User talk:Czar/2020

This page is a selective, manual archive of my talk page. I saved non-notifications that someone may want to access in the future. To find something I haven't archived, try an external search.

Happy New Year!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Czar,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Congrats my friend!

history of anarchism made it as a GA! Thanks for your valuable contribution, insightful comments both at the article and at talk page. I am a little excited as this is the first article I 've contributed significantly that is awarded with a GA! Cinadon36 21:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Need advice re: getting free use permission for an image

Sorry to bother you Czar, but someone suggested you'd be the person to reach out to regarding commons matters. The page Bowsette currently has two non-free images, and the second one I'm fairly certain could be fine for Commons if I could get permission from the artist. Their account is active on twitter still but they only speak Japanese. Is there a 'canned' message I could send them publicly requesting permission? And would it be viable for Commons despite being a derivative of Nintendo imagery in this case regardless?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man, hiya! re: canned messages, the usual email templates appear to not be translated to Japanese (Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries (Q19427945) and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission (Q10782491)) but you might be able to request canned text from the Japanese speakers page at Commons (commons:Commons:井戸端). Theoretically, if you can secure permissions, the image appears sufficiently original as a fan interpretation, but in my experience, I've seen low success rates from cold calls on Twitter. czar 05:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

On certain domains

Certain domains like the aforementioned could use more editors with a good grasp on Wikipedia-wide policy and guideline. Don't get down about issues like that one. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

POV tag on Right-libertarianism page

The POV tag on the Right-libertarianism page has been repeatedly prematurely removed by one editor. I would reinsert it again, but I don't want to risk being engaged in an edit war. If you feel that the dispute has not yet been resolved, would you be willing to reinsert the tag? It would alert readers to the POV debate, and provide a needed impetus to resolve it. JLMadrigal @ 16:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Responded on the talk page: Talk:Right-libertarianism#POV title notice template czar 18:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for History of anarchism

On 11 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History of anarchism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1939 defeat of Republican Spain in the Spanish Civil War marked the end of the "classical era" of the history of anarchism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of anarchism. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, History of anarchism), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Angolan pavilion

The article Angolan pavilion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Angolan pavilion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Collab

If you ever want to collaborate on the Donkey Kong franchise article, let me know! JOEBRO64 15:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64, that article is absolutely gargantuan. I won't have time to sink my teeth into that one in the near future, but let me know if I can support you in doing so! czar 04:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for letting me know! Probably won't start it for a while anyway; I've still got to finish Sonic the Hedgehog (we're nearly there, it should be at FAC soon) and want to start a few other smaller projects before I sink my teeth into a big one like DK again. JOEBRO64 01:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism Wikiproject

Thanks for the notice. I've had the project on my watchlist for a while but perhaps ought to get more involved. I've gone ahead and put my name on the participants list – I don't have a huge amount of time for editing (as evidenced by how long the anarchist criminology article took me!) but will try to keep in the loop with things. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Game Workers Unite

The article Game Workers Unite you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Game Workers Unite for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The May Pamphlet

The article The May Pamphlet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The May Pamphlet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Not watching" message

I like the (not watching, please {{ping}}) message you just left at a discussion. Is there a template you were substituting? If not, I'd like to create one, probably at {{Please ping}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hiya @Sdkb, nope, it's a macro. I figured that if I'd be triggering a macro anyway, might as well write it out rather than creating a template to subst. That said, I've seen it pick up use in various forms so if useful for others, I've plopped it in your recommended location. Please feel free to edit it/add documentation/etc. For instance, I imagine we'd recommend substituting it both to reduce the number of template calls and in case the template changes over time. Open to ideas and thanks for reaching out! czar 23:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with macros — how would I set that up? I'll add a bit of documentation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a bunch of different ways but most common is a text expander. I currently use Autokey but there are other open source and closed source options (AutoHotkey, Typinator, Text Expander, or on Mac there's one built right into the Keyboard System Preferences). Gist is that you type a few letters and it expands into a full text snippet, such as a closing signature. czar 01:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I just spent a bit mucking around in the templates — there were 5 (!) that all did the same thing, now down to 4 — and I'm happy with the way {{Please ping}} works now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks! I’d like to really flesh out the ccf and informal anarchist federation pages as they are both very bare, I’m very new to this though and a little nervous of making such big changes, for now at least. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Masters of Doom

Hey Czar a while back you added some information about Masters of Doom onto the page and looking back at them I cannot access some of the links. Specifically the WSJ link. Were you able to access it and could possibly help out in getting the information? GamerPro64 05:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep here's that one and let me look into the others (assuming you're paywalled on all) czar 15:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@GamerPro64, Sent! Let me know if you don't receive. czar 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. You can pull it now. GamerPro64 23:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Restoring List of The Edge Chronicles characters

Hello, I was told to contact you with regards to potentially restoring the page List of The Edge Chronicles characters? I believe the page itself warrants existence and that whatever prior version of the page that exists would be useful in drawing up a new version fully sourced and worth keeping, given the series latest completion. Regardless of whether the original version is restored I do intend to create a new version fully sourced and worth keeping, but having the previous version of the page to start from would help greatly. Thank you. KMWeiland (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@KMWeiland, what kind of sourcing do you have to warrant the re-creation over the consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Edge Chronicles characters that the topic lacked sufficient sourcing to justify a standalone article? Your next best action should be to cover the recurring characters in a section (and context) of the series article. czar 14:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for popping by and leaving some tips. I'm new to contributing, so it's all a learning curve! Any tips gratefully received.

NestorMakhno88 (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons - Media Search

Greetings,

The Structured Data team is working on an alternative, image-focused prototype for media search on Commons. The prototype uses categories, structured data as well as wikitext from Commons, and Wikidata to find its results. The development team would like your feedback on the prototype, as they are looking to work to further enhance the search experience on Commons. If you have a moment, please look over the project page set up on Commons to find a link to the prototype and leave your feedback on the talk page. Thanks for your time, I'll be posting message similar to this one to other pages on Commons. The team is looking forward to reading what you think. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Christo

On 2 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Christo, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you !

Hi Czar,

Thank you for welcoming me on this portal ! Your links are very interesting, they'll help me to understand how this portal works. Just in case, because I'm a French translator who begins, don't you have a link to a page enabling me to make check the language of my articles (I'm a bit afraid of making language mistakes !) ? Gafio (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Gafio, the English Wikipedia (ENWP) doesn't have an automated grammatical check but you can request a copy edit at WP:GOCE for another editor to take look over what you've translated. If it's specific to anarchism, you might get a quicker response by asking at the anarchism project, even if just to announce your recent translations and request any edits. I might have time to edit myself sometimes but in case I don't, it helps to post where others can review it too. Welcome, again! czar 08:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

IAF-FAI new wikipedia page?

Hi!

The Indigenous Anarchist Federation is trying to set up a Wikipedia page about their org and/or about Indigenous Anarchism or add that somewhere relevant. I was going to help thme a bit but I'm not that great with wikpedia stuff you can DM them directly if you're interested at: https://twitter.com/IAF__FAI or check their website https://IAF-FAI.org

I can help out too! BioEMF (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @BioEMF and welcome! What kind of reliable, secondary sources do you have on the topic? We would need at least several with sufficient depth to do justice to the topic and meet the general notability guideline. Usually there isn't enough coverage to write dedicated articles on specific organizations within their first years (such as IAF-FAI) if we'd just be citing primary sources. But where there are overlaps, might be able to build out within the Postcolonial anarchism article or potentially split a dedicated article on anarchism's relation with decolonization and anti-imperialism but yeah that's dependent on the available sources. Let me know how I can help! czar 08:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Image of Alexander Schapiro

Hi Czar, I'm contacting you since you seem to understand copyright stuff and helped with a picture of Rudolf Rocker a while back. I'm concerned about this image of Alexander Schapiro. It's claimed to be public domain, but I see no reason to think it is. It can be found in the catalog of the IISH here. Based on the description there the photo appears to have been taken by Senya Fleshin who died in 1981. I've removed the image from the article for now, but I'm curious what you think.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Carabinieri, good find! Pinged you in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexandre Shapiro.jpg czar 08:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I dug around a little, trying to find a photo to replace it with. I didn't find a portrait, but I wonder if the following two pictures could be used. The first is this one. The IISH catalog says it was published on January 10, 1922, but doesn't say where. The second is a group photo from the first congress of the IWA. The IISH claims it was published in 1924, lists a certain "A. Wertheim" as the author and "Sempre" as the publisher. I have no idea who Wertheim or Sempre are. The label on the photo is hard to make out in this low-resolution image, but it looks to be in Italian and French. Do you have any idea how those pictures' copyright statuses could be ascertained?--Carabinieri (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Carabinieri, I haven't written IISH about images before but I'd be curious what they'd say if you asked, as part of due diligence, about publication date on both. I wasn't able to find #1 in reverse image search, so no help there. I did find that they were in Stockholm in January 1922, so the "publication date" listed would check out for a contemporaneous newspaper or, I imagine more likely, IISH is referring to the creation date as the publication date. Might be a moot point without the IISH's help anyway, as the websized image isn't going to do much for us, even if it turns out to be in the public domain.

For #2, here's a higher res version (via this link but use the "list" view) but it looks like there's some confusion over whether it's from the IWMA or the IWA. Seems pretty clear that it was from the 1922 Berlin IWA and not one of the IWMA 1860s/70s congresses. Here's a different version of the photo from IISH. I found no hits for "wertheim" in books covering the individuals in the photo so I'm inclined to believe A. Wertheim is peripheral to the congress and perhaps just a visiting photographer. Sempre doesn't appear to be a dealer of picture postcards. I could keep digging but yeah, I'd just try IISH first. If you don't hear back and we take IISH at its word that the pub dates are 1922 and 1924, respectively, then the Swedish photo, with no stated author, should be in the public domain (publish + 70 years) as would the German one (publish + 70). If that and your correspondence with IISH is marked in the upload, that should be sufficient diligence. But depending on what you hear back, I can dig further. czar 03:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a higher-resolution version of #1 in this book (p. 244), but it doesn't have any further information on the photo's provenance. The English name of the IWA was actually IWMA when it was established. I don't know when they changed it, but I guess at some point they must have realized that "working men" might sound like it excludes some people. The issue is a bit different in other languages.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback. I'll see if the IISH is willing to help.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jamaal Bowman

We have a predicament now: two different versions of a biography. You didn't notice that the templates that were on Jamaal Bowman indicated that there is Draft:Jamaal Bowman. I had no idea you were working on it in your userspace until I saw you overwrite the redirect. That's why I work in draftspace. How do we proceed? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, ah, sorry about that! I started this draft earlier in the week and it looks like you started your draft an hour ago, so no, I didn't see any pre-existing draft, only that the page history was a redirect. I held off because the AfD was so recent, but the AfD also didn't discuss his sources as an educator. It looks like you covered early life elements that I didn't—I focused more on his background as an educator. Open to whatever works best. Want to merge in that content? czar 02:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes you did start yours before I did. This was a funny happenstance. We should merge the two. I haven't mastered the history merge yet .... – Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I did move the draft into mainspace and undeleted your revisions. We can work on it from here to move more of the content from your version into what is now the one article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please reinstate Color Me A Rainbow page

I just recently found out that the Color Me A Rainbow page (1987 Christian children's show) article was deleted...right as I was about to add its new Facebook and YouTube pages (these were set up by the show's creator Linda King herself, and was hosted by Jana Wacker, who was a Christian singer in her own right):

https://www.facebook.com/Color.Me.a.Rainbow.God.loves.you https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnTsI_rYhhYhOQvdZEnPlGg

The FB page has already generated some feedback in just the FB page's first few days and I have no doubt the reponses/memories/nostagia and such will only continue to grow. I kindly request the page be reinstated. Estil (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Estil, for standalone topics, Wikipedia requires significant coverage of the topic in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) In a nutshell, there needs to be enough secondary source content for editors to paraphrase. Otherwise we'd just be paraphrasing primary sources and veering into original research, which is anathema on Wikipedia. If and when the show is covered in reliable, secondary sources, we could discuss whether the coverage is significant enough for us to support a full article. That's why the article was deleted—the editors involved did not see sufficient sourcing. czar 04:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor Linter errors in video game template update

Please see WTVG. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning

The article 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is pure synthesis and original research. No source provided refers to this "racial injustice reckoning". We have an article covering the content contained within: George Floyd protests, Black Lives Matter and Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

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.

Copyright infringment

I noticed you said hello to XICO last Wednesday, so I thought I might tell you this. After doing some copyright cleanup I noticed they had practically created an article from copying from multiple news organisations. There were so many placed that had been copied from it wouldn't even fit into the CSD template. Thought you might be interested. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source on Japanese Anarchism

Hi! I've been doing some work improving articles related to anarchism in Japan, and came across your edit from January 2019 to the article on Kōtoku Shūsui, removing John Crump's pamphlet 'The Anarchist Movement in Japan, 1906-1996 as an unreliable source. Up to this point (in edits to Japanese Anarchist Federation and Heimin Shinbun) I've been utilising it as a factual source despite its bias due to the expertise exhibited by Crump in a number of other works on the subject. Particularly on some specific claims such as the precise founding/dissolution date of an organisation, I don't necessarily see it as being particularly open to bias, even if he does exhibit a clear political leaning in the pamphlet.

I'm willing to defer to you on this though due to your experience - do you think I should avoid using the pamphlet altogether as a source, only use it for very specific claims, or feel free to continue to cite it as I have? (Let me know if I'm asking this question in the wrong place!) Sparkledriver (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Sparkledriver! Thanks for asking. I'm of two minds. On one hand, reliability rests with the editorial process (i.e., what body is verifying the work for us?) and if I recall correctly, I didn't see the publisher (the British Anarchist Federation) having an editorial process for its pamphlet series. I haven't seen the print version, so I could be missing something, but generally pamphlets aren't designated as reliable sources for an encyclopedia and partisan org publishers usually make no claims to journalistic standards. It's strange because Crump has already published two books on the subject, which brings me to the other hand, that Crump's pamphlet OCLC 51959102 could ostensibly stand as a subject-matter expert source (which comes with standard restrictions) but why hasn't this info been published in an independent reliable source? Surely he has access to many methods of publishing this kind of work, especially if it's one of the main, accessible overviews of the subject. I haven't gone through his books myself—and I just found a bunch of new sources in what appears to be an excellent bibliography doi:10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0062—but I would hope that there are better sources for the conclusions he makes/summarizes in the pamphlet. It is in a gray area so open to other perspectives/info. And I'll take this to a wider audience (WT:@) in case someone has extra sources. czar 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved to WT:@

Hello

Hey, thanks for you message, I'll check out those links. I've been adding the Anarchist WikiProject template to a lot of articles where it's missing Throughthemind (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh–the Gambia relations

Hello, can you please draftify this article at User:Nomian/Bangladesh–the Gambia relations? I have found some more content enough to expand and recreate. Nomian (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nomian, done and happy editing czar 00:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Nomian (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cancel culture

I invite you to look at this brief draft as a possible article that could be further developed with the right sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Vchimpanzee, cancel culture already exists as an article so I'd work on a summary style split by expanding on that topic within the existing article. I'd be curious what sources you find that distinguish "cancel culture" from general "online shaming". czar 19:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no article called "cancel culture". Only a redirect to Online shaming, which is just one example. I'm afraid the problem is I don't know of any actual sources that distinguish my definition from "online shaming", only opinions of syndicated columnists and local people writing for newspapers.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, what I'm suggesting is to build out the coverage in summary style within that article. The brief mention already has a handful of sources but I've added a few more on the article's talk page. czar 21:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It won't work to expand Online shaming. That's not what this topic is about. The sources you have might work but they'd have to be used in another article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Following up on deletion of Lama (martial art)

I wanted to follow up on the deletion of: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lama_(martial_art) in order to see if it could be reverted. Is this the correct place to do so? Harimau777 (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

In terms of addressing issues that may have lead to deletion in the first place; I propose:

• Condense the discussion of whether Hop Gar is Chinese or Tibetan to a single paragraph and add a "Citation Needed" flag.
• Clean up the section on Sing Lung. For example, the extended discussion on his name does not seem relevant nor does the untranslated Chinese text at the end of the section. Perhaps this could be a relevant source: https://books.google.com/books?id=XSLRCQAAQBAJ&q=Sing+Lung
• Remove the section "Wong Lam-Hoi" since it does not appear to be noteworthy. Add a comment to the talk page explaining that it can be re-added if its noteworthiness can be established.
• Replace the discussion of what the "correct" name for the style is with a sentence in the introduction saying that the style is known as Hop Gar, Tibetan White Crane, Lama Kung Fu, and The Lion's Roar. Then in the talk page a section can be placed mentioning that the history of the naming should be fleshed out if sources can be found in the future.
• Remove the discussion of lineage and add a comment in the talk page that discussion of lineage should be re-added if sources are found and if the lineage is notable. In my experience, discussions of lineage in Kung Fu are usually only relevant when they pertain to historically relevant practitioners (e.g. Ip Man in Wing Chun or Wong Fei-Hung in Hung Ga).
• Flesh out discussion of the style's techniques and theory.

Harimau777 (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No; what you want is called a deletion review. Follow the instructions at the discussion page for the article's deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If I am understanding it correctly, it says that one should start by reaching out to the person who performed the deletion which I believe is Czar. Am I mistaken? Harimau777 (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review is for contesting the closure, which I don't think is at issue here. @Harimau777, the participants in that discussion said that they couldn't find significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to justify an encyclopedia article on the topic. Not sure which draft of the article your edits are referencing, but what new sourcing do you have to offer that would allay their concerns? No qualms about restoring the article as a draft if you have reasonable sourcing they did not consider. czar 17:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly it would be necessary to assess the reliability and notability of sources as they were included. However, in terms of establishing relevancy, there are numerous references online:

• https://www.plumpub.com/kaimen/2006/hop-gar-kung-fu/
• https://www.amazon.com/Hop-Gar-Kung-David-Chin/dp/0865680051/
• https://www.amazon.com/pai-Tibetan-white-crane-kung/dp/8890428414
• http://www.lawclansman.com/tibetan-lama-pai/
• http://www.hopgar.com/History/history.html
• http://tibetanhopgar.com/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZjN8WtXTc
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=Y5Z8Gpq-RUY

Harimau777 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Those are not independent, reliable sources. We're looking for coverage in publications independent from the martial art, reliable publications with editorial or fact-checking procedures: newspapers, magazines, journals, professional journalists. The links above are either blog posts or written by people associated with the martial art (Chin/Tanti). czar 21:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Before going around removing articles learn basic copyright law

The copyright on the obituary for Louis Whitford Bond is expired and it is currently public domain. There are Wikipedia articles which have duplicated much longer sections of copyright expired public domain content. The person who removed it before you came to the realization that he was in error. You should replace it so that people can find it and add cited material from the recent articles referring to Louis Whitford Bond in the Smithsonian and National Geographic magazines. RichardBond (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of how the public domain works. If you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Whitford Bond, I think your message is intended for someone else. I judged the discussion's consensus, which was clear and involved a rationale beyond just copyright, but if you have a reply to someone else's specific comment, each is signed with the author's username. czar 17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Czar, i have a question about platforms and arcade games

On arcade games, there is arcade system board, is an arcade system board a platform? what would be the difference between a platform and arcade system board? thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you got an answer from Masem so are you looking for a second opinion? I'd need more context to know if this is a general question or about Category:Video game lists by platform. If the latter, editors decide whether to make standalone lists based on whether the list topic meets the general notability guideline (more info). So we wouldn't make a list of games by arcade board unless such a board was notable enough that "multiple reliable, independent sources" wrote about its list of games. For our purposes, we group all arcade games as a single platform. czar 06:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you be able to possibly create an article that shows all platforms? i would think it would make a nice addition to wikipedia, thankyou if you can! :) EzeeWiki (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@EzeeWiki, I think Lists of video games#By platform producers covers that. czar 07:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

What would you say the difference is between a 'platform' and a 'arcade system board' i still dont understand what the difference is, on arcade system board article it says it is used for the purpose of running arcade games, is a arcade system board a platform?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 09:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A video game platform is a combination of hardware and software—it's a social designation that isn't necessarily tied to specific hardware. An arcade system board is a hardware component within the "arcade" platform. By analogy, consider the "Windows/PC" platform: The internal components (motherboard/graphics processing/etc.) change but it's still known as one platform. czar 16:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The Lost Levels "pedantry"

Thought you'd find this comment... amusing. JOEBRO64 01:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Pretty rich to toss around accusations of pedantry in a thread about what "counts as a trilogy" czar 08:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A (fair trade) cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your work on Bluestockings (bookstore). Much appreciated! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ditto to the above. Cheers! Marquardtika (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons - Media Sarch, new feedback round

Greetings,

I'm following up on a message from earlier in the year about the prototype development for Special:MediaSearch. Based on community feedback, the Structured Data team has developed some new features for Special:MediaSearch and are seeking another round of comments and discussions about the tool. Commons:Structured_data/Media_search is updated with details about the new features plus some other development information, and feedback is welcome on Commons talk:Structured_data/Media_search. Media Search works in any language, so the team would especially appreciate input around support for languages other than English. I look forward to reading about what you think. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Squatting

Would you mind taking a look at the discussion there? The reason I ask you is that you've also done substantial trimming on this article in the past. Also, if someone is adding sources (in this case, squat.net, indymedia.org, etc) and they get reverted back on despite objections, is it on the editors wanting to put them back on to obtain consensus at RSN or is it on the editor removing relatively long-standing sources? Graywalls (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Update: the other editor took it to RSN#Indymedia Graywalls (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls, two quick thoughts: (1) Yes, any user-generated source with no mechanism of editorial control (Indymedia, squat.net, etc.) is, on Wikipedia, unreliable by definition as unvetted primary sources. If there's any case to use such a source, it's an extreme edge case. (2) Squatting is a high-level overview article—it should focus on an overview of the practice and not go into detail about specific squats with no bearing on that overview (i.e., especially those that don't have their own articles). There could be a place to cover those in country-specific summary style breakouts (e.g., squatting in the United States) but that's a different matter. There are enough secondary sources on squatting that it should be sufficient to write an overview without depending on primary sources. To the procedure question, Indymedia is already prohibited on WP:RSP so onus is technically on anyone who wants to overturn that. In general, best to edit from the assumption that you both want what's best from the article. Some editors prefer in-line tags on individual sources so that they can address one by one as opposed to one big maintenance tag up top, which acts as a scarlet letter for readers' knowledge but isn't as helpful in materially improving the issue. Looks like it's on the right track. czar 18:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've already removed indymedia.org twice, and they re-inserted it. Now it seems as they're expecting me to point out and obtain "unreliable" consensus URL-by-URL RSN and this process has been unduly frustrating and I'd rather avoid the edit war of continuing this. I think reaffirming the dubious nature of Indymedia is heading in the right direction, but what to do about the other ones? I feel like this is a case of WP:IDHT, because I think that editor has enough experience and assumed to know better about continuing to use, and re-introduce these primary sources. I simply want to remove non-salient information only sourced by questionable sources; and since there are a handful of those, I want to leave the maintenance template up to attract attention of others to come by and look, so they can look over as well. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The RSN discussion is going to show that Indymedia/etc. should not be used even as a source writing about itself based on the unreliability of authorship, so I'd let that run its course before proceeding. If you have issues with similar sources after that, I'd take them as a group to RSN (if they haven't been discussed already?) to end the back-and-forth definitively, but hopefully it won't get to that. I think it's reasonable to say that the editor should know better but it ultimately isn't worth getting entrenched over the maintenance tag as a symbolic gesture. The outcome of the RSN will affect not just this article but many of the other recent squat articles, so best to let the editor make their case with the larger community and when finished, you can follow-up, having the community consensus to show for it. czar 18:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, this whole ordeal got dragged into ANI. If you haven't noticed. Graywalls (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't follow ANI as a rule but nevertheless my suggestion here would be to disengage. Never wrestle with a pig, etc. czar 23:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Battleground_behaviour_from_Graywalls_not_abating all that following my attempts to improve squatting/anarchy related articles by removing things only supported by self-published and user generated contents like Indymedia and squat.net after I've discovered a swath of them connected through "see also" had similar issues and additional insource: search for those sources found even more problems. Graywalls (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy_of_Fire_Nuclei article assessment

Hi CZAR, I didn't really know where to ask this but could you direct me to where I could possibly ask for advice with regard to assessing the Quality (and possibly importance?) of the Conspiracy_of_Fire_Nuclei english language article as it is of currently 'Unknown-Importance' and 'Start-Class', which I suspect could be changed but do not have enough understanding or ability currently to be confident in doing so myself. Regards W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @W1tchkr4ft 00, nice work on that article! In general, you can find the criteria at Wikipedia:Assessment if you'd like to assess it yourself. If you have questions about its rating within a specific WikiProject, you can ask on the WikiProject's talk page, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism. Asking on my talk page is fine too. :) Looks like this is on the road to C-class but just needs more text/completeness in each section. czar 18:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I got Projects confused with Portals and so i did not find the project talk. hehe. I've made a copy of the article in my user space and will ask for a spare set of eyes over there when i feel it is better. Appreciated, W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States racial unrest/reckoning

As I feared, since the merge, text has been removed, justifying it as "NPOV unsupported by sources", "superfluous, unsourced", "two paragraphs of unnecessary quotes", etc. Now they may well have been right in doing this, but I would like if you could help me in verifying that. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That removed chunk, the Timeline section, was commented out in the Reckoning article (I think by me?) because it became redundant but still had sources potentially worth reincorporating. The merge itself has so many problems I wouldn't even know where to begin: the shoehorning of an entire social phenomenon as a "reaction"; the non-neutrality of referring to both the protests and social reckoning together as "unrest", which universally conjures impressions of violence and yet has little to do either with the protests or the social reckoning; the undue weight of plopping all of this social reckoning research into the "unrest" article means that it's inevitably going to be shaved down. The push for merger wasn't ever about proportionate coverage but about fitting a messy, unnamed social phenomenon into a familiar mold for Wikipedia. The unrest article is aggressively non-neutral and if it were appropriately scoped, say to Black Lives Matter protests, would have nullified the reckoning merger argument. czar 23:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I basically agree with everything you just wrote and I find it absurd that the racial reckoning article was somehow POV-pushing, when I believe you have demonstrated how it is the current merged article that it is. That is why I believe that content should be restored. Perhaps you could try to reword and copy editing, but I believe you should restore it. Or perhaps the merger itself should be reverted until there is a closure on the RfC. Davide King (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think this edit, including this removal, actually reflects sources. Could you please do a copy editing and verify the wording supported by given sources? I think your comments would also be useful at this talk page discussion. I believe since you made a great job with that article, you know better than I do what given sources actually say, so I hope that you are not drawn out by it because the wording ought to be supported by sources. I think the previous one was fine. Davide King (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Many Horses

Would you please draftify the Many Horses article to me? It's definitely a delete and I don't intend to preserve the information on Wikipedia, but I hope to take those few hours of work and do something with them on Wikiquote or elsewhere on the internet to clarify that he was Rising Wolf, that he wasn't fictitious, and cite all that? Thanks. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@DiamondRemley39, sure, here you go: User:DiamondRemley39/Many Horses czar 18:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Thanks! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bruno Turner

Hi, I didn't see this AfD until after the close. Turner is an important figure in English choral music; the !voters in the second AfD (as opposed to the first one) seem to have been entirely unaware of this. He already has an article in The New Grove, which is the most authoritative English-language encyclopedia of art music, and he is frequently covered in the scholarly journal Early Music, both for his recordings as a choral conductor and for his scholarship on historical performance practice. Within his field, he is well-known; I think he should have an article, but I am afraid this most recent discussion may make it difficult to restore the article or create a new one. How do you recommend proceeding? Chubbles (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Chubbles, thanks for the note. I'll undo the close and relist the discussion so you can post about the sources. Please ping the previous participants when you do so they can respond? czar 23:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've contacted User:In ictu oculi, who participated in the first AfD, for help with additional sourcing. I'd like to hear if he has any more to add beyond what limited resources I have access to before inviting the party back. Chubbles (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Vivian (Paper Mario)

Vivian (Paper Mario), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 15:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Terry Maston

As you are the deleting admin, I have a question. Do you think that enough time has passed since Terry Maston's AfD that I could simply recreate the article, or would it be better to go through DRV again? It seems that the main crux was that there wasn't enough sources, and I found another. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Editorofthewiki, it's been nearly a year, which is enough time in principle, but I would certainly not recreate the article if that's the source you expect to make a difference. Significant coverage implies a modicum of depth in each source and that local paper mentioning Maston in passing would not count as that. If you had more reliable sources though, yes, might be worth considering. czar 02:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not the only reliable source though. As mentioned in the AfD, there were at least two other significant sources available, plus stuff like [1] [2]. So I think there is enough to build an article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware that it's not the only source. I was suggesting that the brief mention you'd be looking to add (an article with a single sentence and no discussion of the individual) is not significant enough to change this (or any such) AfD's outcome. New sources come out all the time to warrant revisiting AfDs but it depends on the strength of that added source. In this case, it's an exceptionally weak source addition. czar 21:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the source, you are absolutely right. That would not be useful to add to an article. I must have had another source in mind. In any case, I'll wait before restarting the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of Roll & Rocker

Hi Czar, can you review this recreated article? I noticed that you closed the AfD for a previous version of this article as redirect to List of Nintendo Entertainment System accessories#Nintendo Entertainment System.

I had previously reverted the recreation of the article due to your AfD closure, but the article creator pinged me to contest my revert.

@AppleBsTime:, the article creator.

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Natg 19, I've pinged the AfD participants to weigh in. Thanks for the heads up. czar 04:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, a word of thanks from me for looking into this, fair and square. I think the number of sources and the amount of time I put into improving it merit a Keep decision, but hey, I am biased! - AppleBsTime (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Czar, I'm not sure what the procedure is for this review. It seems like there has only been 1 participant who has commented. Natg 19 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I've reviewed the sources myself, merged a few to the target list, and restored the redirect. There's not enough substantive content here to justify a dedicated article on the topic. I left additional comments on the talk page. czar 21:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for "closing" the review. Natg 19 (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Name change

Hi Czar--if possible could you move All Rise (film) to Monster (2018 film)? (See here: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflix-acquires-monster-starring-jennifer-hudson-kelvin-harrison-jr) Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, done! czar 02:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review of Paper Mario: The Origami King

Hello! It's crazy seeing how much stuff you're up to, and I'm letting you know that it's appreciated. I've seen you around the block on WP:WPVG and that's why I'm sending you this message.

I'm in the process of getting Paper Mario: The Origami King to featured article status, alongside getting on TFA. Before I nominate the article, I'm doing everything I can to make the process as simple as possible, so I started a Peer Review. So far, Spicy has started their review, and SandyGeorgia and PresN have agreed and are going to review it soon. I'd appreciate it if you could give your opinions there!

Le Panini ^Talk 12:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Bakunin

Hi Czar! I saw the section you left on my talk page and just wanted to drop by to say hi and potentially talk about adding a section on Bakunin's family life. It seems to me a little strange to leave it out considering Bakunin had such a famously close relationship with his sisters, and, although I doubt that it would warrant an entire page of its own, perhaps I could add it in as a subsection within Personal Life? I really appreciate your comment and I'd be glad to talk to you more about it all. Ghostplants (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Great idea! Let's move this to Talk:Mikhail Bakunin#Family life. czar 19:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Quick note

You recently moved Militia (United States) to United States Militia over a redirect, but it looks like the talk page didn't move with it; just wanted to let you know. — Goszei (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Goszei, missed that—thanks! czar 01:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Discord

Hey czar, there's some talk in the WPVG Discord you may find juicy (spoiler: it has to do with a certain developer). JOEBRO64 02:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

👀 czar 04:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Czar, thanks for your comment. I believe your comment that "[t]he question will be along the lines of whether we are discussing a discrete concept with historical continuity or whether it's a turn-of-phrase that is retitled and already exists as our articles on Stalinism, Maoism, etc." is very relevant at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes, since both these two articles take "a dictionary definition of Marxism-Leninism, then coatracks in anything that could be described as Marxist-Leninism", so both articles are connected and relevant to each other. Your neutral voice and your understanding of our policies and guidelines can help us understand what the main topic is or should be. I understand the discussion is pages long but you should really take a look to better understand the diatribe and issues (Archive 43, Archive 44 and current talk) because essentially its result concerns, and is relevant to, all Communist-related articles. I try to make a neutral summary but essentially the dispute is about what the main topic is and whether the current article violates our policies and guidelines such as NPOV, original research, POV coatrack and synthesis. Here and here, you can see some main topics discussed (my view is that the article mixes most of these topics together, several of which are not even supported by scholarship), and you can see here a summary of arguments and analysis of sources.

Summary

Summary is not my strength but please read it to the end, even little by litte, whenever you can. Essentially, one side argues the currently-structured article is perfectly fine, is supported by mainstream scholarship and little or no change is necessary. The other side argues the currently-structured article does not provide an adequate summary of the lead and does not clarify what the main topic is, it mixes up several topic, it is not supported by mainstream scholarship, violates NPOV, original research, POV coatrack and synthesis, and a rewriting is necessary; the proposed topic is the same but written neutrality and respecting our policies guidelines.

Now what is the main topic? One side essentially treats 1–3 as the main topic while the other side supports 4.

• Is it about the events?
• Is it about the events and a narrative about communism and genocide/mass killing being linked as mainstream view?
• Is it about the link between communism and genocide/mass killing as an academic mainstream view?
• Is it about the popular (among the public) but minority (among scholars) concept, narrative, or theory that links communism and genocide/mass killing?

Issues

In my view, the current article violates policies because we already have individual articles about the events and it is synthesis to lump all Communist regimes together, when scholars do not even discuss them all together or agree on which ones to discuss; some discuss only Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot; others Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim and Ho; others add Afghanistan, others do not, etc. The main sources used to support the article are Courtois (controversial and revisionist), Rosefielde (Holocaust trivialisation), Rummel (non-expert) and Valentino (discussing different topic and not actually supporting communism as cause of mass killing). I already linked you where I explain why they are problematic to use in support of 1–3 but they can be used for 4 at my analysis of sources. While it can be reworded, this lead is a nice summary of 4 and what we propose as rewriting. As I wrote here and here, it would present both popular and scholarly narrative but it would present it as a proposed concept, narrative, or theory, i.e. a summary of what popular and scholarly proponents says, rather than either mixing up topics, or treat this as an academic fact or mainstream view. It would mainly be about the theory and not narrating the events like the current articles do, as that is the job of their own individual articles. Several events such as the Holodomor or the Great Chinese Famine, as described in this article, are a coatrack POV because they are described as genocides or mass killing, when individual articles about the events do not describe them as such, hence synthesis. Here, Paul Siebert covincingly argued how terminology is synthesis and it is used to act like the article follows a universally-accepted terminology to discuss, or refer to, mass killings under Communist regimes. In other words, "[i]f Ellman writes that the very category 'victims of Stalinism' is a matter of political judgement, his opinion is not in agreement with Valentino's attempt to lump all Soviet population losses into one category to advocate a very questionable idea (the idea, which is not universally accepted by 'genocide scholars' themselves)."

Another issue is that sources are not really about the topic or are only tangentially relevant to it as theory. Courtois (the introduction; not subjected to peer-review) is about the evils of Communism in general, Rosefielde about a "Red Holocaust" (Rosefielde only includes Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim and Ho, and does not attribute it to "Marx's utopian vision or other pragmatic communist transition mechanisms", meaning Gorbachev and other Communist leaders did not engage in genocide or mass killing, hence there is no link between the two), Rummel (not published by mainstream academic press) is about mass killings by governments in general and Valentino is similarly writing about genocide and mass killing in the 20th century and proposes Communist mass killing as subtype of dispossessive mass killing, i.e. a different topic which we already discuss at his page and Mass killing.

Essentially, my view as summary of the opposing arguments is "[this] article takes the Communist genocide/mass killing concept from Mann, Straus (who is merely reviewing rather than proposing the concept) and Valentino, even though the first is about Classicide, the second is about Genocide and the third is a chapter about genocides and mass killings in the 20th century (with Communism simply being one [sub-]type), then listing all mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pol, and adding all excess deaths under all Communist regimes, even as only few scholars and from one side list all non-combatant victims (famines, wars, etc.), to suggest all th[e]se [were] victims of Communism, its more accurate title that, however, does not really solve all those issues (undue weight, original research, synthesis, more than one topic, NPOV, etc.) I [and others] have highlighted."

The problem is the current article treats all these as a fact or widespread academic consensus (especially if one reads only the lead), when it should be described as a concept, narrative, or theory. The fact the events themselves happenened and many have died, which no one is denying, is used as an excuse to keep the article as it is and ignore its policies and guidelines' violations, even though Courtois et al. do not just discusses the events but make the narrative these were "victims of communism", and/or that there is a link between communism and mass killing. While the first point is a good summary of what they propose (hence why we would use for 4), the latter point is not so clear; as I wrote above, it is not clear whether they really see a link (some such as Rosefielde and Valentino clearly do not), or whether they are mainly discussing how evil Communism (Courtois) and (non-democratic) governments (Rummel) were. Problem is I do not see any way out; we are just arguing and going around in circles.

Solutions

What would be a solution to the dispute?

1. Take it to ArbCom, where uninvolved admins would look at what literature and scholarship says and whose reading is correct; do these sources actually support the link about communism and mass killing? What is the main topic and do scholarly sources support it? If so, is it a minority or majority view?
2. RfC about what the main topic should be; I actually did try doing exactly that here but it was a failure.
3. AfD would not solve the issues because we are not advocating deletion but rewriting, which was considered an option (alongside merge) in the last AfD's closure and because it would miss the point we actually disagree on the main topic, so these who are for Keep are discussing different topics (a Keep may support 3/4, another may support 6/5, and so on; the numbers are in reference to these and these main topics). If we cannot even agree on the main topic, then the solution is either a deletion/merge, or a rewriting; we should not keep an article we do not even agree on what the main topic is and if it violates our policies and guidelines. See also my thoughts here and here.
4. Any other possible solution.

All I am asking, and what we need, is whose reading and analysis of sources, scholarship and the topic is 'correct.' I do not care whether I am 'correct' or not, I am just tired of the whole discussion going nowhere. I hope you can check the links I sent you and take part at the discussion because I trust your neutrality and reading of sources, and our policies and guidelines. You have been especially good making sure articles reflect the literature, while respecting our policies and guidelines such as no synthesis and weight, and this article and whole dispute looks like it is your yard. So I really hope you can comment on what I wrote and if you have any other solution to solve the dispute on the main topic.

—Davide King (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"Summary is not my strength but please read it to the end, even little by litte, whenever you can." I lol'd. I'll take a look this weekend. :)

A few quick thoughts: (1) That's not quite what ArbCom does—they're for intractable conduct disputes and explicitly don't do content decisions. (Funny because you would think "Arbitration" is the opposite, right?) It's more of a disciplinary body and generally a place to avoid. When something goes there, everyone has already lost. (2) RfC sounds like the right next step from my quick read and it looks like there are some (accurate) comments already below it as to why it didn't work (i.e., wasn't simple enough). I recommend workshopping RfC text with either the talk page or someone like me before formally opening it. (3) I have a feeling there's something good buried in that decade-old AfD but I'll need to drink something strong before I read it. If the issue is "scope" (I think that's what you mean by "main topic"), that is very much an AfD thing, though not necessarily resolved through AfD alone and only useful when deletion is actually under consideration. czar 09:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I am glad I made you laugh but seriously, read it whenever you can; and also check the link I sent you about the whole discussion, so you can verify if I missed anything, etc. :) Also apologies again for the length. 🙈 Yeah, that was what I thought it did and essentially what we need is whose reading on sources and topic is 'correct' and respective of our policies and guidelines. I thought that would do it but it does not actually do that, as you noted.

I also mentioned the ArbCom because it was mentioned here in relation to this: "I expect you [...] to provide some logical counterarguments to my fresh arguments presented above. If [these who essentially ignore there is a problem] will continue arguing in the current style, that will be tantamount to resisting to removal of NPOV policy violations from the article, which is a sanctionable misbehaviour. We either fix the article and resolve NPOV issues, or I address to ArbCom directly." In other words, my understanding is they said these on the other side are endorsing NPOV and other guidelines violations, which is sanctionable behavior, that is why they mentioned the ArbCom. If it is indeed shown the article violated guidelines and these users were essentially endorsing these violations, they should be sanctioned. Of course, you may need to read the whole discussion to understand why it was said that, because out of context it looks like a threat, which was not.

This goes back to your point ArbCom is "generally a place to avoid. When something goes there, everyone has already lost", which I agree with, i.e. it is always a loss when someone is sanctioned and it would be a loss if they are sanctioned. But they have not really show us good faith and simply continued arguing per sources and did not address our concerns, or misunderstood us, or gave conflicting arguments about what main topic they are proposing, in several cases mixing topics together, which is forbidden by, and against, our policies and guidelines.

Another thing to keep in mind, as I wrote here and here, is most sources, and the topic itself, are taken for granted because it appears very frequently in various mass-media and popular literature, so it is taken for granted scholarship supports it, too, resulting in implicit or systematic bias; indeed, that Communism and Nazism were equal is taken for granted as a mainstream view, in light of the Prague Declaration (a political decision rather than a reflection of scholarly consensus) et al., when it is actually a revisionist and minority view among scholars dating back to Nolte and the Historikerstreit. Same thing for Courtois and the double genocide theory; these are popular but minority and revisionist views but I would not be surprised if in the mind of the public, including Wikipedia users, these are considered mainstream views supported by scholarly literature. Indeed, I am the prominent example, and guilty of it, because I thought the currently-structured article was actually supported by mainstream scholarship; then I actually went to look through it, the sources, and the arguments at the talk page, and I came to change my mind, and now I support a rewrite of the topic as a concept, narrative, or theory. As I wrote here, "I argue that keeping this article as it currently is, it is not only unhelpful but it is actively harmful and may be a cause of circular reporting or citogenisis since results on Google Scholar of 'mass killings under communist regimes' result in reference[s] to this article, which is violating original research, synthesis and NPOV as is extensively discussed in my reasoning below and by others on this talk page and its archives."

Political and geographical bias may also be at play here, since it was noted most users from Western Europe have supported deletion while these from Eastern Europe supported keep. Is this just a coincidence, i.e. correlation does not mean causation, or is this more like the urban–rural divide reflecting more left-wing/liberal and/or conservative/right-wing views on the topic, respectively? Either way, it is idealistic to think neither political or geographical biases play a role on such a controversial article and topic; if this is true, what do you think could be done to reduce this bias and reach a solution? Problem is this whole thing is very polarised on both sides.

"I have a feeling there's something good buried in that decade-old AfD but I'll need to drink something strong before I read it." This is very interesting and I am very curious about what you were referring to. Anyway, I believe you gave a good summary that the issue is the "scope" and I agree that while "not necessarily resolved through AfD alone and only useful when deletion is actually under consideration" this is "very much an AfD thing", albeit we are advocating a rewriting and most content is already in other articles, so nothing will truly be deleted or lost.

As for the RfC, I agree another shot should be pursued and it would be perfect if someone like you would formally opening because, as you can see, I am not good at summary, and the situation on the talk page is already too tense and polarised that it would be better someone uninvolved, but who has been made aware of the issues and can properly summarise them, would do it for us. Davide King (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for writing again, but I just did here an analysis of sources used to support Mass killings under communist regimes (I suggest you to prioritise it over Marxism–Leninism for now), so I hope you can take a look at that too and tell me whether my analysis and reading is correct, or if I missed anything. Davide King (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

---

I am curious if you think "the material is already covered in context elsewhere and combining it here (or in X article) to imply a causal connection that scholars do not say exists would be improper synthesis, so the best option is to debundle the content back where it 'belongs'" is an accurate summary of both Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes. I think the fact they were not really added or discussed in their parents article shows they have been, and still are, POV content fork and synthesis from the very beginning; no wonder they were created by a sockpuppet and blocked user, respectively. If they are not relevant to be discussed at Crimes against humanity and Mass killing, I do not see how they can be standalone articles. My view is that they can be discussed in these and other relevant articles but they should not be standalone articles because they violate our policy and guidelines. If you can tell whether this view is accurate, it would be of great help. Davide King (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that summary is mostly accurate but I don't think it will be compelling as the prelude to a RfC. It's contradictory to say that it's both (1) already covered in context elsewhere and (2) not discussed/added in the parent articles. My personal suggestion would be to retitle Democide to something more commonly used/understood and build it out with the best of the related articles. Think of it from a participant's perspective. If you show me an existing article and a new article in which the latter is clearly the former with POV peppered on top, it's an easy POV fork case. It's a harder argument to say an article is a POV fork when there is no easy summary of whence (i.e., what articles) the content was forked. Given the controversy around the topic, an ounce of prevention (building out Democide properly) is worth a pound of cure (reams of circular discussions about theoretical POV forks). Separately, that point about creation by a sockpuppet is important and can likely be used later, especially given that user's sockpuppeting history in this topic area. czar 22:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful and clarifying! You are right it is contradictory but I thought it was this contradiction that made it a content fork, i.e. that they have it backwards; first, it needs to be discussed in their parent articles; and if they meet criteria for standalone articles, which I do not think they do, they can be separated. Problem is there is not a single source that discuss crimes against humanity or mass killings under Communist regimes.

Another thing is that democide is itself more of a useful concept rather than something widely-accepted by scholars, see this comment by Paul Siebert. This whole thing of Communist democide, Communist mass killing, or that there is a link between communism and genocide, it is not a really widely-accepted fact by scholars, it is more of a concept proposed by a few authors, that is why I assume it is not really discussed in either Crimes against humanity, Genocide and/or Mass killing. If it is undue for them, how can we expect to have articles about an alleged link, which is essentially stated as fact, between communism and these three? Perhaps they are due to be discussed in these three articles but not as standalone articles but the onus is on them to add it.

So what do you suggest me to do to improve the situation? As I wrote here, I already tried to do that by moving the content, so they do not say anything new. Should I add a section about it at their parent articles such as Communist state and Mass killing? But by doing so, would I not essentially legitimise these two articles, since it would be a summary of it with a link to the main article?

"Separately, that point about creation by a sockpuppet is important and can likely be used later, especially given that user's sockpuppeting history in this topic area." I am not optimistic since both articles should have been deleted due to it but they have not, even after all these years, so I do not see how it is game changing but I would hope so. As I wrote here, this was already noted in the AfD. Buidhe wrote "G5 only applies when there are no significant contributions from other users. I think what is more relevant is the current and future policy compliance or lack thereof of the article in 2020, rather than its 'original sin.'" I agree but I do not see how the fact both articles were created by blocked/sockpuppet users is not relevant.

Davide King (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

re: content forks, what makes it a content fork is not where the content was generated but that editors think the scope belongs elsewhere. Recall how 2020 United States racial reckoning was merged despite zero prior coverage/connection in the "parent" article. (Indeed, the "unrest" article was created months after the reckoning article.)

re: sockpuppet, Buidhe is right in that it doesn't immediately lead to anything in this case, but it is relevant in understanding how the POV fork was created. Either way, it only factors into the merge discussion some time from now.

My suggestion is to write a single article that covers state-based killings, namely merging what you've already written elsewhere to a parent topic where it's meant to live. This can be done a few ways. My recommendation would be to expand the scope of Democide, which is closest in content and merge in content from mass killings, etc. I think this is reasonable based on my current talk page discussion—it doesn't seem reasonable to limit this article to Rummel and responses to Rummel—there are already other articles for covering that. If there is desire to leave Democide alone, makes little sense but okay, my second recommendation would be to create the parent article fresh. The point is to have one place under a common title that covers all of these related themes: the definitional issues, the comparison of causal connections (i.e., is there a link between totalitarianism and mass killings, and what relevant discussion exists linking ideology to mass homicide?), the table/list of mass killings, the difficulties in classification (e.g., famines) and estimate of death count. Also it's fine to just say outright when a concept is disputed as long as a reliable, secondary source is provided that explicitly says so. As for the re-title of Democide or new parent article, there are lots of options. I'll poke the thread on the Democide talk page. czar 21:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Your "suggestion [...] to write a single article that covers state-based killings" would be perfect, especially if it would delete or merge Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes, which in practice are original research and synthesis. As for you proposal, I would say you can go bolder and trying to implement them, or better yet, write some drafts, so that everything would be more clear, especially how each article would be structured and which article would be merged, moved and so on. Davide King (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Klobb

Hello. I was gonna review the Klobb for GA status, but I had some concerns. Here's a list of my opinions:

• Half of these sources are remained unmentioned (according to WP:VG/RS and WP:RSP) and should be covered by more official reliable sources
• Sentences in Characteristics are unsourced, and seem to be written in a slightly negative POV
• Development quotes multiple times, and oddly does not mention the actual firearm it was based off of
• Reception overquotes, and a lot of "X stated Y"
• Suggested image of gameplay

I see a couple of other small issues to list out, but with these major five I was thinking about failing the article and listing why. However, I'm nervous that if I do so, I'd receive backlash on why I'm wrong. Does this seem justifiable? Le Panini ^[🥪] 01:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Le Panini, a few points: (1) It's standard to give GA nominators a week or more to respond to the review, even if you're planning to mark it as failed. You can, of course, but it's aggressive and usually only happens under the so-called "quickfail" criteria unless you can express why the article's issues are not immediately surmountable. Think about how you'd want to be treated if you were the nominator, etc. (2) When I look at this article, the main issue I see is the sourcing, honestly. If this is the best we can source about the topic, there's not much to say about it, apparently. Notability is not in the WP:GA criteria but "breadth" is. imo, if this overquoting was properly paraphrased, there would be basically nothing in this article. It's worth a paragraph in the game's article and no more. It's double dipping to both fail the GA review and nominate the article for merger, so I'd pick one or the other (either is fine/there is no rush on forcing a merge discussion/you've already experienced the joy of initiating merge discussions with WPVG). (3) To your specific points, not sure what you mean by sources being unmentioned. "Nintendo Everything" should be replaced by the original Game Informer interview. I don't see what makes Mandatory.com a reliable source, etc. Destructoid is a retread of the Edge story. (4) Yes, anything unsourced needs sources. The sourced parts of the lede should be subsumed into the article text. The lede should paraphrase the body text, not introduce new facts. (5) "X stated Y" is bad writing but not in the GA criteria. More immediate is the overquoting, which is a copyright issue. I think of GA criteria as being a minimum viable bar for an article. When reviewing, I recommend differentiating between that minimum viability and personal suggestions so that the editor can make their own decision. (6) If they can justify WP:NFCC#8, a gameplay image would be nice, but I wouldn't think it's required for the GA criteria. czar 18:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Musopen orchestra recordings

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 32#Suggestion by Gnom (2020-11-29)

Hi Czar, thank you for bringing up this point. I had a look at commons:Category:Musopen and the Musopen website, which for some reason does not indicate which orchestra(s) is/are behind the recordings. Did the respective orchestras not want to be named? --Gnom (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Gnom, I don't know the full details apart from remembering Musopen's original campaigns. My understanding is that the Czech National Symphony Orchestra was commissioned and credited as the Musopen Symphony Orchestra. The SFCV article goes into more depth in how the crowdfunded commissions worked. I haven't heard of Musopen purchasing rights or orchestras not wanting to be named. czar 18:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What makes me wonder is that the Musopen website does not credit the performing ensembles in any way. I'd love to dig into commons:Category:Musopen over the holidays to properly attribute the recordings, categorise them and insert them into the relevant Wikipedia articles, but it seems that we don't have any reliable sources about the ensembles in the recordings. --Gnom (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how prominent it is, but they do classify recordings by performer/contributor (a lot of sheet music to wade through). I haven't looked into sourcing for Musopen itself and its practices beyond what I sent but I'd be curious to know what you find! czar 19:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Color of Law

On 13 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Color of Law, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein exposes policies of racial segregation in nearly all United States presidential administrations dating back to the late 1800s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Color of Law. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Color of Law), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Contact

Hey Czar, thanks for your message. I feel welcomed. I am involved in the Dutch archive on anarchisme called anarchism.nl. I translate a lot from the German and English wiki's, but visa versa also try to contribute my parts here. I will take a look at the page you mentioned. I have added it to my watchlist. Take care. ps: you do know we anarchists had a bad relationship with Czars right? ^^ WithDefiance (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@WithDefiance, yes :) Let me know if you'd like a copyedit on anything you translate into English! czar 15:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of the Page - Prabhiraj Nadarajan

Hi Czar, my page Prabhiraj Nadarajan was removed without prior intimation. Can you please help me understand what exactly had been the issue so that we can work on it? He is a prominent business personality in the Middle East. Your early response would be highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehanair86 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nehanair86, there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabhiraj Nadarajan and the article was tagged for two weeks. The issue was a lack of reliable, independent sourcing. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? czar 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"I'll Be Your 1-Up Girl" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect I'll Be Your 1-Up Girl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#I'll Be Your 1-Up Girl until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Czar/2020,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, — hike395 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The Soulmate Project

Please undelete The Soulmate Project series since it will return in 2021[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.105.139 (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Restored to draftspace (Draft:The Soulmate Project) if you'd like to work on it, but at a minimum, it needs to be in production before it's restored as a full article and per your link, it currently has no set filming dates. czar 15:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The production not included in the list of ABS-CBN shows for 2021 [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitsdar (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hence why it's in draftspace and shouldn't be restored until it has more sourcing czar 05:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone took that page out of the draft, is that okay? Fitsdar (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

it still hasn't even been officially confirmed to air and the PH government has banned flights to and from South Korea. Fitsdar (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

looks impossible to continue. Fitsdar (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fitsdar, I've restored it to draftspace and left a note on the talk page czar 17:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Help wanted on new Tech union article

Greetings, I saw your wonderful work on Game Workers Unite and wanted to ask for your feedback/edits on Tech union and Tech unions in the United States

Solidarity, 23:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushugah (talk • contribs)

Hi, @Shushugah—nice work! My first thought is that Wikipedia does not normally cover unions by sector: nurses union, teachers union (is a redirect), etc. That's why I wrote about specific organizations: Game Workers Unite, Tech Workers Coalition, Google worker organization. I have a draft for Amazon too. I don't think the concept of a "tech union" per se is either widespread or a topic about which we can ably write an encyclopedia article right now. czar 05:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree it’s rare for articles by sector to exist, I think however that is pragmatically in part because most sectors are large, for example California Teachers associations/unions alone could be a Wikipedia article. That said WP:OTHER can apply. Their absence doesn’t indicate appropriateness or not. In the past I also created (possibly incorrectly) Police union.

I think Tech union is necessary, because existing groups like TWC/GWU don’t and won’t have clear relations with various unionizing initiatives. Whereas the infancy of tech sector and more specifically union efforts is still well documented and even researched academically; can fit into an article more easily, than say textile or education sectors.

Amazon is one of the topics that are a standalone topic/article. I’d be happy to help with research for that as well.

Happy New Years and all the best! Shushugah (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shushugah, feel free to expand on Amazon worker organization

I think part of the issue with articles on general sector comes down to sources. Unions by region would cover laws, interrelated worker actions, etc. but what about sector? They're generally bound by region as well, unless the idea is to build out police union by just listing the police unions in each region. In that case you end up with... teachers union which, as mentioned, similarly redirects to a list of individual organizations. Right now tech union doesn't read as being about a discrete concept (is there one?) and in any event, don't think we need two articles for that. re: TWC/GWU, as unclear as their scope may be, they're clearer in definition than tech union and any content in tech union is bound to be a retread of what is already covered by the existing organization articles. Happy New Year to you as well! czar 03:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czar:The need for articles like TWC/GWU certainly remains and this doesn’t attempt to replace that. I’m open to renaming/better describing the scope of these articles.

The example of teachers is interesting, because in many ways they’re disconnected from each other, other than perhaps similar profession and maybe even a national affiliate in the IS like AFT/NEA. Still an article like 2018–19 education workers' strikes in the United_States exists, documenting the research showing their connections/shared context.

It’s very possible that a “global” article on tech worker organizations may not map neatly, but even in the few examples listed so far, for example 996.icu had reach from China to the US. At the risk of WP:SYNTH I think the tech sector is uniquely ripe for Wikipedia article because of its 1. Freshness/smaller scale 2. Globalized nature 3. Historically challenging relation with labour movement.

The sectoral taxonomy is not strictly followed either. According to UNI Global Union all Amazon workers are in the Commerce sector, Google in ICTS, and digital newsrooms in Journalism.

In some countries, like Germany where Works council are prevalent, what should be standard for inclusion/mention?

To conclude, as it develops, it could make sense to rename it somehow, perhaps a directly of “tech worker organizations in XYZ” format, with some countries having their own country. Directories like these show the depth and extent of tech organizing: collective actions in tech and twitter thread Shushugah (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

My hunch is that we'll sooner see dedicated coverage of individual unions like CWA CODE than a singular concept of "tech union" (per my prior examples) but either way WP bases articles on the sources that exist and not expectations of how it'll expand in the future. Even the Logic Mag article (and I'm not sure I'd even use it as a reliable source) says, "It’s impossible to draw definitive conclusions about a movement that’s still in progress, and the tech worker movement is still very much in progress." At the very least, there is more coverage of "unionization in the tech sector" and "tech worker movement" than "tech union" so I'd first recommend rescoping/retitling that way, but even then I see less reliable, independent, secondary source coverage of that concept than I see coverage of specific organizing event histories at specific firms or with specific orgs, hence why I wrote what I did. Anyway, my recommendation is to move those two articles to draftspace and build them there until the concept of "tech union" gets significant coverage in reliable sources. czar 20:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Le Panini ^[🥪] is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a Happy Holidays!

CaptainGalaxy is wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas).

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

— 16:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas Czar
	Hi Czar, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzzard Roost, Mississippi

Hi there. Would you be able to move Buzzard Roost, Mississippi to a subfolder for me? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, voilà: User:Magnolia677/Buzzard Roost, Mississippi czar 16:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrath of the Darkhul King

Hello again. I just wanted to reach out about possibly helping with the Wrath of the Darkhul King peer review. Any comments there would be extremely appreciated. I'm uncertain if I will bring it through the FAC process, as I am actually debating on whether or not I should retire after I wrap up a few loose threads. I find that Wikipedia takes a lot of time and energy that I would prefer to use elsewhere. Anyway, just wanted to let you know in case you missed my ping on the peer review page. I hope you are doing well and have a great rest of the year! Aoba47 (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47, so which one is it, FAC or retirement? :) I'll take a look. Remember that it's also possible to work on Wikipedia in ways that don't take a lot of time and energy. Life is short! Delete your watchlist, cancel your debts, and participate in the ways you enjoy. czar 05:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That is very true. It could just be time to re-evaluate my approach to Wikipedia. I honestly did not consider that so I greatly appreciate that advice. It is definitely time for me to at least clear out my watchlist because I have so many things that just have accumulated there over the years lol. I still think a substantial break from Wikipedia would be the most beneficial to me. I will no longer be pursuing the FAC route for Wrath of the Darkhul King, but I would still like to leave the peer review open for at least a month just to improve the article and make it as good as it can be to help any readers that stumble across. If that makes any sense lol. I hope that is a clearer answer. I can't believe it is only a few more days until 2021! Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Question and advice about Lists of canceled video games

Hi Czar and Ferret, I was hoping to ask your advice about Lists of canceled video games.

Currently List of cancelled games for Nintendo consoles and List of cancelled games for Sony consoles are currently at AfD and looks like they will be deleted when the AfD expires. The creator has started creating individual lists from the sections in these articles (eg: List of cancelled NES/Famicom games = List of cancelled games for Nintendo consoles#Nintendo Entertainment System / Famicom et al.) Today they have created 17 new CFORK articles about canceled Sony games. I believe this is DE. Following Czar's earlier advice to go slowly, I didn't want to mark them all as CSD A10, or go to ANI if unneeded, so I thought I would bring this to you both for advice on what would be the proper course. Hope you are both well; Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  04:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I am against the combined platform lists, and have voted !delete in all three cases (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft). However I have not yet voted on any of the individual platform lists. Those lists potentially have sourcing which I haven't had time to look into yet. Somewhat due to the volume of your nominations, actually, to add to Czar's point about rushing. In short, I had time to look at 2-3 lists, but I don't have time to do a proper dive on 10+ AFDs. I have no immediate response to Deltasim's actions, except that some of these AFDs have suggested the problem was the combined nature of the lists, and that they should have been split. As such, Deltasim is simply doing the split that some AFD participants suggested. Whether any of those individual lists meet LISTN is a separate question that can be handled. Personally I'd prefer them just to be merged to the end of the normal list of games for each platform. I'm not sure what the argument is for separate pages to table 5-15 cancelled games. -- ferret (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

To my eyes, it's bold/premature but not disruptive. It logically follows from the "combined platform" discussions that each would be split out, which is what I meant on your talk page about debundling. I think debundling often feels like a speed bump (to slow rapid nominations) but it's more accurately an indicator of deliberative complexity: the community needs time to establish a precedent such that it can actually consider the articles as a set, even if discussed one at a time. I.e., splitting the lists only feels like it's circumventing process because these were nominated en masse rather than one at a time. Put another way, mass noms brashly skip the necessary step in which this sort of shuffling happens. Deliberation is sloooooow (and on purpose!) as there is no rush. A more pointed criticism is that these splits make the discussions harder as now we need to preserve article history/attribution for the merged edits... Definitely wouldn't go to A10 or ANI with these, though the editor should be warned about not attributing content copied from other Wikipedia pages in edit summaries. I will leave a courtesy notice about that and social norms while a practice is under discussion (i.e., not editing to bypass the discussion or to make a point). Side note: A10 and other "speedy" processes are meant for actions that are so thoroughly uncontentious that no serious editor would object to them, hence why we're speeding up or bypassing deliberation. It's rarely appropriate to apply speedies to established editor's edits, as needing to do so is more of an indicator of an underlying behavioral problem at that point. czar 20:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Zotero

Thank you for encouraging me to look at Zotero. I didn't realize how useful it would be. You were right when you said it would change my life. I hope I can repay the favor by passing it on to others. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  04:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Helsabot! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)