively and work toward a reasonable solution, it goes a long way. To that end, I would ask that you please stop referring to the other editor as "the opposition" as that alludes to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. They are not the opposition, they are an editor that you happen to disagree with on this matter, that's all. Also to reiterate, please don't accuse them of anything like bad faith editing or of having a WP:COI without any evidence. If you have evidence of a COI, take it to WP:COIN, but leave it out of the discussions and focus on the content. I am not going to take any administrative action on this because it is a content dispute and they haven't edited the article in over a week so other than your revert from today, the edit warring is a week old. To avoid being involved in the dispute I will not be editing the article, I am simply making suggestions for the sake of dispute resolution. For your revert/notification question, see Help:Notifications#Reverted edits. - Aoidh (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried those edits you mentioned (Nabongo claims ..., leaving out the controversial text, etc) leading to my own frustration. They are the opposition when they block all my edits on the grounds of "vandalism"; that is not someone you can collaborate with. I expect a revert later in the day. Without intervention, that will be my last edit. I have better things to do with my time.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think WP:DRN is the best path forward. - Aoidh (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Aoidh, I have another question. It seems that the page on Woni Spotts was deleted after repeated vandalism. A copy of the article was archived here. Universalsunset said the page resulted in her getting death threats. If the article on Nabongo exists, I wouldn't see a reason why Spotts shouldn't exist also, since (I think) the sources are there. Should the article on Spotts just be left deleted or should an attempt be made to recreate it with valid citations? If it were recreated, where do you mention the controversy between the two articles? On both articles? This is also a question for future knowledge. K.Nevelsteen (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woni Spotts, so I think if someone were to recreate the article they should submit it as a draft via WP:AFC with sources that show that notability has changed in some way or that they meet some notability guideline and that WP:BLP1E isn't an issue. It's interesting that the Spotts article was deleted while the Nabongo article was kept, but discussions are a few years apart and no one in the Nabongo AfD brought up WP:BLP1E as a reason for deletion, and consensus went towards keeping the article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm not versed on WP policy naming yet, the naming developed over the years when I wasn't editing very much. On the delete discussion for Nabongo, I did mention "on the same grounds as" the Spotts article, but it didn't seem to carry weight. Thanks for the information on WP:AFC.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April songs

my story today

Thank you for consistent good work on the DYK queues! - My story today is about the Alchymic Quartet, - I went away from DYK but it's the last one from last year. - The songs are about vacation, pics not yet completely uploaded. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made an exception from my DYK abstinence for Good Friday, - see my story today. Thank you for patient help with the promotion. Interesting to compare a hook 2023 style to one in 2012 (see my story today). - I sang, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion. I recently listened to one by Homilius: a discovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - a few pics added, one day missing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Want to learn something new? WP:ITNN. There's a nomination on 10 April, Karl Berger. It's marked ready, and should go to ((In the news)), first of the Recent deaths, dropping the last. A similar edit was performed here. Then you go to the nomination and click on each "credit" - that's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else did it - I was just getting nervous seeing no admin active. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For the next few days I'll let you handle filling the queues. I need a break. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BorgQueen: Not a problem, I've been checking each day but you've been quicker than me with moving them to the queues. - Aoidh (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aoidh,

I was wondering why you closed this AFD a day early. We usually let them run at least 7 days. I've closed some AFDs within an hour of their closing time, I was just surprised to find this one closed so far in advance. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to thank you for your recent help at AFD. We're down to just a few admins who regular patrol and close discussions so it's always nice to get a few other administrators into the mix. Your work is appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Oh no, if it was closed a day early that was completely unintentional. It was in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 29 listing (here) under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Old discussions (open). Have I misunderstood and those discussions aren't actually ready for closure? I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and thought it meant that being listed there meant the appropriate discussion period had ran and the listings were eligible for closure. Is that not correct, and if so is there a better way to determine that? - Aoidh (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see the issue now...it's the right day, but that AfD wasn't opened until 23:44 on March 23, so it shouldn't have been closed that early; I assumed that being listed in that queue meant it was good to close but now I see the issue, I need to actually look at the timestamps for when they were opened on the most recent closure queue. I apologize, that was a misunderstanding on my part, and I'll be sure to look for that moving forward. Should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrant (Resident Evil) be reopened or how should that be addressed? - Aoidh (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Looking at it again the discussion was started on 29 March but the nom's signature for some reason says 23 March, I think that discrepancy also contributed to that issue, I'm still not sure why the date is so radically different there. - Aoidh (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see you (as Administrator) deleted link in template for PDC events: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3A2023_in_PDC_darts&diff=1148445750&oldid=1146667846&diffmode=source after AfD, which was started by a user, who conducts crusade against Darts articles, despite himself having quite a lot of his articles in AfD lately.

I don't really agree with him, but it's not the case here. I wanted to ask you to not delete those links from template in this section, because it confuses people. In my opinion in this situation it's better to keep redlink than no link, because redlink says that event exists, but there is not article for that. No link would suggest, that there was no event at all (which confused me few minutes ago, that I clicked on event nr 3 and got event nr 4). Haifisch7734 (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link per WP:EXISTING, though I can see how it might be an exception via the "completeness" wording at Wikipedia:Navigation template#Navigation templates provide navigation among existing articles. That navigation template is not in great shape whether this link is kept or not, however; a navigation template where half the links are red links that don't actually navigate anywhere isn't particularly useful to readers. However I have no issue if you want to restore the red link, given the Wikipedia:Navigation template wording. - Aoidh (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is that person doing this? Because I find it totally ridiculous. Okay, this article needed better sourcing, I added it, and submitted the draft. But to delete everything even from the template, like the tournament never existed...how is that improving anything? It looked like there are only 12 tournaments in the season, so basically Wikipedia is showing false information. The Event 3 was just gone, that's not good. If something needs better sourcing, okay, let's talk and add it, but please do not just evaporate everything based on someone flagging it during his "crusade". DarthBob (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted due to a consensus formed in a discussion between editors at AfD, not because a single editor "flagged" it. - Aoidh (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, additional question. After deleting article, is everything lost, or at least history is available, so I could take a screenshot of the article? I don't remember wiki mechanism regarding article deletion Haifisch7734 (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is deleted the content and its history is not normally accessible, though it is still technically there since administrators can view and restore the content. Given that this is an event that (from what I can tell) just finished a few days ago and many of the comments in the AfD suggested that the article may just be WP:TOOSOON, it's not unreasonable to assume that sources may be forthcoming that would make the article's subject notable whereas it wasn't during the AfD. I can restore the article as a draft, but since it was deleted via a deletion discussion it would need to be submitted it via WP:AFC and approved before being moved back to articlespace. - Aoidh (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Haifisch7734: The article can now be found at Draft:2023 International Darts Open. - Aoidh (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apart from issue with sources, article is in good in condition and it would be shame to lose it ;) Haifisch7734 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user has ignored several talk page warnings, and continues to add poorly sourced information. I have reason to believe that they are WP:NOTHERE. Please block them. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, though it might be better to take this to something like WP:ANI. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not blocked them indefinitely but rather for 72 hours for edit warring and persistently adding unsourced content, and warned them about continuing to do so. - Aoidh (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice you blocked User talk:216.154.5.50 for block evasion. Immediately after the block expired, they are back to edit warring. (Hohum ^@) 12:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP, but since they've been IP hopping and evading the previous block I also reapplied the previous page protection to the template they were edit warring at as well. - Aoidh (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Elle Leonard messed stuff up and her article is going to be on the main page at DYK this week.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: I am aware of its status at DYK, that's why I added the archive links, though I apologize that they did not all work as intended. I don't have access to the CPL so I can't check those links to see what, if anything, went wrong there. If it's the slash turning into "%2F" in the link that is breaking the reference then that might be worth looking into why that happened, but I don't know if that's what you're referring to. I'm happy to look into that and bring up that issue at Meta:User talk:InternetArchiveBot if that indeed the issue so that it can be addressed. I do think, however, it would be beneficial to restore the other archive links (such as the Tribune and EOnline) that did work properly, since as you say it will be on the main page and the archive links ensure that the information can be verified by the reader in the event that the link becomes unavailable during its time on the main page (which has happened before). - Aoidh (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been manually checking when the original links are modified like that when IABot is run, but because that particular website's references are behind a subscription I wasn't able to tell that the link was no longer working. I have started a discussion on the bot's talk page to see if this can be addressed and avoided moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Just wanted to give you an update and let you know that the team that maintains IABot have resolved that issue, so hopefully it won't reoccur. - Aoidh (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Hoke III DYK: As the bot-generated notice on my Talk page doesn't have a "Thank" hyperlink, thought I'd swing by your Talk page to say thank you. It was a nice thing to see it on the Main Page today! Thanks, Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: Thank you, though it must be said that even though my name's on that notice, the reviewers and promoters involved also deserve the thanks, and of course thank you for creating the article and putting in that work in the first place. - Aoidh (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I've tried to be meticulous about using the "Thank" button for the various editors who've been involved. If I missed any (& if any happen to read this – please know), it was an oversight! Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating stats here. Remarkable how impactful the DYK feature is in generating awareness of the chosen subject (and adjacent linked articles). Great work DYK team! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hy

You remove this line "Regular maintenance and lubrication of these components are essential for smooth and best grooming." from

Why did you remove even after this is totally relevance to this topic. Tayyabkhan11 (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed for a few reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide so statements like that don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Also, one could simply discard old hair clippers and buy new ones just as well and have the same level of "smooth and best grooming" so maintenance is certainly good practice but not "essential" for that purpose. Lastly, and most importantly, it was poorly sourced to a blog which is not a reliable source, and one which you have been adding to Wikipedia despite the unsuitability of it as a source (see WP:LINKSPAM). It was the inappropriate link that was being removed more so than that content, though the content also isn't ideal. - Aoidh (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then guide me about your requirments of adding something so I take care next time. 202.163.87.193 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is adding self-published sources, especially when the edit adds promotional wording with promotional links. The two websites that were added are not appropriate to use as references or as external links. If you are affiliated with a website in any way, it's best to avoid adding it to Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hy Aoidh

Ok i understand this but if a self published source is giving informaiton correctly mean relevence information then is this acceptable?

2nd is if i share a main sitelink then its allowed or not? (Note: In both condition the relevce and information is first priortiy)

Last I saw some low authority site in refrence section how it's get permission to be?

Waiting for your response Thanks Tayyabkhan11 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that these two sites you're promoting are not reliable sources and cannot be used as such. They cannot be used to support content, even if that content happens to be accurate; actual reliable sources would be used to support that content. Self-published promotional sites cannot be added to articles simply because the statements they are attached to may be accurate. These sites do not belong on Wikipedia in any way, even as just reliable sources (per WP:EL). - Aoidh (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vikasdeep0p1w is adding needless and unhelpful external links in the prose of articles. Appears to be a spammer self-promoting. Please block. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: They've been blocked by another admin. Moving forward it's quicker to report such editors to WP:AIV, especially if I haven't edited in a few hours and aren't active on here. - Aoidh (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you be willing to explain a bit more about how you found consensus to delete Serbian proverbs rather than to perform some sort of cross-wiki merge (either with keeping the page as a cross-wiki redirect or via the transwiki method proposed by Brainulator9)? I'm struggling to wrap my head around how there was some affirmative consensus to delete as opposed to the ATD proposed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Hello, the consensus from what I saw was that the subject was not suitable for a Wikipedia article, though transwikification was suggested without a specific target agreed upon, which is why I noted that the article can be deletion for that transwifification if desired by anyone. However, I probably should have closed it as "transwikify" rather than "delete" since that was a valid ATD offered and agreed upon in the discussion so you're not wrong in that, and I apologize for getting that wrong in the close. Thankfully it's an easy fix and I've restored the article for said transwikification as appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walkies, did you also take into account the RM discussion on the talk page? – Uanfala (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did. That RM had already closed as The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. As it happens, there is also an AfD open for this page which should take its normal course. There was nothing in the move discussion that would affect the outcome of the AfD and many of the comments in the RM suggested deletion rather than a move. - Aoidh (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I've made a bunch of edits to ensure that navigation to the relevant articles is still possible after the page's deletion [2]. – Uanfala (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I feel the deletion of the article was very hasty and not very democratic, it had been relisted and had 1 vote to keep, then it got 1 vote to delete and was deleted straight away which I disagree with and still think the article is of notability and importance that included book, music chart, and TV references. Can you please relist it for more discussion and contribution? Many thanks Andrewjohnmoore (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions are open for at least one week. This particular discussion had been open since March 15, and having been closed on April 13 was open just shy of a month and had already been relisted three times, which puts an AfD discussion in a special category since discussions are not generally relisted more than twice. Far from being closed in haste, it had actually been open for an atypically long period of time. As far as the deletion being not very democratic that is because Wikipedia is not a democracy and the outcome of deletion discussions are not determined by vote but rather by consensus, which per WP:DETCON is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The strength of the positions is more important than how many people "voted" on the matter.

The nom's deletion rationale and the deletion comment explained how the article failed to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and was also a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons concern because of the poor quality of sourcing. Biographies of living persons, or BLP articles, must adhere to that policy and are held to a high standard because of how they affect living people. Keep arguments suggesting that the content is interesting or important for being the first to do something are not based in guideline or policy, nor is the suggestion that guidelines are met because the content is verifiable; that an article includes references does not mean they are references that contribute to the notability of the subject. None of the arguments in favor of keeping the article showed that notability was met, not in any way that reflects Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I understand how discouraging it is to have an article that you created be deleted, it's happened to me as well and to most editors who create articles, I'd imagine. Creating articles takes a lot of effort and it's not pleasant to see that effort deleted so I understand the frustration that comes with it. I would suggest using WP:AFC when creating your first (or first few) articles to get feedback and guidance which will help make sure that an article has the notability it needs. - Aoidh (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the reply, I understand. I still feel that the star of one of the biggest British Children's programmes, who's also had hit records is something that deserves an article.

Would you be able to put the article into a draft to be worked on like you mentioned, I still would like to work on it and potentially meet the criteria. Andrewjohnmoore (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]