ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year, NotReallySoroka!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
FYI
There's rarely any reason to notify someone of an SPI against them. Honest denials sound just the same as dishonest ones, so comments by the accused are only really helpful in the small percentage of cases where conduct may fall in a gray area—say, meatpuppetry or an undisclosed but not obviously bad-faith alt. And when that does arise the attending clerk/admin will hale the person to the SPI (example in a meatpuppetry case). The rest of the time, though, an innocent person and a guilty person are going to say the same things, and it's all stuff that any competent SPI clerk/admin will be checking for anyways (namely, working out how distinctive various similarities are, what the odds are of coincidence, etc.). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: I think that it is unfair to talk behind TCG's (or, perhaps more precisely, Corwen's) back. But I will keep your words in mind. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- If someone is exonerated, you can always let them know after the fact. But presumably one isn't taking someone to SPI who one isn't reasonably confident is engaged in sockpuppetry. In which case they are owed no courtesy notice. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK, thank you again, Tamzin. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- If someone is exonerated, you can always let them know after the fact. But presumably one isn't taking someone to SPI who one isn't reasonably confident is engaged in sockpuppetry. In which case they are owed no courtesy notice. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Devin Futrell
Hello, NotReallySoroka. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Devin Futrell, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
DYK Nom
Hello! Your submission of Devin Futrell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Devin Futrell moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Devin Futrell, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 TT me 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Changing specific British spellings to American spellings on articles without an established English variety
Sorry but I don't understand this. Why would the article not having a template specifically saying to use British English mean it makes sense to arbitrarily change the spelling (of only one specific word) to American spelling? I was under the impression that the spelling of ruble is a "normal ENGVAR issue". I'm sure it would be disruptive if I just changed all the uses of the word "criticise" to "criticize", citing a lack of a template specifically demanding I use British spelling, so I don't get why this is different 🤔. Endwise (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Endwise: The Kadyrov page used to have both "ruble" and "rouble". NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I thought that I could changed everything to "ruble" but I changed course because I realized that the page had partially used "rouble" since 2016. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Soviet "Rbl"
I think you should self-revert your notice to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard about this question. It is uncontested and uncontroversial, there has been no unresolved debate and so no need to escalate.
You should just delete the inadequately sourced statement and see if anyone complains. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman What would be the "inadequately sourced statement" in question? If it is the notion that Rbl represents the Soviet ruble, then the change would involve hundreds of pages, so I would like it clarified first. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- "a document at an earthquake-related conference and a book on communist countries." I told TCG a number of times that examples of use are not valid citations. The source must declare the definition explicitly.
- I don't see how that qualifies as "original research". It is just poor sourcing. I agree that it is wrong, the issue for me is whether it needs to be escalated at all but also whether you have chosen the appropriate forum to do it in. The article talk page should be exhausted first. Maybe ten days without a response since you opened raised it there is not long enough but unless someone defends it soon, it seems to me that you have a reasonable basis to assume deletion is uncontroversial. But if it did need escalation, a WikiProject should be the next port of call.
- It is done now so let it stand. I won't be surprised if you get no response at NOR/N either. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- And since it is done, you should draw attention to it [the discussion] at relevant talk pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics and talk:Soviet Union. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)