User Talk: Boynamedsue

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Your recent edits of <bdi>Antisemitism in the United Kingdom ↗</bdi>

Hi! I noticed the recent removal of the section regarding the West Midlands Police incident. I’ve restored the content for now because I believe it’s a relevant addition to the page's contemporary history, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on how we can improve it.

I understand the concern about 'undue weight.' My goal was to document the event as it was reported, specifically noting that while the police may not have stated a motive, several prominent Jewish organizations perceived and documented the actions as antisemitic. I have cited several sources and tried to ensure the wording reflects these specific perspectives rather than stating them as absolute facts.

I included this (and other info added since) under a new heading because there is currently no other established section for ongoing events or contemporary community history. Do you have suggestions on how to integrate it into a different part of the article to make it feel more balanced?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
ScottyNolan (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:Hi Scotty, thanks for the message. I've answered at the talkpage of Antisemitism in the UK.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Trouble at Black Legend ↗

Cateyed, on the second day of his editing here ↗, decided to create The Black Legend ↗, covering Spain, and to reduce the long-established Black Legend ↗ page to a rump. Before he got started Black Legend ↗ was nearly 34k raw bytes, he then expanded it up to nearly 62K, before removing the Spanish stuff and reducing it to under 10K. I haven't had time to to work through his changes, though it is clear his English will always need a basic check for grammar and spelling, and his additions seem to be reference-free. I didn't think this was acceptable without discussion, so for now I reverted back to a version before his big cut. This page gets over 300 views a day, and has always been somewhat of a target for problems. I haven't formed a view as to whether a generalized "black legend" page is needed, but if it is, I don't think Black Legend ↗ and The Black Legend ↗ are sufficiently distinct titles. Perhaps this should be resolved by a WP:RM ↗ discussion, but I'm asking for preliminary views at the BL talk page ↗ first, ideally from those who have looked through Cateyed's many additions, at BL ↗ and at the other article. You're one of the top editors, so I'm informing you. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2019 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2019|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antonio Rivero ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Dickson ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

You are making presumptions about the sources at my disposal and relying solely on one. Suffice to say I can back that up. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">W C ↗M</span><sub>email ↗</sub> 14:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
:@User:Wee Curry Monster Well instead of being cryptic, why don't you add it somewhere people can see. You know, in good faith, like? In wikipedia we can only go on what users actually link or cite not arcane knowledge they allude to. I'm not being funny here, I genuinely believe Dickson is not notable because of what is in the article and the sources I've seen. It's not an article of faith. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I drafted this some time ago, you may or may not find it helpful.

= Contemporary accounts =

Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow, and several different versions of Onslow’s report on his visit to Port Louis, are in PRO Adm 1/2276, and in PRO FO 6 500, pp. 96 (orders), and 116-124 (Onslow’s report as sent to
British chargé d’affaires Philip Gore in Buenos Aires; Onslow's orders were clear.

{{cquote|“you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments.”}}

Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.

{{cquote|I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased.}}

{{cquote|I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land.}}

Pinedo <b>(An Argentine source)</b>From Pinedo’s testimony at his trial later in 1833, AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22: “… los habitantes que quisiesen
voluntariamente quedan, que serian respetados ellos y sus propriedades como anteriormente…”) corroborates this:

{{cquote|… those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before…}}

I ask you to note that the two eye witness accounts corroborate.

The Complete Works of Charles Darwin online ↗ includes the diaries of both Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy. HMS ''Beagle'' visited the settlement in March 1833 and again the following year. In March 1833, Fitzroy documents his meeting with Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, who had returned to take charge of Vernet's business interests. Fitzroy also documents his efforts to persuade the settlers to continue in the islands. Both Darwin and Fitzroy document their meetings with the settlers supposedly expelled 3 months earlier.

Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis ↗ This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement.

There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders ↗, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives.

= Neutral =

{{cite book|author=Lowell S. Gustafson|title=The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Ip-9_W7efbAC|accessdate=18 September 2012|date=7 April 1988|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-504184-2|page=26}}

{{Cquote|''Sarandi'' sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis.}}

I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.

{{Cquote|Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become <b>myth</b> in Argentina}} ''Empahsis added''

{{cite book|author=Julius Goebel|title=The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FM8ZAAAAYAAJ|accessdate=18 September 2012|year=1927|publisher=Yale university press|page=456}}

{{cquote|On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires <b>garrison</b>...}} ''Emphasis added''

{{cite book|author=Mary Cawkell|title=The Falkland story, 1592–1982|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wg8aAAAAYAAJ|accessdate=18 September 2012|year=1983|publisher=A. Nelson|isbn=978-0-904614-08-4|page=30}}

{{Cquote|Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.}}

{{cquote|According to Argentina, the Falklands fell under the control of "the Spanish authori ties responsible to the Government and Captaincy-General of Buenos Aires" in 1967, with Argentina succeeding to the claim upon gaining its independence from Spain. A short-lived and "only partial" British occupation "was abandoned" in 1774. Then "on 3 January 1833 the British ... ousted by violence the Argentine authorities ... an action which was followed by the unlawful occupation of the Malvinas by the United Kingdom... ." Since then, "the Argentine Government has upheld a continuous claim to its rights ... throughout the entire time that has elapsed. . . ."43 Accordingly, "[w] hen it is considered that Argentina was deprived of the islands by an illegitimate act of force, it becomes clear that the governing principle here is that of the territorial integrity of a country, which is enunciated in paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 (XV)."44 Needless to say, the British view of the historical background of the dispute is differ ent: "British sovereignty, which was first established in 1765" was "peaceably reasserted" in January 1833. It is a demonstrable fact that since 1833, that is to say for nearly a century-and-a-half, . .. the United Kingdom has maintained an open, continuous, effective and peaceful possession of the Fallkland Islands. There have been, of course, numerous diplomatic exchanges between my Government and that of Argentina during this period}} Gunter (1979)

{{cquote|Much is made in successive presentations of the Argentine case of the next episode in the history of the islands: the supposed fact that Great Britain 'brutally' and 'forcefully' expelled the Argentine garrison in 1833. The record is not nearly so dramatic. After the commander of the Lexington had declared, in December 1831, the Falklands 'free of all government', they remained without any visible authority. However, in September 1832, the Buenos Aires Government appointed, in place of Vernet, an interim commandant, Juan Mestivier. The British representative immediately lodged a protest, but Mes- tivier sailed on the Sarandi at the end of the year to take charge of a penal settlement at San Carlos, his Government's reserve on East Falkland. There was a mutiny, led by a sergeant of the garrison, and Mestivier was murdered. At this juncture, on January 11, 1833, H.M. sloop Clio arrived at Puerto de la Soledad when Pinedo, the com- mander of the Sarandi and 25 soldiers were attempting to re-establish order. The so called 'brutal' eviction is laconically recorded in Captain Onslow's log: Tuesday 1 Jany. 1833. P.M. Mod. with rain 12.20 shortened sails and came to Port Louis (Soledad), Berkeley Sound ... found here a Buenos Ayrean flag flying on shore. 2.30 out boats. 3 furled sails. 5.30 Moored ship . . . Wednesday Jany. 2. Moored at Port Louis A.M. Mod. cloudy ... loosed sails and landed a party of marines and seamen and hoisted the Union Jack and hauled down the Buenos Ayrean flag and sent it on board the schooner to the Commandante. Sailmaker repairing the Main top Gallant sails.... In the interval between these two entries, Onslow had 'civilly' (his report) told Pinedo that he had come 'to exercise the right of sovereignty' on the islands and asked him to haul down his flag on shore. Pinedo protested, but said that if the Buenos Aires flag were allowed to fly until January 5, he would leave with his soldiers and anyone else who wished to go. When Onslow proved adamant, Pinedo agreed to embark his soldiers, but he left his flag flying on shore. This was why Onslow sent it to him by one of the Clio's officers. Pinedo sailed on January 4 and was later punished by the Buenos Aires Government for failing to offer any resistanc}} Metford (1968)

{{cquote|The situation in early 1833, after Britain had established control of the Falkland
Islands through Captain Onslow and the Clio, was that the one settlement, at Port
Louis on East Falkland, upon Clio's departure, was left without a garrison and under
the control of civilian residents, including William Dickson and Matthew Brisbane.
These two men and three others were murdered by gauchos and Indians formerly
employed on the Islands during the earlier period of United Provinces' (later
Argentina) rule (Darwin, 1834; Cawkell et al., 1960; Metford, 1968; Boumphrey,
1969). All but one of the other settlers present that day took refuge on islands in
Berkeley Sound where they were contacted by the Royal Navy who, in January 1834, in
the presence of Lieutenant Henry Smith and HMS Challenger, arrived and restored
order by catching and expelling the murderers.}} Royle (1985)

{{cquote|Britain therefore despatched HMS Clio (Cmdr. J.J. Onslow) and HMS Tyne (Capt. Charles Hope) from the Rio de Janeiro headquarters of the Royal Navy South American squadron on 29
November 1832. The vessels arrived at the Falklands on 20 December, entered Port Louis
harbour on 5 January 1833, and expelled the Argentinean military garrison and
"Governor" Don Juan Esteban Mestivier.}} Dickinson (1994)

{{cquote|On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison}} Goebel (1927)

{{Cquote|Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.}} Cawkell (1983)

{{Cquote|Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos}} Destefani (1982)

{{cite book|author=David Tatham|title=The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=0D0VNAAACAAJ|accessdate=18 September 2012|year=2008|publisher=D. Tatham|isbn=978-0-9558985-0-1}}

= Source for the British Government position =

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/falkland-islands/?profile=history ↗ The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

= Source for the Argentine Government position =

http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html ↗ Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands

{{Cquote|This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina.}}

Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.

Not to mention the schizophrenic nature of what Argentina claims.

http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html#link1 ↗

{{cquote|Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the <b>settlers</b> of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base.}}

{{Cquote|Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos}}

On the one hand its claiming the settlers were expelled, in the same document it refers to the settlers left in the islands.

Boynamedsue, I really need you to stop referring to the Anderson case and that Clarin article. As an admin, I consider this a serious violation of WP:BLP ↗, and below I will leave a templated note indicating just how serious this is on Wikipedia. If you need an article like ''that'', with all of its implications (not to mention a picture of an ID, with all kinds of information), to prove a point about citizenship or whatever, then that point is not worth making. Please use more proper sources, from more reliable publications, without having to go into individual examples of living people. The BLP applies everywhere, including article talk pages and user talk pages, so please don't bring this up ''anywhere'' on Wikipedia anymore. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

::Drmies. I will follow your advice regarding this case, given what has been posted on your talk page. I don't think I was doing anything that violated WP:BLP ↗, and I would stress that no reference to any individual was ever entered in the article. It is also worth noting that EL Clarin is considered to be a reliable source on the Spanish wikipedia, and there is no reason not to think it should be here either. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
:::Thank you. It may well be that Clarin is accepted elsewhere, and it may well be that it is acceptable here. I was just struck by the picture of that ID--that seems to me to be a pretty blatant disregard for international standards of journalism. Be that as it may, the material is not appropriate here, at least that how it seems to me. It is possible that other administrators disagree with me, of course, and that is a matter that could be discussed, but speaking also as an editor, I would not accept such...legalistic? statements on naturalization etc. be based on such an article. I understand the matter is complicated, which I think is all the more reason to source it differently. Anyway, thanks--I appreciate your cooperation. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Falkland Island citizenship

I don't think any future discussion will be productive.

Your position is that because the Malvinas are considered part of Argentina under its law and also their law recognizes ''jus soli'', that people born in the Falklands are Argentinian by birth. ''Jus soli'' requires birth withing territory not just claimed by the state but under its control.

Also you continually confuse someone who is born a citizen with someone acquires a right to claim citizenship at birth. These are two entirely different things and we cannot use a source that claims one thing to support another.

If Argentina provides birthright citizenship to people born in the Malvinas or gives them an unconditional right to claim citizenship, then there should be legislation or an executive order showing this so that passport officers would know whether to issue passports. Failing that, there should be a conclusion legal opinion. In comparison, I can provide you with the legislation that proves people born in the Falklands are British citizens: The British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983. And I can also provide a history of their citizenship status as well as legislation that provides a right for people born in the Falklands who have not acquired citizenship to apply for it.

TFD (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2020 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2020|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

Mkucr talk page comment

I moved your latest comment ↗ to be under the comment of mine you appear to be responding to, to avoid confusion. Hope you don't mind. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
No problem at all, I agree it's a better place, thanks. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Exasperated

Hi. Do you mind if I share with you a maddening example of a certain user’s modus operandi?

This ↗ is what I’m talking about (and this ↗, and this ↗, and this ↗, and this ↗). Contrary to consensus here ↗.

The latest rationale is totally bogus, by the way. The fact that politicians from city A in country B emigrated to country X does not qualify city A for categorization under country X. By that standard, a :Category:Politicians from Nairobi ↗ should be placed under :Category:British politicians ↗, because of Peter Hain ↗.

Anyway, the pattern is always the same: said user (1) does something objectionable, other user (2) reverts, user 1 reverts again, writes walls of text about even the most minor matters, until user 2 eventually gives up and finds something better to do, like stare at a ceiling. I recently had to run a weeklong poll ↗ just so I could add four words; look at the sheer amount of text expended! It’s been going on for years, too. I wish something could be done... — Biruitorul <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 04:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
:Thanks, Biruitorul. I think it constitutes disruptive editing, as the main goal is to wear down the other party and enforce an individual's POV without any reference to wikipedia's policies. When he tries it on pages watched by large numbers of people, it gets reverted after very quick RfC's. But when it's Eastern European stuff, he often forces his POV in through sheer bloody-mindedness. Not sure what to do about it tbh. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
:The other really dodgy thing he does when he has found a nice little unwatched page, is to threaten to delete large quantities of sourced content if he doesn't get his own edit through. So he will argue there is no consensus for 500 words if his 15 words don't appear, or for a paragraph if one word is different from his preference. Effectively he holds large tracts of text hostage as a negotiating tactic. Like I say, something should be done, but who is going to bell the cat? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
:: The behaviour seen here is Wikipedia:Edit warring ↗, something for which there is a Wikipedia policy. The first step is to start a discussion with the user. User:Biruitorul did this on {{section link|WT:CATP|Prior affiliations}}. Several users have answered there that it is nonsense to add a ''Hungarian politicians'' category to categories about cities in Romania or elsewhere outside Hungary. I posted an additional note on this user's talk page and on the talk pages of the affected categories pointing to the discussion. If this user still does not join the discussion (which they have not done yet, pointing to edit summaries instead), continues to restore their edits (regardless of whether they break the three-revert rule ↗ or not), they may be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ↗ and potentially blocked from editing by an administrator. I see BTW that this user seems to have a long history of being notified of edit warring by other users, which can potentially feed a case for consideretion of disruptive behaviour by administrators. Place Clichy (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Biruitorul}},

:Biruitorul, what you described above is exactly my experience at Talk:Germans ↗ and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups ↗. If someone wants to take it to ANI, I'd certainly add my non-administrator's comment there. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
::I think there is definitely a case to be made here, or at least there should be, considering the sheer number of user hours being burned up. I'm a terrible wikilawyer, so I'm probably not the right person. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
::BTW Rsk6400, I notice the use of the "if you don't do what I say, I'll delete your text" tactic on that talkpage too. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
:I appreciate the notification, Boynamedsue. While it looks as though there’s nothing further for me to say right there, this episode ''will'' be useful for future actions. — Biruitorul <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 13:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::Also, check out the Mafia-style tone here ↗. Sounds almost like a threat, makes me want to ask “or else what?” — Biruitorul <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::To be fair to him, the tone thing is more to do with his slightly incomplete control over different registers of English, there's no intent there. I am more worried about what happened to Azure94, hopefully, given Ymblanter's generally fair response, there will be less possibility of this kind of situation arising in the future. It is worth looking at those discussion pages, for your scrapbook. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:It really is true that some people are fundamentally incapable of changing their ways, even in the face of disaster. Sad. — Biruitorul <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
:Thanks for starting that ANI discussion. I was a bit late in joining, but it'll feel like a heavy weight being lifted if some remedy will be found. He is / was really eating up time and energy. Maybe I should take WP a bit less seriously, but there were nights when I didn't sleep well. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
::I have to say, I am exactly the same. I lost sleep on several occasions due to the sheer frustration of having to either debate endlessly with KIENGIR on the talkpage of a locked article, or give up and leave a racist POV in the article of an ethnic group who were sent into gas chambers within living memory. I'd second your thanks to Biruitorul. Also, thank you for your contribution, it really rang a bell, the refusal to justify a position was the most frustrating thing... Boynamedsue (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Thanks to you and to Biruitorul for your untiring work. Although banning someone is not something to make you feel good, I think it is better for WP. Boynamedsue, your advice to KIENGIR on their talk page yesterday was an example of fair play which I will try to learn from. And having the presence of mind to spot Securitate and understand its meaning in the middle of such a wall of text ! --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
::I appreciate both of your kind remarks. I’m glad this episode is over, ready to move on. This was not a step I initiated lightly or in haste. I actually had not been to ANI since 2016, when I reported the same user. (Much aggravation would have been saved had there been consensus back then for a restriction, but better late than never.) However, things really were spinning out of control, and it simply was the right time to act.
::I think the 20-0 pro-ban vote, mostly by users who don’t know one another, speaks for itself. The oft-mentioned boomerang failed to fly back. Anyway, we can now breathe easier, undo some damage, and no longer fear even our most minor edits being dismantled. Best of luck going forward. — Biruitorul <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, it was surprisingly easy, if a little sad to see him lose his head so completely. I think his problem was the sheer number of users who had been stung on the Nazi Germany page. He has been doing this kind of thing successfully for years in backwaters, picking on inexperienced users. If we hadn't been watching it is likely his bullying of Azure94 would have driven them offsite through frustration, god knows how many times something similar has happened over the years. I feel bad to take something from someone in this way, but he is incapable of interacting in any other way. If he had even had the sense to lie about being contrite, he could probably have stayed on the site, but he is unable to admit the possibility he might be wrong. It is the only way, it was never going to stop. Anyway, it's over, and we can relax, take care and thanks again to both of you. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Romani Dispute

You said that if you had known how it would play out, you would have requested a Third Opinion ↗. In my experience, that wouldn't have helped. Disruptive editors almost always ignore a Third Opinion. KIENGIR}} was a disruptive editor, which is why they were banned. They would have somehow had the Hungarian Romani dispute taken either to WP:ANI ↗ or to the edit-warring noticeboard ↗. If they had gone to [[WP:ANI ↗, they might have been told to go to DRN ↗. They would have eventually gotten blocked or banned. That is just the way things work. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
:There we go, I can't help feeling that this is a systemic weakness in the way we deal with this kind of behaviour, but I suppose things are designed with the assumption of good faith and rationality. I guess my pushing it so far wasn't entirely rational either. Anyway, thanks again for your work on this. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
::I don't know if you noticed, but the RFC was closed, saying that there was nearly unanimous consensus for Option A, noting that the only real objection had been from a user who was subsequently banned. So continue editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zakarpattia Oblast § Recent edits ↗

25px|link=|alt= ↗ You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zakarpattia Oblast § Recent edits ↗. Azure94 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)<!-- Template:Please see ↗

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romani people in Romania ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Balta ↗ and Berezovka ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Wartime Transylvanian Roma

Hi there. Well, most of your sources will be in (gasp) Hungarian. This ↗ is a general overview of the Roma in wartime Hungary, though it does make some mention of the annexed territories. This ↗, under 1941, gives some statistics. This ↗, under Doboz, speaks of a massacre of Roma in Nagyszalonta/Salonta. This ↗ is a whole book on the Porajmos in Hungary, again with mention of Nagyszalonta; more here ↗.

You’ll probably have to fire up the Google translator; I don’t really read Hungarian myself. Even if the information is somewhat sketchy, I hope it’s a useful starting point. — Biruitorul <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 18:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northern Subject Rule ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brittonic ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam

25px|link=|alt= ↗ You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Women's Republic ↗. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
:Did you see that I gave you a specific use-case/context? {{tq|If you are bothered about particular use-cases, does this interview count towards WP:N?}} TrangaBellam (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Peer review for Dinogad's Smock

Hi there, are you still interested in the peer review ↗ for Dinogad's Smock ↗? I can leave some feedback if you wish. Zetana (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
:Okay, I'll leave some comments later today. Zetana (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle Ratings

I've just been reading the survey you started on the Jewish Chronicle ↗ regarding its reliability and suitability for referencing on Wikipedia. The outcome and summary seem very unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons.

1) the bar the IPSO Regulator places on publications is extremely low ↗ and the threshold for investigations very high. See also Will the Independent Press Standards Organisation Ever Uphold Any Standards? ↗

2) the people who run and support the IPSO seem to have strong connections to the political Right

3) the cases keep piling up against the Chronicle with the IPSO finding against the Chronicle for breaching its code at least 28 times and sued successfully 4 times.
IPSO faces calls to launch first standards investigation into Jewish Chronicle ↗
Jewish Chronicle’s Libel Payouts were a Small Price to Pay for Smearing Corbyn and the Left ↗

We really need to know how this compares with other publications. I performed a few comparisons on the IPSO site eg Daily Telegraph ↗, and it is very poor for factual accuracy in relation to its circulation, possibly a statistical outlier. The nearest equivalent which deals in religious-political affairs is 5Pillars which is regulated by the more rigorous IMPRESS. This was investigated once and the complaint was dismissed. ↗

4) the Jewish Chronicle seems to enjoy considerable support from editors, which support it with positive ratings, but without much evidence to support them.

Those giving a top mark came up with 'reasons' such as

:it's a major newspaper and the complaints are not so significant
:why these "should this source be banned forever for being baddy-bad-bad and saying nasty things about people I like
:Longstanding organization...amount of complaints & contents not particularly significant
:it's as reliable as any other newspaper on these topics
:it is regulated and complies with regulator's decisions, 5 upheld complaints leading to corrections doesn't amount to an awful lot

Isn't there a Wikipedia rule which recommends that evidence free or factually invalid views are not to be given significant weight in these Wikipedia discussions/surveys?

5) even if we take these 'favourable' views at face value, the average rating on the 1 to 4 scale used in this survey (for Left & Muslim issues) comes to 2.05. which places it at Option 2: 'Unclear, or additional considerations apply' Yet the summary says 'it's somewhere between a weak consensus that it's generally reliable and no consensus' which I don't think reflects the ratings given.

Do you think it worthwhile having this assessment re-reviewed by an experienced editor which can give some weight to the opinions which bear some relations to reality and the Chronicle's successive failures to meet the standards of the 'light touch' IPSO regulator?

The Chronicle is still rated in the Wikipedia 'green' reliable category in Perennial Sources ↗, although it suggests in-text attribution is used for its coverage of certain topics'. Surely, at the absolute minimum, a distinct category needs to be shown for political views, although given it's very poor record this is hardly satisfactory.

Andromedean (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Andromedean (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
:Hi Andromedean. I think the problem here is that the voting will always have a significant political element, in the UK it seems to be accepted that false reporting is not a big problem when the victims are left-wing. In addition, any of the users attracted to this topic are very politically committed to defending the validity of right-wing or pro-Israel media and this is unlikely to change. It is quite clear that if this was a publication that consistently libelled and falsely reported on doctors (say), its use with regards to the medical profession would have already been prohibited.

:I tend to agree that too much weight was placed on extremely flawed opinions by the closer, and the intervention of socks was also a factor. user:selfstudier ↗ is considering opening a new case, in view of the interventions of Cathcart and the new cases of libel, but I think they are waiting for IPSO's response to a letter from 9 left-wing victims of the JC's libels and false reporting. Unfortunately, unless we have exceptionally strong evidence, organised political voting will likely muddy the waters again. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
::I'd like a little more before going back to RSN although I agree that the close was let's say it politely, rather lenient.Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
::: Re Cathcart, yes I think his latest is here ↗. His count for JCs breaches has now gone up to 33 in 3 years. The JC is perhaps the worst example of a more general problem of bias towards RW and pro-Israeli publications. I think we need to back up any RSN with a call to a wider range of editors, and closely examine the rules for using evidence based ratings in any discussion and survey. I think professional secondary source fact checkers and assessors such as Media bias/Fact check ↗, should be used as part of such assessments (although the JC is excluded from assessment from this specific assessor). As expected I have come under attack when suggesting this in the past, because it helps to moderate the excesses of Wikipedia self selection, which can be as meaningless as a Twitter poll. Perhaps a more general discussion on this subject is required? --Andromedean (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2021 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2021|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>

Requesting help on systematic vandalism on Hungarian Spectrum ↗

My name is Stevan Harnad ↗ and I've been a non-anonymous occasional editor of WP since 2005, but I have never mastered the technical details of remedying systematic vandalism. I created the Hungarian Spectrum ↗ page in 2020, but it almost immediately began to be attacked by what I infer to be a coterie of patroling trolls who police WP pages related to Hungary ↗ and particularly pages that have any bearing on the current Hungarian government. They are many, and I am one (and a full-time university professor) so I unfortunately lack both the time and the knowledge and experience to try to undo the systematic damage they are doing. The latest instance is Hungarian Spectrum ↗ as of November 30 when its founder and daily author, Eva S. Balogh, died suddenly. The Hungarian troll patrol now seems to be systematically bent on minimizing her legacy, beginning with trying to remove any mention or reference to her death, on the pretext that "WP is not the place for obituaries." I would be grateful if you could either intervene, or draw it to the attention of those who could intervene. Many thanks, User:Harnad (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC) User:Harnad (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC) User:Harnad (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
::Mr Harnad uses the WP for disseminating his political views and promote himself, check the Talk Page of his own bio. BTW, he himself created his own WP Bio in French... His latest project is to eulogyze his close friend, Eva S. Balogh on the net. This is the WP,not a site dedicated for the memory of deceased persons.--176.77.136.98 ↗ (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
::BTW, if you check the Page History. you could find that I was not the only one, who found that it is off encyclopedic content.--176.77.136.98 ↗ (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Almost everything 176.77.136.98 says above is false, and most of it is repeating false things that prior anonymous Hungarian vandals like 176.77.136.98 have posted whenever I edited a page about Hungary that had anything to do with the current governing party or the current prime minister. They (under various anonymous URI's) do this all the time, and not just to my postings. In fact false innuendo and attempts at character assassination are the hallmark of the work of this team, often under the pretext of exposing "POV pushing" (where POV-pushing is anything said that is critical of the Hungarian government and its leader, or favorable to anyone who is critical of the Hungarian government and its leader, in this instance Eva S. Balogh, the founder of Hungarian Spectrum ↗, on the occasion of her sudden death, which these vandals would prefer to pass without notice. But I unfortunately do not have the time or the resources to try to counter them. User:Harnad (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
::"Éva S. Balogh as a leader of opposition, I, Harnad, as a university professor" etc. clearly indicate that u overestimate your importance, which is a clear violation of the notability principle of the WP. Then this "I am continuosly persecuted by Viktor Orbán" attitude and your canvassing on the HS.org to track me down are breaching the assuming good faith policy. You were close friends, you flood the internet, the WP with yourself, and with the stuff of your friends. You were the one who have just admitted that u use WP to criticize the Orbán-government. I am not the only one who rejected your posts. Are we all Orbán-fans? The whole WP is a big conspiracy for Orbán? --176.77.136.98 ↗ (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
:::(Fixed the spacing indents.) No reply to fact-less, mechanical, personal innuendo (except to note that it is very characteristic of the signature M.O. of ''smears-for-substance trolling'', especially in Orban's Hungary). The WP default assumption of good faith (WP:AGF ↗) is a valid one, initially, and for the first few iterations, but to persist in faith blindly after the contrary evidence and pattern become obvious and mechanical would be purblind, along the lines of '''credo quia absurdum ↗''' User:Harnad (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd just like to interject and bring attention to how our anonymous IP vandal tried to contact the infamous permabanned user KIENGIR ↗, in order to canvas help for his cause --Azure94 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
::::A glance at the edit history for Hungarian Spectrum ↗ will confirm that KIENGIR ↗ has already dipped into the Hungarian Spectrum ↗ entry in the past. (KIENGIR ↗ is now banned, thanks in part to the tireless and conscientious efforts (in other cases) of Azure94). User:Harnad (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Welsh exonyms ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dinogad's Smock ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tyne ↗ and Newcastle ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Funk Island ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fogo Island ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

My talk page

I don't often do this but I'm going to ask you to stop contacting me on my talk page. The last straw was templating me for edit warring when you have edit warred unconstructively to remove tags and are needlessly personalising a content discussion again. If you need to discuss content, do so on the article concerned.

Note, I won't be retaliating with a template warning tag but you can take this reply as an indication of my intention to report your behaviour appropriately if it continues. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">W C ↗M</span><sub>email ↗</sub> 10:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
:I have not engaged in any edit-warring whatsoever, indeed I have left the text you edit-warred into the article in place in order to avoid doing so. You have restored two misused tags against the guidelines displayed on the very page the tags lead to, this lowers the quality of the article. I have in fact been very careful not personalise the discussion. My advice would be to take a step back as I feel any report would lead to a WP:BOOMERANG ↗ situation, given I have done absolutely nothing wrong. As per your request I will not be contacting you on your discussion page. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL ↗ on the Mexico City Metro overpass collapse ↗ article

Hi there, just a note about the {{tl|by whom}} maintenance tag you removed earlier today. That was one of several that I had put in to illustrate problems with the article that I was discussing on the GAN review page. It was just one of several illustrative examples I added at the time. The reason why I added the tag to the "Prior to the crash, the system had shown signs of deterioration, with general concerns being expressed about its maintenance" sentence is because it does not identify who is expressing concerns about its maintenance. That's the problem with writing in the passive voice; the reader is left to interpret the context of who the subject of the sentence is from the context of the sentences around it. Unfortunately, in this article, no context is given, and it's important to identify if it was independent structural engineering consultants, government regulatory officials, opposition politicians, local media, or surly teenaged bloggers who had been expressing the concerns about the maintenance of the system. The linked source may explain who is saying that, but the article doesn't, which is why I used that as an example of needed copyediting in the article because WHO is saying that is in many cases as important as what they are saying. Hope that explains things for you. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
::There is a misunderstanding of the use of "by whom" tags here. The use of the "by whom" tag is intended for unattributed opinion, not for passives which lack agents. The fact that concerns were raised is not an opinion, it is a factual statement supported by sources. It may be that the article could be improved by adding an agent, in which case feel free to read the source and add them if they are present. However, a "by whom" tag is incorrect in that particular case. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
: The Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS:PASSIVE ↗), while allowing some exceptions, suggests that the passive voice "should still be avoided when it is not needed".

: The <nowiki>{{by whom?}}</nowiki> tag militates against vagueness and against magical explanations. In-line citations do not always resolve such deficiencies - especially if they lack quotations. Does a referenced author hold the stated view? Or does said author simply record that some unnamed person in darkest Slovakia once held that view for a short period of time? Or even: does the referenced author clearly and specifically express the view of 99.7% of recognized experts in the relevant field? Perhaps we should introduce a <nowiki>{{passive voice crime inline}}</nowiki> tag to supplement <nowiki>{{by whom?}}</nowiki> .

: The verb "to be" has its uses - especially when making dubious claims. Unfortunately, it can lead to ambiguity or to dogmatism. WP:MOS ↗ recommends "using straightforward, easily understood language". Encyclopedic language, in fact.
: - 131.203.251.134 ↗ (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
::IP user, I welcome your decision to finally engage in discussion after a number of notices were left at your various user pages. The manual of style is rather clear that passives are encyclopaedic, and indeed, that very page uses a large number of them.

::There are very many cases where a passive is preferable to an active verb. The most obvious being to maintain the focus on the object of the action. In the article on John Lennon ↗ "John Lennon was shot and killed by Mark Chapman" is infinitely preferable to "Mark Chapman shot and killed John Lennon". Also, when the agent is obvious "Mick Jagger was arrested in London in 1973" is far superior to "The police arrested Mick Jagger in 1973". I have had to undo dozens of your edits which have made similar changes, and I'm sad to say, at certain points the weakening of the prose approached vandalism.

::As a linguist, the sentences 'the verb "to be" has its uses - especially when making dubious claims. Unfortunately, it can lead to ambiguity or to dogmatism' lead me to question how it is that we can be doing our job so badly. It would be incumbent upon us to educate the general public out of such bizarre nonsense, but obviously we are failing to do so. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
::: A Wikipedian wishing "to maintain the focus on the object of the action" may indeed elect to use a passive construction - this might have advantages within (say) complex sentences. However, a Wikipedia article on (say) John Lennon ↗, and especially a section of such article on (say) "Assassination" have already defined the primary focus. Any Wikipedian bold enough (per WP:BOLD ↗) to edit mercilessly (as the saying goes) may re-focus (possibly temporarily) on the subject of an action - potentially resulting in additional details and clearer, more lively expression. Does converting a passive-voice construction to active voice remove any information? Can such a conversion add value?

::: What an excellent example: 'Also, when the agent is obvious "Mick Jagger was arrested in London in 1973" is far superior to "The police arrested Mick Jagger in 1973".' The "far superior" example informs the reader that an arrest occurred, but remains vague about the circumstances. It may seem reasonable to assume that police made the arrest - but even so - which police? The Metropolitan Police? Scotland Yard? The Vice Squad? Some drug squad? The secret police? Some military police? A local Constable Plod with an established record of corruption? Or did someone make a citizen's arrest - without any police involvement? In some such cases, identifying the arresting party may become important, or even simply interesting. A small amount of precision might help the reader flesh out the context and avoid some of the vagueness. But very many passive-voice constructions perpetrate vagueness - the sort of vagueness which the <nowiki>{{by whom?}}</nowiki> tag also abhors.

::: The concept of "weakening of the prose" by disfavoring passive-voice constructions may involve personal preferences. One school of thought associates the passive voice with weakness - note for example "If lively, evocative verbs are better than inert, weak ones, it follows that verbs in the active voice are better than their passive counterparts." (page 88) ↗ Do Wikipedia guidelines offer an opinion on the matter of "weak" prose?

::: MOS:PASSIVE ↗ does state the general rule: the passive voice "should still be avoided when it is not needed".
::: - 131.203.251.134 ↗ (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
::::The passive is very often needed, maintaining focus on the subject of the passive being one such case which is specifically mentioned in MOS:PASSIVE. In cases where the subject of the passive verb is also the subject of the article, it is almost never wrong. As for your question regarding who arrested Mick Jagger, if the distinction was genuinely important (it usually isn't) we could explicitly state the agent "by the Metropolitan Police" without weakening the prose.

::::In terms of the style guide you quote, the text is not written for encyclopaedic language, which, like academic prose, uses the passive much more frequently. Even so, the text is merely the opinion of one person, which they do not follow themselves. Go through that book and see how many passives the author uses, try pages 39, 62, 81, 87, 100, 101, 103, 104, 125, 127, 193, 245, 323, 348, 363.... and given I only searched for three common passive terms and stopped a third of the way through the third one, I can safely say that every single page of that book contains a passive verb form. Many of these could easily be rephrased as active verb forms, but the writer does not do so because they judge that passives are better in these cases.

::::The problem with what you have been doing is that you have been implementing blanket changes to passives without considering these factors, this has damaged many articles. In addition to this is your bizarre exception to the verb "to be", which doesn't seem to follow any rule in the wikipedia MOS. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
::::: We have apparently yet to find a Wikipedia guideline on "weakness" - or an answer to the queries as to whether converting a passive-voice construction to active voice necessarily removes any information - or whether such a conversion potentially adds value.

::::: I apologize for giving only a single example of a school of thought which associates use of the passive voice with weakness. More than one generic or specific guide propounds the idea that active-voice constructions generally appear "stronger" and passive-voice equivalents relatively "weaker". For example:

::::: * "In the active voice, the stronger form, the subject of the sentence takes the action of the verb. ... In the passive voice, the weaker form, the subject is acted upon." ↗
::::: * "The active voice is also stronger and more compelling than the passive voice. In fact, combining the active voice with strong verbs, limiting the use of the '<i>to be</i>' verb, will create more persuasive and memorable language." ↗
::::: * "The passive voice also weakens the message." ↗
::::: * "The active voice reduces wordiness and makes your writing strong and interesting. The passive voice is more formal and impersonal, makes your text wordy, and is often unclear in meaning." ↗

::::: And so forth.

::::: Encyclopedic language - like much formal text, even style-guides - can fall into an unnecessary habit of passive-voice use. (I myself can write sloppy English on occasion.) Even George Orwell resorted to passives: "[...] despite his advice to avoid the passive, Orwell's essay ['Politics and the English Language'] employs the passive voice in about 20 percent of its constructions." (https://books.google.com/books?id=DHzWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA204 ↗) So your statistical overview does not surprise me - nor does it invalidate the considered opinion of many advisors who recommend - in general - the active voice over the passive. The Wikipedia Manual of Style concurs: it <u>notes</u> common use of passive-voice constructions, even in encyclopedic prose and in focus issues, but in general <u>advises</u> editors to avoid them.

::::: I wonder whether academic prose - in the same way as theological discourse - inherits part of its partiality for passives historically from the Latin language, whose passives come in concise morphological forms which may affect style.

::::: Allow me to sum up: Passive-voice verbs have their uses - and thus "blanket" substitution would fail. No Wikipedia guideline on "weak" prose has emerged. Maintaining focus on the subject or object remains a matter of individual preference - like so much else, including alleged "damage" allegedly caused by edits and including the use (or otherwise) of bland verbs like "to be". MOS:PASSIVE ↗ remains in force: the passive voice "should still be avoided when it is not needed".
::::: - 131.203.251.134 ↗ (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::Let me clarify, sometimes replacing a passive verb with an active is justified, but the way you are doing it contradicts the MoS, which is clear that the passive is needed in many cases. Your other alterations find no basis in even a misunderstanding of the manual of style, and are simply your personal aversion to the verb to be.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::: The MOS does not prescribe passive-voice usages - it merely notes a limited number of cases in which editors may choose to prefer them. Thus:

:::::::* avoiding an authorial "we" ↗ as used in scientific writing; in which case WP:MOS ↗ suggests (not requires) "rephrasing to use passive voice may be preferable".
:::::::* avoiding second-person pronouns ↗ in (for example) instructions; in which case WP:MOS ↗ profers as one of several possible alternatives: "The passive voice may sometimes be used instead". ("May" not "must".)
:::::::* "in encyclopedic material, where its careful use avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions, as well as tone problems. Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed [...]." Here the WP:MOS ↗ states a fact about "careful use" in "encyclopedic material" in general, but nevertheless definitively advises against unneeded passive-voice constructions ↗.
:::::::* keeping "the focus on the subject instead of performing a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party"; where WP:MOS ↗ notes a stylistic trap - one which editors can often avoid with a little re-writing. Generally, Wikipedia consigns non-notable parties to an un-Wikilinked limbo, but they may still play a role in fleshing out an article.
:::::::* "to avoid leaping to certain-sounding conclusions from uncertain facts"; here WP:MOS ↗ highlights the standard Wikipedia requirement for verifiability, a guideline surely familiar to all but the most casual Wikipedia editors.
:::::::* minimizing "how-to" instructions in medicine-related articles ↗: "Instead describe the guidelines and procedures in a reader-neutral manner, perhaps by using passive voice"; where the word "perhaps" suggests passive use as an option, not as a requirement.

::::::: On the other hand, we also find other Wikipedian recommendations against using the passive voice:
:::::::* in video-gaming ↗ articles: "Use active voice and avoid passive voice."
:::::::* In a former section of the Manual of Style: "Certain weasel words require a sentence to be in the passive voice [...] Most critically, editors should not use passive voice constructs to avoid attributing words or actions to the appropriate speaker or subject, or to omit any other important detail from a sentence." - (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Clarity ↗)

::::::: Overall, Wikipedia recommends using active-voice constructions, while noting/permitting a limited number of passive-voice uses.

::::::: Did I miss any important Wikipedia policies/guidelines on voice preferences?

::::::: The Wikipedia Manual of Style ↗ does not prescribe or proscribe ↗ use of the verb "to be" - it does recommend in general terms "straightforward, easily understood language" (rather than convoluted, potentially vague passives or arrant assertions). If you can point to specific policy-strictures on my editing, please do: it might help me to avoid causing wrath which can appear - to me - unjustified. Personal preferences will inevitable creep into edits (and into reversions) - the Wikipedia mission remains to produce understandable, concise and clear text.
::::::: - 131.203.251.134 ↗ (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, your wall of text shows you are able to read the MoS with regards to the passive, without demonstrating any basis, I note, for your bizarre personal aversion to the verb to be. However, your editing behaviour frequently violates any reasonable interpretation of the above guidelines. Particularly your reversal of passive constructions designed to maintain focus, to which you have added an interpretation not present in the MoS.

:::::::Please make the above screed your last post on my talk page, it is clear you are committed to your decision to make wikipedia worse, I don't think there is anything more to say. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic FAC

Hi Boynamedsue,
You reviewed Levantine for GA ↗ in July 2021. Since then I improved it a lot and after promoting it to GA I recently nominated it for FAC ↗. I would love if you could have a second look at the article and provide some feedback. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Barons Baden-Powell

I added and clarified considerable content and added sources in these articles and made the subjects the focus of statements to improve the articles. I tried to be accommodating to your repeated edit that the subjects were UK peers with what I thought was a compromise that encompassed your edit without tautology. However, you then reverted the lead to a version with content you clearly didn't support in your previous edits. You suggest there is a "content disagreement" between my edit and yours but the only difference in content was your inclusion of a statement that the subjects were British peers with a link to UK peerage article. However, I included those points and link in my last edit, so there really was no "content disagreement". I note you have indicated you have no strong opinion on the notability of the subjects. Please consider what is really notable about the subjects and that my latest version attempted to encompass your edit. Thanks & regards. 115.42.10.126 ↗ (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
::Please see my message on your talkpage. Content discussions should be on the article talkpage. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of :Paddy Pimblett ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''':Paddy Pimblett ↗''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddy Pimblett  (2nd nomination) ↗ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
</div> <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b> <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%"><span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span></span> 23:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

3rr

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ↗ regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring ↗.  Thank you. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:Weasel

Hey there @Boynamedsue, I see you reverted a couple of WP:WEASEL ↗.

It seems we have a different understanding of this issue.

Here's how I understand it:

an English high school teacher in 1941 writes: "these three great papers set the foundation for mechanics".

Somebody on Wikipedia writes: "This paper is regarded as one of the three most important papers in mechanics. [cites above]"

For me, this is clearly very '''subjective'''. It is not a fact.

A fact would be: "a high school teacher in 1941 considered this to be one of the foundational papers of mechanics."

I find these kind of authoritative statements very misleading and uninformative, as it at first glance implies something very important has been said, when in fact it is just one person having a subjective opinion.

How do you see it? Maybe I misunderstood. :)
'wɪnd (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
:See also
:* WP:NPOV ↗
:* WP:Embrace_weasel_words#When_not_to_embrace ↗ 'wɪnd (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
::Puzzled what the problem is here, if you feel there is opinion which should be attributed here, just attribute it. This is usually a better course than tagging. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm happy to clarify. My intention is to understand, I'm new here. You clearly seem more experienced.
:::If I understand you correctly, you say:
:::1. If an opinion is stated with a valid source, then never tag.
:::2. If an opinion is stated which does not seem like a WP:NPOV ↗, then add attribution. For example, I would write ''"a high school teacher in 1941 considered this to be one of the three foundational papers of mechanics."''
:::Did I understand you correctly? 'wɪnd (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
::::And if so, the tag seems to have been appropriate here ↗, no? An opinion was stated without attribution. 'wɪnd (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::Well, the difference between opinion and fact is not as clear as all that. The whom tags are there to stop vague claims and the opinion of '''one person''' being passed off as a factual statement. So if, for example, the vast majority of specialists in a field consider something to be true, but the thing itself is fundamentally unknowable, then we can use "is considered" without attributing it. An example of that is here ↗.
:::::That also goes if the source is reliable and uses language similar to the phrase, so if the text says "It is thought that Columbus's third ship was painted blue" then we are ok to use language like "Columbus' third ship is thought to have been painted blue" and it should not be tagged, because a reliable expert has said exactly this.
:::::If the statement looks to you like it might be the opinion of one particular writer, then you can simply attribute it to that person. If it looks like it is not a particularly useful thing to say, or the writer is not sufficiently notable to include their view, then you can simply delete the information. If a person is published in Nature (which I believe is the person you are referring to) then whatever jobs they may or may not have performed during their lifetime, the best way to introduce their opinion would be along the lines of "Joe Bloggs ↗, writing in the journal Nature ↗ in 1941, stated that...". Nature is a very good source and more or less confers notability on any view it publishes.
:::::In terms of the last example, I made a judgment call in removing the tag and the hedging (is considered), my view was that the work was "major" was not an opinion, given its importance and length and the bibliography of Archimedes. I don't think "major work" is an opinion there, except in the fact that "major" is an abstract concept of importance apportioned by humans which can not be scientifically measured. I don't believe the contrary opinion is seriously held (I may be wrong there, but that obviously doesn't enter into the question of why I removed the tag). The whole article is unsourced there, which is a much bigger problem, there are tags which go at the top of the page for that.

:::::Does that make sense?
Boynamedsue (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
:@Boynamedsue I appreciate you laying out in such detail your thought process. It took me a little bit to digest yours and others' information, but now clarity is emerging, as for where my opinion and the consensus might differ.
:At first, I felt a bit put off by how you removed the the tags and first answered me, since I needed more kindness and respect. But now I see that you're actually very thoughtful, have sound opinions, and do deeply care. Thank you, I do very much appreciate you helping me see that.
:The three texts I found most helpful were WP:RSPSS ↗ and MOS:PUFFERY ↗ and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ↗. For example, arguably, Nature is a very reliable resource for cutting-edge peer-reviewed research, but not necessarily for history of science. 'wɪnd (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:: @'wɪnd You are welcome, I apologise for being a little too short in my first answer to you. I thought you were an editor who had much more experience on wikipedia, as people don't usually get round to things like tagging until later on in their careers. If I had checked your history I would have taken the time to explain the way I saw things first time round. I wish you all the best for the future. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

What is etymology?

Hello. I am contacting you because of a discussion about etymology on another website, Final Fantasy Fandom ↗. That wiki gives a definition of etymology, followed by a link to Wikipedia etymology page (their page here ↗), and then features 2700 etymologies (list here ↗), almost all of them being similar to these three:

'''Etymology of absolute zero ↗:''''' Absolute zero is the coldest possible temperature. More formally, it is the temperature at which entropy reaches its minimum value.''

'''Etymology of fire ↗:''''' Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.''

'''Etymology of Shiva ↗:''''' Shiva (also spelled Śiva) is a Hindu god. The Hindu Shiva once saved the world by consuming poison, giving him blue skin around the area of the neck and throat. [etc. etc.]''

Are these three examples etymologies, or not? Since you are an active member of Wikipedia Linguistics Project ↗, your opinion could solve the discussion (if you prefer to avoid any involvement, just write it, I will understand). Thank you in advance for your time and attention. --Abacos (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
:: Hi Abacos, that's a really interesting question.

:: If we look at the FF wiki page which defines the FFwiki etymology category like this "Etymology is a section of coverage and namespace on the Final Fantasy Wiki. It is used for the etymology - the study of the origin of words - of terms in the Final Fantasy series, to explain where the names of terms in the Final Fantasy series originate and show where influences are drawn from." - well, yes, all those "etymologies" would fit the definition. Whether that exactly squares with the way the word is used in linguistics, I would say probably not. An etymology would look at the past iterations of the word and trace its history back as far as possible, the etymologies on the ff wiki seem focused on giving a precise definition of what the term means outside of the FF universe rather than the history of the word.

::However, a case could be made to say they are etymologies, in the sense that, if someone asked me the etymology of the word Poteen ↗, I might say "it comes from the name of the small pot they used to distill the poteen in". It would be a very incomplete etymology, and misses out the exceptionally important detail of the etymon ↗, Irish "pota", meaning pot, but it is kind of an etymology. The FF wiki etymology pages are giving that information, sort of, even though it is not their main focus. They do give the last step of the path that took the word into the FF universe, so a case could be made that etymology is not entirely incorrect as a description of what that series of articles do.

::Might I enquire as to the nature of the debate about this on the FF Wiki? Boynamedsue (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your nice answer. A short summary of the debate is: my position is that FF-etymologies are not etymologies, because en etymology is the history of the ''form'' of a word (or the history of the phonological changes of a word), while the position of FF Fandom is that etymology is just the origin of a word. They refer to the Wikipedia Etymology ↗ page as their only evidence, despite the fact that it contradicts them. Therefore, I provided further evidence from other websites (<small>the Online Etymology Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the Wiktionary</small>), and they accused me of ''"acting as though you are the arbiter of the definition of the word "etymology""''. --Abacos (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:::: @Abacos Sorry for the late response, I've been on holiday. Well, I think to a degree you are probably right in the sense that this is not what a linguist looks at as etymology. But on the other hand, there is no ready term available which means "definition of a word immediately prior to its adoption into another language/jargon/sphere", which is what the people at FF fandom want, so choosing "etymology" is not that bad an option. It's not right linguistically, but fandoms alter the meanings of words all the time. In your place I would probably take comfort in the fact you are right, as shown by the answers other wikiproject members have given you, but accept that this online community is taking the term and giving it their own meaning. This happens a lot with words which are borrowed between languages, a language belongs to a culture and therefore a word's meaning can shift to suit that culture's needs. I suppose subcultures (of which fandoms are a variety) must work in the same way. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Passive

I agree with you on the passive voice issue and wish you luck with it. As a fellow EFL teacher, the editors who needlessly change stuff to active voice have always peeved me.
One tiny point, it's 'with regard to'. 'Regards' are good wishes. That's another pet peeve. :) NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Girls with Guns ↗

Thank you. I was unable to find the cited book on line, but I trust that your change is accurate. pburka (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
:pburka, you are welcome. Here is the link ↗ for future reference, it is page 172. --Boynamedsue (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Re Béarnais. I'm not drive-by tagging

Someone makes a claim that flies in the face of everything known of dialectology in general and Romance dialectology in particular. They need to supply a very good source or correct the claim. The tag invites anyone who wishes to 'discuss'. I can put up a little notice in talk to start that along. Meanwhile, please leave the tag. The feature dubious-discuss is Wikipedia's, established for good reason, including warning ingenuous readers that the statement might not be trustworthy. It's meant to be used. Thanks. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
:You literally are drive by-tagging. You tagged with{{dubious}} and then didn't discuss. If you use that tag, you should always leave a reasoned argument on the talkpage for why it should be there, based on the content of reliable sources. If you had done so, the tag wouldn't have been removed. If the reality is different in reliable sources, you could read the reliable sources and edit the text so it reflects them and add them as citations, this is much more constructive than tagging. Driving by and dropping tags on articles is of no real benefit to the quality of the article, and if you don't take the time to justify them, them others have no obligation to leave them there. -Boynamedsue (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
::First off, let's drop the drive-by nonsense, which can just as well be claimed, somewhat less erroneously, to immediate deletion of a purposeful tag. As for actual substance, I don't disagree that it would have been better for me to have elaborated a bit of explanation in talk. I do disagree that a warning of 'dubious' is of no benefit, as stated clearly above. We can bicker endlessly over this: "if you don't take the time to justify them, them others have no obligation to leave them there", and apply -- or not -- the same principle to not just harmless tags, but to misinformation in actual article text, or modify it to something like "If you don't understand why the tag is there, leave it alone for the attention of those who do". But like this back-and-forth now -- one peremptory declaration vs another -- , such bickering is a waste of time. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Looking on Google Scholar, it seems exceptionally common to describe Bearnese as a form of Gascon, I would suggest that you find a source for your point of view, or the tag's going to disappear. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Béarnais is a form of Gascon. No quibble whatsoever with that. The text claims something quite different. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::So in that case why did you tag instead of fixing the text? If you had invested the amount of time you have spent on my talkpage complaining about my removal of your drive-by tag in improving the article, the text would actually reflect exactly the language you wish to see. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, look (an attempt to discuss)

1. I do now see the external link I missed earlier when I called your quote uncited, so I will strike the word.

2. I truly do not understand the dislike of Denisova you seem to display. Nor do I understand how it would somehow be more respectful to say that “official x says that rapes were reported in city X, but official x was fired from her job.” Maybe there is room for civil discussion there.

3. When a government official makes a statement about something, they are, to my understanding, a primary source. They can be quoted but secondary sources are preferred, and considerations of weight apply, such as whether the remarks are on a topic that is within their expertise and/or jurisdiction. In general, a reporter tends to assume that a Ukrainian general is an expert source on the Ukrainian military, for example. This doesn’t mean they speak the truth and nothing but the truth, which is another question of weight, sure. But if you have reason to not believe them then this needs to be cited and the question becomes whether the controversy is integral to the topic of the article and notable enough for inclusion.

For example, somebody who wanted to support a statement about the emblem of the Azov Battalion used a reference to a Deutshe Welle article about a man arrested in Belarus for wearing a Marvel Punisher T-shirt because the policeman thought it was the emblem of the Azov Battalion. Clearly the policeman is not an expert on the emblem of the Azov Battalion, and while Deutsche Welle is a fine source, the article was about the lawsuit over the arrest not the emblem of the Azov Battalion.

But Denisova’s job was war crimes. My thought is that she is material to the war crimes article but not pivotal to it. Her dismissal can’t be ignored but it also isn’t as important as war crimes reported by secondary sources. It would, in my opinion, trivialize these rapes to inject her into every sentence about them. This is why *I* have been getting angry with you. There have also been suggestions elsewhere, not by you afaik, that all statements by Ukrainian officials need to be “verified”, as though they were naughty children who clearly might lie. But you should not be on the receiving end of irritation caused by someone else. So if you have not done this, I am sorry about that.

4. Let’s agree that the topic is upsetting

5. Let’s process that Wikipedia may ^weigh* but does not *verify* reporting by news sources.

6. I’d also like to mention that when I ask about language issues, this is not intended as an insult. I spend most of my time in Wikipedia on language and machine translation. My expertise in French, and I have made cautious forays into Spanish and Portuguese because we seem to lack speakers of those languages. I do not claim to speak Italian though, beyond the ability to recognize it, and perhaps its topic, and it gives me a headache. I do sometimes, even more cautiously, attempt to remediate machine translation from other languages. Anyway, I can see that slang might lead to misunderstandings, and will try to avoid it when talking with you as you requested

7. I am glad you are now saying “in part” because of her rape statements, but I can’t make a binary agree/disagree statement about that, because I believe that the administration felt that her time was better spent elsewhere, not, as you seem to think, that “unverified” is a euphemism for “untrue”. If you care enough about such crimes to be offended by discussions of them, perhaps you are aware that they are often dismissed and are at best difficult to prove.

I am posting the above in all humility it hopes it helps. Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ribbentrop

I noticed this ↗, and your edit summary. What content would you say was removed? John (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:I don't really remember. From looking at the diff before the one you link, nothing stands out. It might be that the format that the user uses for references could have caused me to miss some information that was added after the new format citation? Boynamedsue (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2022 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2022|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Misgender

Please do not misgender me with "they". My pronouns are published, so please use them accurately. Elizium23 (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
:Apologies for any offence caused, but this was not a case of misgendering, it was a use of "they" for an individual whose gender I was not (and still am not) aware of. This is standard English usage which I will continue to follow. As this is clearly important to you, I will be happy to edit the comment to reflect the pronouns of your preference should you advise me of them, as they are not immediately clear from a quick scan of your userpage. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your careful and thoughtful recent edits on Modafinil, curing a bad case of tagging bloat amongst other simplifications. I've been ignoring my watchlist for a few weeks, so it's good to know that Wikipedia is working exactly as it should, with another editor catching what I missed. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
|}

:Thanks a lot DAP, all the best :) Boynamedsue (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ This is your '''only warning'''; if you make personal attacks ↗ on others again, as you did at :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting ↗, you may be '''blocked from editing ↗ without further notice'''. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''Poisoning the well ↗ as you are doing with false accusations of canvassing and sniveling about the WP:CABAL ↗ is a real throwback to bad behavior on WP, but it is not allowed. Cut it out.'' jps (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:Please strike out the word "sniveling" as this, ironically, constitutes a personal attack. I would advise you to stop editing in areas you feel passionate about for a while, because your edits and attitudes are very much falling foul of WP:BATTLEGROUND ↗ --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Romani people in Hungary ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Romani people in Hungary ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL ↗ and missing title ↗" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_people_in_Hungary&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1155767693%7CRomani%20people%20in%20Hungary%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

the muslim gypsys of romania

Hello here is a very interesting article about them:

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2721940/view Nafteta (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:Many thanks Nafteta, that's brilliant. I'll look at it and see if I can add something about them to the article, unless you want to try yourself? --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::Heads up, this user has confessed to being a sock puppet of banned editor Nalanidil. <b><span style="color: darkred;">Tagawor</span></b><b><span style="color:#B2910A;">Shah</span></b> (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks, User:TagaworShah. The ban was nothing to do with the question of Horahane Rroma was it? It does seem reasonable to include information in the Romani people in Romania article, but if there is something else going on I will proceed with caution. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::::I’m not sure, all I know is that Nalanidil was banned for disruptive editing and that included information about the Horahane but if you want to add information from the source in your own words, go for it! <b><span style="color: darkred;">Tagawor</span></b><b><span style="color:#B2910A;">Shah</span></b> (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for trying to help me with Rfca neutrality. Mikola22 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2023 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Merry Christmas

<div class="center" style="background:darkgreen;border:no;padding:0.2em 0em;{{round corners}}"><br />600px|center|alt=Christmas postcard ↗ <span style="color:white;">~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~</span>{{pb}}

''<span style="color:lightyellow;">'''Hello Boynamedsue:''' Enjoy the ''' <span style="color:yellow;">holiday season</span> ↗''' and '''<span style="color:yellow;">winter solstice</span> ↗''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --<span style="color: navy">'''Dustfreeworld'''</span> (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)</span>''
</div>

Merry Christmas!

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:darkred; border-width:3px; text-align:center; padding:3px; width:800px;" class="plainlinks">196px|right ↗
{{font|text='''<nowiki>~~~</nowiki> Merry Christmas! <nowiki>~~~</nowiki>'''|font=Century Gothic|size=30px|color=gold}}<br />{{font|color=gold|text=''Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!<br />¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!<br />God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!<br />Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!<br />Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!<br />শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!<br />สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส!'' ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! <br> Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete!|font=Times New Roman|size=19px}}</div>
{{font|text=''Hello, Boynamedsue! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas ↗ and a Happy New Year ↗!''|font=Times New Roman|size=19px}}<br /><span style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;">'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''</span><sup>(T) ↗</sup> 20:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
<div style="float:left">''{{resize|88%|Spread the WikiLove ↗ and leave other users this message by adding {{tls|Multi-language Season's Greetings}}}}''</div>{{-}} <span style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;">'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''</span><sup>(T) ↗</sup> 20:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

<div style="border: 2px solid red; background-color: #FFFAF0">
<div style="float:left;vertical-align:middle;"> 175px ↗ </div>
<span style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;"> '''Happy New Year ↗!''' </span> <br/>
<div style="margin-left:177px;vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid green;"> '''Hello Boynamedsue: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year ↗!''' Cheers, <span style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;">'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''</span><sup>(T) ↗</sup> 22:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)</div>
<br><br>
<small style="margin-left:15px">Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.</small>
</div>{{clear}} <span style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;">'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''</span><sup>(T) ↗</sup> 22:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people (UK)

Hello Boynamedsue,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Joseywales1961, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people (UK) ↗, for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Gypsies, Roma and Travellers in the UK ↗. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can <span class="plainlinks">'''Roma and Traveller people (UK)}}&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion ↗'''</span> but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Gypsy%2C+Roma+and+Traveller+people+%28UK%29&subtype=delete|deleting administrator}}.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with <code><nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Joseywales1961<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>. And, don't forget to sign your reply with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> . Thanks!

<small>Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.</small>

<span style="color:green">''Josey Wales''</span><sup> <span style="color:#0000CD">''Parley''</span></sup> 19:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
:Sorted already with the other article bing deleted, thank you <span style="color:green">''Josey Wales''</span><sup> <span style="color:#0000CD">''Parley''</span></sup> 19:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent tag resolution

Thanks for your recent edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sentinelese_language&curid=8584368&diff=1218270026&oldid=1218012370 ↗. I actually now realise that I only added the tag because I misread the text as saying "It has been recorded that the Jarawa and Sentinelese languages are mutually *intelligible*." So my bad, and thanks for your work on Wikipedia resolving over a thousand tags.{{verification needed | 😉}} -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
::Don't worry, that was actually a correctly applied tag, and it is now fixed. "Not mutually intelligible" is much stronger than what the source says and it was WP:WEASEL ↗ words. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence at ''Venezuelan politics''

Your evidence at Venezuelan politics ↗ is currently over your word limit of 500 words. At my count you are about 700 words.

If you are planning on any other evidence, you will need to request an extension to your word limit. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i> <sup>''talk to me'' | ''my contributions ↗''</sup> 20:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Dreamy Jazz}}Hi, thanks for telling me. Do I not count as an involved user? As I understood it that is 1000 words.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:You are only a "party" if you are listed on the main page of the case under the parties section. Everyone else, even if considered traditionally involved, are subject to the 500 word limit. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i> <sup>''talk to me'' | ''my contributions ↗''</sup> 16:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::Cheers {{ping|Dreamy Jazz}}. I've cut it down to 500ish now, should be fine? My only concern is the last 16 diffs which are based on claims which are in sources but have been surreptitiously deleted. Obviously from the diff, it may not be clear what the text in the source is. Will I get a chance to explain this down the line if necessary?

::BTW, do you have any idea what has happened with WMrapids? Can't find any mention of them in any of the usual noticeboards where people might get blocked. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for trimming your evidence to 500 words. If the arbitrators have questions about the diffs, they will ask them if they feel the need to do so. {{noping|WMrapids}} was blocked based on checkuser evidence ↗ (as denoted through the reason for the block). Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i> <sup>''talk to me'' | ''my contributions ↗''</sup> 08:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, BNS ... your post here ↗ landed in the wrong section (you're not a party); perhaps you could move it down to the Comment by others section? I don't think others are supposed to do that sort of thing for you on arb pages ... regards, '''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span> (Talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Camilla Henemark ↗

Hello! If you are interested in saving most of what's in that arcticle, see talk there! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Your username

For the longest time, I thought your username was something foreign--until I read it again slowly and realized it was named after the Johnny Cash song, A Boy Named Sue ↗. Cute. Thanks for your work at ArbCom. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:Haha, love my country music. No worries, we'll see how it turns out at arbcom.--Boynamedsue (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes ↗

Hi, and thanks for keeping an eye out for copyright violations! I just wanted to let you know that this article copied from a source already in the public domain, so there are no copyright issues with it. As such, I've removed the tag you added. You can find attribution at the bottom of the page. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|ARandomName123}}Thanks for working on these tagged pages. It isn't a copyright problem, but we are not allowed to plagiarise out of copyright sources either (our rules, not law). What is the correct template to apply in that case? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:Hi, as long as the source is attributed, we are allowed to copy however much out of copyright text (or any compatibly licensed text) we see fit. Plagiarism only occurs if we don't credit the source, but in the case of this article, we do, using the template {{tl|DNB}}. If there is missing attribution, all that is required is to add it through a template like {{tl|source attribution}} or {{tl|Creative Commons text attribution notice}}. ARandomName123 (talk)<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 17:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues ↗. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue ↗. <span class="nowrap">Chess (talk) <small>(please mention ↗ me on reply)</small></span> 02:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Vila do Corvo ↗

Special:Diff/1225983606/1225993705 ↗: Links copy-pasted from Google Scholar don't work, they are intentional "born dead" with a 60-minute expire time. There are permanent links on Academia.edu .. WP:AWSURL ↗ has more info. -- <span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span><span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span> 23:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks Green C, apologies for creating work for you there. I will keep an eye on this in future.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Flower chicken?

What do you mean when you write this as your reason for changes to wiki articles? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:Hi, it's explained on my user page. But it is MOS:PUFFERY ↗.--Boynamedsue (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:I see you are a new user, so it is worth pointing out that "flower chicken" is a name I use for superstitious reasons, but nobody else does.--Boynamedsue (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>


{{clear}}

Greetings of the season

<div class="center" style="background:darkgreen;border:no;padding:0.2em 0em;{{round corners}}"><br />alt=A Merry Christmas. (Sled with holly)|600px|center ↗ <span style="color:white;">~ ~ ~ Greetings of the season ~ ~ ~</span>{{pb}}

''<span style="color:lightyellow;">'''Hello Boynamedsue:''' Enjoy the ''' <span style="color:yellow;">holiday season</span> ↗''' and '''<span style="color:yellow;">winter solstice</span> ↗''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, <span style="color:OliveDrab;><small>Spread the love; use {{<span style="color:olive;">subst</span> ↗:<span style="color:olive;">User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas3</span>}} to send this message.</small></span> {{pb}}{{highlight|--<span style="color: navy">'''Dustfreeworld'''</span> (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)|OliveDrab}}</span>''</div>

Happy Holidays

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">217px|left ↗190px|right ↗217px|left ↗{{Center|301px ↗}}
'''Hello Boynamedsue:''' Enjoy the '''holiday season ↗''' and '''winter solstice ↗''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
center|500px ↗{{paragraph break}}
</div>
<div style="padding-left: 2em; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 88%; font-style: italic">Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings}} to send this message</div>{{-}} Abishe (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Boynamedsue'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|is this type of edit supposed to happen}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to is this type of edit supposed to happen ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Boynamedsue'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|How can I move a page to its redirect?}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to How can I move a page to its redirect? ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vicién ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vezzano ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick note of appreciation for your patience and sensibleness on the RSN HnH discussion BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Bobfrombrockley}} No problem, the same goes to you. HnH have occasionally said things I disagree with, but it is absurd to suggest they are unreliable. I'm glad it was at RSN, where a lot of reasonable users are about.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for creating African gangs moral panic ↗, an interesting article on how mass media exaggeration can lead to harm directed towards racial minorities. It reminds me of when conservative politicians over here in the U.S. started spreading rumors about Haitian immigrants eating cats ↗. That being said, have a nice day! <span style="color: purple;">🌙'''Eclipse'''</span> (she/they/it/other neos ↗ • talk • edits ↗) 14:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
|}
::Thank you very much :)Boynamedsue (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|LunaEclipse}}Btw, I've put both cases in each other's "see also" sections...given the similarities.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

{{DYKNom|African gangs moral panic}} ''<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>''<sup><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b></sup> 14:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think you should nominate this article for GAN if possible. No pressure though. {{wink}} <span style="color: purple;">🌙'''Eclipse'''</span> (she/they/it/other neos ↗ • talk • edits ↗) 14:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::@LunaEclipse lol I've got four articles waiting for either GA reviews or WP:PEER REVIEW ↗. I'll think about it. ''<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>''<sup><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b></sup> 14:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::TarnishedPath, this was directed towards Sue, but I think a co-nom would be nice. <span style="color: purple;">🌙'''Eclipse'''</span> (she/they/it/other neos ↗ • talk • edits ↗) 14:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::@LunaEclipse If they nominated it, I'm willing to help with editing during the review process. ''<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>''<sup><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b></sup> 15:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thanks to both of you for your kind words and offers of help. There is still a bit more to be added to the article before it would be ready for GA. But I will definitely get in touch with you to polish it up when I've added the missing sections.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

By whom?

"It was recognised" begs the question - who recognised? OC, The Royal Artillery? The General Staff? The Minister for War? The article tells us who took action but not at whose behest. (I'm being picky because I think that the article is capable of achieving GA and this is the kind of detail that would stop it.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:This was Prince William, Duke of Cumberland ↗, and it was a completely valid maintenance request. I've jumped in and fixed it.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JMF}}, {{ping|AntientNestor}} Have a read of WP:WEASEL ↗, if you think anything in there is relevant in this case, then the tag was correct. If not, perhaps a clarify tag might be in order, but definitely not a by whom.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
::::The wording tagged was very close to the deprecated wording in Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Avoid peacock and weasel terms ↗ and the maintenance tag was completely valid. The tag shouldn’t be removed until the issue is resolved ↗.--AntientNestor (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|AntientNestor}} Nah. Weasel words are when you are making a statement and passing it off as expert opinion without saying who said it. An example might be: "'''It is believed''' the plan was rejected." The sentence that was tagged was simply a use of the passive voice without an agent, for example: "The plan '''was rejected'''." The second sentence might be improved with an agent (or not), but it has nothing to do with WP:WEASEL ↗ and so shouldn't be tagged with the "by whom" tag.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Weasel words are also when you are making a statement and relying on passive voice to hand-wave it through "because everybody knows", meaning you have failed (or haven't bothered!) to find the RS. Tagging as weasel is a gentle first warning, to be escalated to a WP:OR ↗ challenge if not resolved.
::::::Use of passive voice is always at least an orange flag for weasel wording ahead. If the agency is not clear from an immediately preceding or succeeding phrase, or obvious from context, then it is weasel wording.
::::::* "Pepys presented his proposal to the Admiralty, but his plan was rejected." - not weasel
::::::* "Pepys proposed a new Navy dock at Tilbury, but his plan was rejected." - questionable but reasonable to assume that the agent was the Admiralty or the First Sea Lord.
::::::* "It was proposed that Pepys should leave at once" - at best sloppy writing unless it is obvious from context that it was in the course of a meeting, where it generally doesn't really matter who proposed{{snd}} what matters is who decided. Probable weasel. Tolerable in a C class article but certainly not GA class (unless it incidental to the narrative, but then why mention it at all?).
::::::"It is believed" or "it is thought" are red flags for WP:OR ↗ but yes, certainly weasel.
::::::In this case, it really is important to know who commissioned the survey, as it involved a great deal of money. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I don't know enough about the topic to know how important it is to know the agent precisely in this case. If it is essential, a clarify tag can be used. "It was proposed that Pepys should leave at once" is definitely not WP:WEASEL ↗, though. This kind of structure is sometimes essential as the agent is not known or WP:DUE ↗, and it is not trying to pass off something that is not supported as fact: {{tq|Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.}}

:::::::In the case of the precise edit, I removed the tag from, the claim was precise: "In the aftermath of the Jacobite rising of 1745 ↗ it was recognised that there was a need for an accurate map of the Scottish Highlands ↗." In the context of the article, this means that within the British military apparatus this idea led to a decision, that is not an ambiguous claim. The following sentence would be [WP:WEASEL]]. "It is thought that in the aftermath of the Jacobite rising of 1745, the Duke of Cumberland (military commander against the rebels) – advised by Lieutenant-Colonel David Watson, a Deputy Quartermaster-General of the Board of Ordnance – recognised that there was a need for an accurate map of the Scottish Highlands." And even this would only be WP:WEASEL ↗ if the source did not use similarly hedged language.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hana Shalabi ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

DYK for African gangs moral panic

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On 15 March 2025 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''African gangs moral panic ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the political and media storm around so-called '''African gangs in Australia ↗''' has been described by academics as a moral panic?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/African gangs moral panic ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(here's how, African gangs moral panic ↗)</small>, and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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 ↗.
}}  — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberty Reserve ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Otger Cataló ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montcada ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Otger Cataló ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercator ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Boynamedsue'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Dictionary of National Biography and notability}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Dictionary of National Biography and notability ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Boynamedsue'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Correct place to ask about notability concerns}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Correct place to ask about notability concerns ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}

DYK nomination of Death of Abisay Cruz

25px ↗ Hello! Your submission of Death of Abisay Cruz ↗ 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!  Storye book (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon ↗

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help towards making the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span> 14:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Scouting article IP user

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Search for Sydney Scouting IP Erp (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Death of Abisay Cruz

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On 5 July 2025 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Death of Abisay Cruz ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''that to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Duster ↗'s '''''Stratosphere ↗''''', a vinyl copy of the album was launched into space?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Abisay Cruz ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(here's how, Death of Abisay Cruz ↗)</small>, and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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 ↗.
}} '''<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span><span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>''' 03:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Steve Irwin Day

The source you said I should have read is a crappy one which seems to be primarily aimed at worshipping Irwin. Not all of us do that. The link within the article to the Steve Irwin Day website seems to not exist. And the day is definitely not celebrated all over Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping| HiLo48}} There are four live sources for Steve Irwin Day on the page including the HuffPost ↗, which is included on our list of perennial trusted sources ↗. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

::The HUffPost article says " the legendary crocodile hunter to be be remembered at Australia Zoo". Don't make the mistake of thinking Australians in general are as excited about Irwin as Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

HRW and NGOs

Hello. Why is HRW ↗ an "opinionated source"? And why do NGOs ↗ require attribution? FSlolhehe (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|FSlolhehe}}Hi, HRW has specific political opinions which it frequently expresses. NGOs are not generally trying to achieve a neutral perspective, but to advocate for certain things to happen, so when we repeat what they say we tend to attribute,--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::Well I understand now. Thanks. FSlolhehe (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved page

Hello Boynamedsue, I came across Wikipedia:North West Counties League Premier Division ↗ while looking for articles accidentally created in the WP namespace. I have moved it to User:Boynamedsue/North West Counties League Premier Division. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Resolving by whom

Hey looking forward to working with you more. I did want to share my opinion that when resolving by whom tags the answer is not usually who reported the info. The answer to by whom is usually who the source is in the article. The one you did on Kash Patel ↗ I think is fine though. Czarking0 (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
:You'd be surprised. My long experience of this is that very often the person who adds the tag could easily have resolved it themselves. I pinged you mostly to show something was being done about your tags. Anyway, as I said in the post at the American politics project, the tags were completely justified, and I would be amazed if nobody there has access to the WP article. Hopefully they will resolve the problem.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Ignazio La Russa ↗ article

The article's neutrality could be improved even further, perhaps by changing some of the terminology. ~2026-45579-2 ↗ (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

right|80px ↗
Hi Boynamedsue, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right ↗ to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation ↗ tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed ↗. If you asked for this at requests for permissions ↗, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol ↗. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers ↗ to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions

If you use Twinkle ↗, configure it ↗ to log your CSDs and PRODs

If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies ↗

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources ↗. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! <sub>signed, </sub>'''''Rosguill''''' <sup>''talk''</sup> 15:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Minpeco

Hello Boynamedsue! Your lasts edits on Minpeco ↗ have not been helpful.

Please familiarize yourself with the policies of article deletion before doing attemts like you did in Minpeco ↗. The procedures and policies are described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ↗. Ingminatacam (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
::Hi {{ping|Ingminatacam}}, the article has not been deleted, it has been moved to draft as part of the new article review process. The article does not currently have enough sources to justify its notability. Please add sourcing before putting it forward for review again, as deletion is the likely outcome if you do so.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Boynamedsue, that the articles four independent sources are not enough is your opinion, not a Wikipedia policy. I object to that and will now restore the article. There are plenty of ways of improve articles rather than attempting unilateral soft-deletions are moving to draft-space actually is. Ingminatacam (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
::::First and foremost, moving to draft is not soft deletion. It is an opportunity to improve articles that do not meet our criteria for inclusion. Secondly, I don't think you really get a choice on whether a page is draftified or not, but I will check on that for you. Thirdly, I don't share your analysis of the sources. ''El Descubrimiento de Pruebas en el Extranjero: Minpeco S. A. vs. Nelson Bunker Hunt'' is the first source on the reference list where a case could be made that significant coverage exists (per WP:SIGCOV ↗), however, I feel the mentions of Minpeco there do not amount to more than trivial coverage. ''Manipulation on Trial: Economic Analysis and the Hunt Silver Case'' may or may not give more than trivial coverage, but that is for you to establish before the page passes review. The sourcing is weak, and could do with strengthening. If not, it needs justification on the talk page.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I am aware not all sources are of the best quality, but it would have been enough to tag the article with Template:More citations needed ↗ rather than, without discussion, single-handedly send the article to "draft" where it will stay months awaiting a review. This way of operating discourages editors that create content on difficult subjects and is often more of a way to bypass ordinary deletion procedures because the creator of article will not necessarily be around to challenge the speedy deletion or to submitt the article to understaffed and lenghty draft review process. Ingminatacam (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I have asked in the Reviewers forum about your options to challenge the article being moved to draft, so I'll get back to you when I hear something. I get what you are saying about the review process, I have had an article of my own waiting for review for ages, and it is really frustrating.

::::::Getting draftified doesn't really slow down the review process on an article that has existed for more than a couple of days, in fact it probably speeds it up. We have a worklist that we can work from the newest or oldest. Once you are 48 hours in, your article is not going to get picked up quickly by people working from the top. However, after you resubmit a draft, it goes back to the top of the list and is more, not less, likely to be reviewed quickly.

::::::When we look at a new article, we can press "reviewed" (effectively accepting the article into wikipedia), we can draftify (what I did with your article), we can nominate for deletion, and we can do nothing. When sourcing is a little ambiguous (especially when it is both ambiguous and not in English, unfortunately), the last option tends to get followed, as it is the path of least resistance. This is probably why you've been waiting a month. The sourcing might be enough, or it might not, so nobody wants to take a position. If you put another couple of sources in, it becomes a lot easier. Adding a big long quote to the reference also helps, though the talkpage of the draft page is also a useful place to put that info (quoting in Spanish is not a problem).

::::::Anyroad, if the draftification stands, I can guarantee you that, if you can get a few stronger sources (and justification from ''Manipulation on Trial: Economic Analysis and the Hunt Silver Case '' might help here) I will look at it as soon as you put it through for review (ping me on here).Boynamedsue (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
{{ping|Ingminatacam}} So, after the discussion, my colleagues at the reviewers forum pointed me to WP:DRAFTOBJECT ↗, which means that the text is no longer draftified. I'm in my rights to nominate for AfD, but I'm not going to at the minute. You have a couple of options here, you are entirely within your rights to do nothing. It may be that another reviewer comes along with a looser interpretation of sourcing than me. Until that time, your article will remain on wikipedia, but will not show up in searches on this site or in search engines. Alternatively, if you can find more concrete sourcing and add it to the article, notify me on here and I will have another look.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Alice DP Draft Conversation

Hi @Boynamedsue could I get your attention on this conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tonymetz#Alice_Duport-Percier_moved_to_draftspace ↗ <small style="border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">Tonymetz</small> 💬 17:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
::User:Tonymetz, User:Boynamedsue - I have a few comments. First, DRN ↗ is not intended to be the forum for discussing questions about draftification. However, if a request is filed about a case for which dispute resolution ↗ is in order, but not at DRN, I will try to advise the filing party where to take the dispute. As I noted in closing the DRN case, a dispute about whether a page should be in draft space or in article space can be resolved by the draft review process, or by a deletion discussion ↗.
:::User:Tonymetz - Your notice to Boynamedsue was not clear. You didn't say that you were asking to discuss at DRN. Use of the Twinkle feature to notify another user of a noticeboard filing is not required but is encouraged.
:::User:Boynamedsue - Your draftification message was standard and so was all right but could have been more explanatory. In particular, if your concern was that the sources were not independent (which was my concern), it would have been helpful to explain that.
:::User:Tonymetz - The basic notability criteria are listed in the biographical notability guideline ↗ and the musical notability guideline ↗. If you see that she satisfies one or two of the criteria, but it isn't obvious on reading the draft, you may explain in AFC comments or on the draft talk page. But the reader should be able, on reading the article, to understand why the subject is notable.
:::I see that the draft is being improved with the addition of new sources. If I am notified when it is ready for review, I will review it and provide a source assessment. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Hi {{ping|Tonymetz}} and {{ping|Robert McClenon}}, thanks for getting in touch. As far as I was aware the conversation was being dealt with at the draft talkpage, apologies to Tonymetz for not seeing your answer to me there. I should have asked you to ping me when you commented. Happy to leave review to Robert. I'm not 100% clear that notability is there yet, but different people see different things and I've no problem taking a step back.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Improvements to Confusing Tag

Hello @Boynamedsue

I checked over the vague and better guide on the improvement tag before correcting the sentences that were vague. What do I do after that

Thanks

Twicebefore (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

:Hi {{ping|Twicebefore}}, thanks for looking that over. I've taken the tag off. When you think you have done enough to resolve any tag, you are free to take it off yourself.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping with BBC Unclassifiedwayland (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your recent post at AN

Please do not draw attention to non-public information at noticeboards (see the Streisand effect ↗), instead email the Oversight team. Details are at Wikipedia:Oversight ↗. Thryduulf (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:{{ping|Thryduulf}} I don't use a confirmed email address on here. Do you happen to have the email address?Boynamedsue (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry for the late reply, my above message was the last one before I went to bed. The Oversight team's address is {{email|oversight-en-wp|wikipedia.org}}. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Thryduulf}} No problem at all, thanks for the info. All the best.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Request regarding Draft:Quinten Delaere (via The Teahouse)

Hi Boynamedsue,
331dot over at the Teahouse deleted the duplicate mainspace copy of the article Quinten Delaere ↗ and kept the original Draft:Quinten Delaere ↗.
Since you kindly noted earlier during the PROD that the Spanish and Flemish sources do establish notability, 331dot advised me to reach out to you directly. They suggested that I ask if you would be willing to review and move the draft into the article space, so it is done correctly by an independent reviewer instead of me.
No pressure at all, but I wanted to ask as advised by the Teahouse. Thanks again for your time and for defending the notability of the sources earlier! Kannotlogin (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:{{ping|331dot}} Hi {{ping|Kannotlogin}}, I am pinging 331dot who rejected the last draft you proposed. I am not an expert in these things, outside the fact I am a new page patroller and I have to check on various criteria to see if the article can stand. In your case, as you are both the author and subject of the article, I couldn't accept it. As I said, I felt that the article probably did demonstrate notability per WP:GNG ↗, though the guideline is clear that sometimes the community might decide that a notable topic is better as part of another article rather than a standalone article.

:I am not 100% sure what the best option is here, I don't feel comfortable moving it myself so 331dot's perspective might be useful.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::The sources in the draft establish what they are known for, but little beyond that. There needs to be some critical analysis and commentary about Kannotlogin as to how his activities make him important/significant/influential as a person. Guinness records aren't generally considered important as they are usually arbitrary and very niche. I get that as a gamer it might be interesting to the gaming community that you, Kannotlogin, discovered cheaters, but we need sources that explain why that's important beyond the gaming community. Again, this may be different from other Wikipedias. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi @331dot, But the article isn't just about the gaming and Guinness World Record. It does have the acting carrière. I've been in a few episodes of Belgians 2 biggest soap series (IMDb is still accepting the Familie requests, not sure why it's taking them so long...). Thuis ↗ and Familie ↗ and also some other projects. So I see it as a combination of multiple things. The source KW.be does call me an "actor". Kannotlogin (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::::That would not meet our definition of a notable actor ↗. Independent sources need to critically analyze your acting work, and generally that's only done for leading roles. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Understandable, but there is a combination... That's why I think the WP:GNG ↗ is good for this article just like @Boynamedsue said. Kannotlogin (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::A little bit of notability as an actor plus a little notability as a gamer does not necessarily add up to notability as a notable person. At least based on what's there currently. If what is there is all you have, and it's enough for the West Flemish Wikipedia, that's where you should focus your efforts. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

:::Thanks for getting back to me, {{ping|331dot}}. I would tend to disagree about one source, as.com. This site is a mainstream Spanish sport newspaper, of national or even international significance, and the article would usually be enough to demonstrate notability (as one of multiple sources). The Flemish source is more ambiguous, it is from a West Flanders newspaper, which we could consider a local news service and so maybe WP:ROUTINE ↗, but Flemish Belgium is a very small area and West Flanders is half of it. In my view, we must consider Flemish language press to be national level coverage in Belgium, but I understand that this is something that could be debatable. This article does discuss various aspects of Quenten's life.

:::On the other hand, I am personally very loath to allow an article written by its subject onto wikipedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Agreed, they shouldn't be putting it in the the encyclopedia themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Would it be possible to get a rewrite of the article? I do think the article is neutral and looking at the history, it has been updated a lot (it wasn't neutral at first) but I could see that it could be a good idea to maybe rewrite it so there is no COI anymore. Kannotlogin (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::You are permitted to rewrite it and submit it for a review(by clicking "resubmit" when ready). 331dot (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Ok but then it's fully rewritten by myself which you guys didn't like. Kannotlogin (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::So just to be clear. I personally published the Draft which was something I shouldn't have done. I just copy pasted the draft and called it a "translation" because I used the same for on the Flemish wiki. I thought this version was good because the tone of the article is neutral and every claim is sourced. It's also a short Belgian stub because of this reason. So maybe if one of you could change up some stuff and maybe approve it because reading the arguments, it could be accepted as a stub article? Kannotlogin (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::You have resubmitted then draft, which is the correct process. Users that are translating articles from other Wikipedias need to make sure that the article meets the requirements of the Wikipedia for which they are translating for.
:::::::::There was a time when stubs got a pass here on the English Wikipedia, that's not really the case any more; articles do not need to be 100% complete, but they do need to meet certain basic minimum standards. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Hi {{ping|Boynamedsue}}, To be clear, I hadn't written everything (almost nothing). Other people helped on the article. I saw the draft and copy pasted it to the main space. Which was something I shouldn't have done. But, since you thought the subject is notable enough and other editors (I asked some people on feedback) agree the text is neutral, could you maybe bring it back to the main space? Kannotlogin (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Hi Quenten, I'm really sorry, I can't help with approving draft articles. New Pages and Approving articles are different permissions.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Hi Boynamedsue, Sorry to ask but how are they different? Isn't it just moving the article to main space by pressing the button on the right? Because I can do that even tho I don't have the perms. And if I move it, we have the COI once again. So you can't do anything? Kannotlogin (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Using of LLM

Hi. I didn't use AI for translate the article. I writte it by myself, but it's truth that I know I wasn't sure of my grammar so I used a LLM to correct grammar, ortography, etc. But it was translated entirely by myself and the references are completely correct. MinervaAustral (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

::Ok Minerva, thanks for your reply. Can I just clarify your process? First of all, which LLM do you use?

::Secondly, as I understand it, you translate into English manually, then you put that text through an LLM with a prompt like "correct this text". Is that understanding right? --Boynamedsue (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I wrote the whole article by myself with references partly translating from Spanish Wikipedia and wiki code and then I put it all in Grammarly ↗ which suggested more "natural phrases" and did ortography changes. That's it.--MinervaAustral (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
::::{{ping|MinervaAustral}}Thanks for that. First of all, when you translate from the Spanish wikipedia, you need to put this tag ↗ on the talkpage, the language code you need is ES.

::::Translating a wikipedia page requires you to have a sufficient level in both English and Spanish. At the moment, I'm not doing anything about that, but watch out in the future because people might challenge you on the grounds of your English if the translations lead to factual errors.

::::What I am picking up as looking AI are the "natural" phrases. I could tell it was a translation of the Spanish page, but the AI is throwing up things like extra adjectives and the really weird rephrasing of "aventurero" (a natural word there would be "entrepreneur", without rephrasing). A wikipage needs neutral language "una de las ''principales'' casas de venta de especias de ciudad" is just about ok, but "one of the most ''famous'' coffeehouses in Buenos Aires" isn't. Don't accept any of its suggestions; checking your grammar is ok, LLM-chosen text is not. Nobody gets banned for clunky phrasing but people get banned every day for LLM use.

::::I've made the text into a draft page, my suggestion is to read WP:LLMSIGNS ↗ and remove the suggestions grammarly made, re-phrasing where they are not related to grammar but style. You also need to put the tag on the talkpage, then you can move it back to mainspace. After that, if you notify me, I will look at it again and accept it.

::::All the best.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

::::BTW, in terms of orthography, you should be able to add English spell-check to whatever programs you use... probs worth googling.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, I'll try to improve it the article using your recommendations. I don't think I have a bad English, it's just that I'm making a lot of ortography mistakes but taking into account your advices I'll just using my own translations and just use LLM to correct ortography. Actually, I made a lot of translations before without using it and I think I'm a very good English user. Of course, I'm stil a Spansih speaking user who has his mind thinking in the way we construct sentences in Spanish.
:::::About the references, I used at least two of the main newspapers of Argentina, Clarin and La Nación (both in Spanish) and just to use one in English I used a Japanese magazine about traveling.
:::::Anyway, thank you again and I'll try my best. MinervaAustral (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Also, sometimes in Spanish Wikipedia we used some terminology that I don't think is appropiate for English wikipedia. For instance, in Spanish Wikipedia says: "Inside the store, which is filled with a captivating aroma...". I'm always avoiding that kind of phrases. But Ok, I'll improve the article and let you know. MinervaAustral (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Great! Sorry, yes, you are right, the references are absolutely fine, I ticked the wrong box. One from Clarin and one from La Nacion is my goto for sourcing of Argentina articles. If it's in both, it's a clear pass of WP:GNG ↗.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

{{ping|MinervaAustral}} if you want to send it for review, I'm happy to approve the text as it is now. Even without my slight editing, it would have been approved. As I said, we much prefer imperfect but human texts to AI-generated stuff.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you. I sent the article for review. I would take your advices into account for next time. MinervaAustral (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
::Hi, just checking, where it says "more" on the top bar, does it give you the option "move"?Boynamedsue (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Yeah, for me it appears. MinervaAustral (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm so sorry, it's seems I cannot write about Argentina here in English Wikipedia because we are not a beutiful country nor we have such amazing places like Cornwall. I mean people here have dreams about visit places like Tregarden ↗ and let's be honest La Nación and Clarín are insignificant newspapers, who cares about Argentina? People want to escape of this country. I was reading the policies but I'm still very confused, but my mistake I used Grammarly instead of just writting like this in English without any help.
::::Please, proceed to mark the draft for speed deletion and do whatever you consider proper. Thanks, warm regards. MinervaAustral (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: :Ahrar - Syrian Liberal Party ↗

Hello Boynamedsue. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :Ahrar - Syrian Liberal Party ↗, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Articles with infoboxes do not qualify for A3. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Hello. I've left a reply to your message on my talk page, looking forward for your response. Yubudirsi (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITEKILL ↗

Per the above: {{tq|Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but '''more than three should generally be avoided'''; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations.}} - emphasis mine. This is why I placed and restored the {{tl|excessive citations}} tag. Please don't remove it without either reducing the number of citations per assertion, or spreading the citations so they are better located. - UtherSRG (talk) ↗ 22:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
:And, in your opinion, is having four citations in two places, worth tagging an article? In mine, it is not. If four annoys you personally, remove one or bundle the citations. There is still no consensus for that tag, so I have removed it.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::It's not just ''my'' opinion, as many people wrote WP:CITEKILL ↗. Please also see the instructions in this and other maintenance templates: {{tq|Learn how and when to remove this message ↗}} that instructs: {{tq|It is '''not''' okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, until the maintenance tag is no longer valid—unless it truly did not belong in the first place. Maintenance templates are '''not''' to be used to express your personal opinion.}} You are the one pushing ''your'' opinion here. Please revert yourself or fix the issue. - UtherSRG (talk) ↗ 14:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Citekill absolutely does not mandate a tag on every page that has 4 citations on a particular claim. It is my view that on that page the exceptionally small degree of overcitation (1 extra citation for two claims) does not warrant the tag. Now, I've no problem with you removing a citation or two, but as of now there is no consensus for your addition of the tag. I'm not sure why you are doing this on my talkpage not the article's, but I will link this discussion and we can continue there. If a different consensus arises, then the tag can return.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:::And it's also worth noting the WP:CITEKILL ↗ is not policy, and so doesn't mandate that 4 sources are too many either.16:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Boynamedsue (talk)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | <span style="font-size: 85%">'''New pages patrol ↗''' </span>
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Each review will earn 1 point.

Interested in taking part? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Help

Hi there, I have significantly changed many of the articles created by me and removed the A.I hallucinations, However I want opinions on Articles that I have translated since those are also A.I tagged. I have simply copied the original article from respective native language Wikipedia and replaced it with their English counterparts. I want your advice on how to fix these articles. <span style="color:#008C45">'''Marshal'''</span> <span style="color:#999">'''of'''</span> <span style="color:#CD212A">'''Italy'''</span> <small style="color:grey">talk</small> 12:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Bruce Atta Campbell

Hi re the Notability tag on this article, just wanted to confirm exactly what is needed - the biog mentions both his appointment as Lord Lieutenant of Argyllshire ↗ plus receipt of a KCB ↗, I imagine these are sufficiently significant awards that anyone receiving one would meet wp notability guidelines but please confirm if something more is needed? Ansidhean (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:Hiya, thanks for getting back to me. My reading of this is that the KCB and Lord Lieutenancies don't grant notability on their own. So you would want 2 Reliable secondary sources that give more than two paragraphs about Atta Campbell to be sure to pass WP:GNG ↗. The London Gazette is a primary source, as an official publication of the British state. ''The Scottish Rhododendron Society Yearbook 2015'' is a publication I am not sure about. I think an argument could be made that it is a reliable secondary source on plants, but perhaps not on military individuals? It's an argument people could certainly have.
:It's worth noting that I'm just a New Pages Reviewer and not the final arbiter of these things, but to be sure the page doesn't get draftified by one of my colleagues, you would want to find a couple of better sources or a basis in policy for KCB or a Lord Lieutenancy conferring notability. I would also suggest doing it before Friday, when a backlog drive starts and people are more likely to draftify things. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:Sorry, forgot to mention, Burke's is not RS.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::Great that's really helpful thanks. I had checked Burke's though, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources ↗.
::I like your point about the questionable reliability of the Rhododendron Yearbook for military individuals! I used it for convenience, it seems fairly well-researched history albeit by an amateur, and has most of the info readably in one place. Even if there are doubts about the reliability of the basic facts in that secondary source, they can be easily verifiable by solid primary sources like the Gazette references.
::There does seem to be some basis in policy for inherent notability of KCB and Lord Lieutenancy though: from WP:Notability_people ↗ notability is likely if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor".
::I'll try to have a look for other sources next, but let me know what you think meanwhile if you have time. Thanks again for your help! Ansidhean (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Transavio airline in Italy

1 - What is promotional? Do you think it's possible to promote a DEFUNCT airline?

2 - What is unclear in the text? Settignano (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

::Hi Settignano. There are phrases in the text that make no sense. The overall effect of this makes the text hard to read, even for an Italian-speaker who can make a reasonable guess at what the Italian phrases you are calqueing ↗ are. For example:

:::*aerial work company and a pioneer Italian regional airline.
:::*Transavio was the first company in Italy to carry out aerial work and aerial advertising
:::*the Pisa-Bastia (Corse Island) three-weekly service was also established
:::*ENAC (Italian civil aviation authority) authorization was issued on March 8, 1982. [for what?]

::In terms of promotion, I'm at a loss to see why anyone would promote a dead airline, but its tone is clearly not encyclopaedic.

:::*pioneer
:::*skilled pilot
:::*far-sighted vision
:::*careful market research
:::*charming town
:::*continued smoothly until the company closed.

::The article needs a re-write to make it clearer and more neutral in tone.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm a little surprised by your comments. Also because I think I know the history of civil aviation in Italy quite well.
:::1 - Transavio ancestor was the first Italian company to carry out aerial work and aerial advertising (immediately after WWI).
:::2 - Transavio (fully registered company as such) was firstly an aerial work company. It was also one of the first Italian "third level" or "regional" airlines.
:::3 - ENAC is the Italian civil aviation authority charged to release an AOC (operating license).
:::Regarding some terms, know that I have been in cordial contact with Italo Ballerio.
:::If you have more suggestions I will be happy to examine them. Settignano (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Ok, the first four phrases are not correct English, their meaning is not clear.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::My native language is not English. So I sometimes use Google Translator.
:::::If you're not satisfied with the text, I authorize you to improve its form, but not to change the content. Settignano (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Everyone is always authorised to do whatever they want, this is wikipedia. However, I can't fix things I don't understand. The company clearly wasn't the first in Italy to carry out "aerial work". Tbf, it's not my job to fix other people's copy. You could ask at the guild of copywriters?--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit

This edit ↗ does not really make much sence and can be seen as disruptive. Could you please explain who the usbject may lack notability in its talk page here ↗?. Pumallku (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Globalization of 'Performance of girls over boys in education'

I further globalized the article 'Performance of girls over boys in education ↗'- I added a study from Qatar, an analysis of all European Union nations by the European commission, and a study from South America Apallo334 (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Apallo334}} Great, I will move the American data to the correct section and remove the tag.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated tag on Language policy in Rwanda ↗

Hi, I saw that you added the {{tl|ai-generated}} tag to Language policy in Rwanda ↗. I have been going through the article and have rewritten a number of sections, checked the cited sources, and removed claims that were not clearly supported.

I have removed the tag for now, since the article has changed quite a bit since it was added. If there are still specific passages that look AI-generated or poorly sourced, please point them out and I will take another look. Thanks. LinguaPonte (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

A FExy fox for you! From George

left|150px ↗
Dear Boynamedsue - I'm George, registered here under an unwieldy handle cos I'm just getting to grips with the basics here (bit of a dinosaur). After recent passing of friend, enigma and legend that was the Irish architect Seán Ó Laoire, I see our mutual friend (figured it out) '''fearadach''' made a page also for our joint passion project, Fumbally Exchange. I've been trying to dial back language in the short intro, since your notes on promotional content - I see how easy it is to slip into inner conviction speak during my own efforts. I'm struggling to an embarrassing degree also with the coding etc. I hope the community is relatively forgiving. I'm a dedicated learner and will try hard to get skilled quick. It's getting quicker, tidier and more facts-focussed, with help from scribble pad (dinosaur). I so appreciate your/ everyone's input. Let us know if it's not too impertinent if there's any way to improve our skills- in particular, I'm concerned about the integrity of the page in terms of relevant links, authentic fact and "encyclopaedic" voice. (the organisation is nonprofit, mostly voluntary and self-funded/ self-sustaining as an initiative. I'm stoked/ stunned to be still at the helm of this model 16 years later) I was too shy to try capture it before, not to mention under-resourced and unskilled- but I see one or two attempts were made in the past to get a page going unsuccessfully. So I'm even more excited to see Fearadach seems to be striking an appropriate tone. I have renewed motivation after two years of debilitating illness that took me out of circulation almost completely- time to assess the woes of the world. I so hope we can hold this spot as a compact record, so that if we make the new direction "Pivot" happen - it would be helpful, to have a then-that, now-this at some future point.... Sorry for rambling, apparently I have the worst "founder syndrome" and can't contain my brain scatter terribly well. probably makes me the worst candidate to edit on Wiki! BUT I love the peer-review concept from decades at high-level roles in the Irish design industry. I do want our little collective to be faithfully represented and all material terse and en pointe. Not sure if these wikiloves are published publicly or not- but not bothered. hope it's not an overstep beyond any cringe factor / amateur display. Every day a school day! no harm done - all I want is to extend my appreciation and hopefully pick up the craft of objective recording in a polarised world where misinformation and wayward words and pulp fiction are way too common. I see you're enormously active in monitoring, stewarding and policing the site and I adore the principles of this model. So however clumsy and awkward - I hope, o this transformative platform of quiet superheroes keeping checks and balances and discipline and professional integrity alive in this crazy world, to Do No Harm. x g

Dea leas - Dean leasú (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>
:Hi there George, I think you may have got me mixed up with someone else.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
::oop sorry I thought you had put a note on my page. I see now that somebody has taken it down. new to all this, thank you for response. you seem to be one of the pros here thank you for all you do. Dea leas - Dean leasú (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::BNS: They are talking about the promo tone tag you had placed on Fumbally Exchange ↗. - UtherSRG (talk) ↗ 14:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::ok. I did not set up the page and am only learning so I tried to change the tone on the first part. I think it is much more fact based now. Dea leas - Dean leasú (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Castillo de Albalat dels Sorells

Hi Boynamedsue, thank you for taking the time to review Castillo de Albalat dels Sorells ↗! I have been working on translating several Spanish heritage articles into English and it is great to see them reviewed so quickly. I have recently created a few more similar articles about Valencian architecture and history, so feel free to take a look if you have a moment.

Thanks again! AdriSoft (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

:No problem {{ping|AdriSoft}}. The only one still waiting for review is Torre de Buenavites. I've had a look and it's lacking in sourcing. If you can find its entry at either the regional or national monuments scheduling body (I forget what it's called in Spain, but I expect you know!) and add it to the page, I can mark it as reviewed. Otherwise a couple of reliable sources giving significant coverage would be fine. Sourcing requirements tend to be a bit stricter here than the Spanish and Catalan wikipedias, so translated articles sometimes struggle to pass WP:GNG ↗.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::Torre de Benavites - additional sources
::Hi Boynamedsue, thank you for your feedback! I have added the official entry from the Generalitat Valenciana heritage registry to the article. I hope that helps with the sourcing requirements.
::Thanks again! AdriSoft (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026 ↗.

'''PageTriage'''

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed ↗ to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket ↗ if you're interested in following along.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord ↗.

Consider adding the project discussion page ↗ to your watchlist.

To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here ↗.

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of :Erik J. van Nieukerken ↗

Hi, I removed the speedy deletion tag from :Erik J. van Nieukerken ↗ and would like to point you to the guidelines regarding Wikipedia:Soft redirect ↗s, especially Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project ↗. You will find that these type of redirects are allowed, promoted even. Currently 1,130 ↗ redirect pages exist pointing to wikispecies. And wikispecies is just one of several sister projects being redirected to ↗. Kind regards, Mill 1 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|Mill 1}}Thanks for pointing this out. I probably disagree that this should happen, but I would have to agree it seems to be very common. What are the criteria that mean these soft redirects can be created? I mean in terms of the subject's notability.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Good point. I haven't been able to find clear criteria. Since it is a redirect to Wikispecies I presume those criteria apply.

List of Hypercars

Point out the problems in the list
Don't dlt it
Alter it however you wanted it to be ATF119 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hi, the best way would be for you to contribute to the deletion discussion now, the problems are outlined there. It's worth noting that your voice has exactly the same weight as yours at AfD, but that it is best to read WP:NLIST ↗ and frame your answer in terms of that.--Boynamedsue (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :Jordi Molina Figueras ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Jordi Molina Figueras ↗, which you previously '''marked as reviewed''', is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗. The article will be discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordi Molina Figueras ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and you are welcomed to contribute to the discussion. SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 08:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

<small>{{grey|These updates are delivered by SodiumBot. To opt out of these messages, add <code><nowiki>{{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page.}}</small>
</div>

Draftification

Hi there! I wanted to reach out because I was looking through some of your recent draftifications. A common theme I noticed is that you often draftify articles as needing more sources. However, many of these articles have some good sources, even if they may not satisfy N entirely. In general, if an article has at least two sources, I would generally place a maintenance tag on it and let the tag wait for at least a week or so. If you do choose to draftify an article with multiple sources, it's a good idea to explain to the editor why the existing sources aren't good enough. In my experience, editors may just end up adding a bunch more bad sources and thinking that's enough. Then they get frustrated and confused if their article faces further scrutiny.

Additionally, I wanted to point out Memorial Park (Providence, RI) ↗ in particular, which you draftified as having no sources, even though it had 18 sources at the time you draftified. This is especially confusing. Even if the sources do not work toward establishing notability, they generally count as sources.

I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, and/or concerns. Take care, Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small> (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi {{ping|Significa liberdade}}. I recognise there have been times when I could have given more information to the article writer in cases where they have used non-reliable sources and I will try and make sure I add a personalised message to the notification in every case from now on.

:I disagree about generally leaving a tag on the page for a week. A new article sourced solely to unreliable sources or without significant coverage in RS shouldn't be in mainspace. An article can still be improved in draftspace and I make a point to add the relevant tags. I don't believe there is a policy or consensus that mandates a new page staying in mainspace for a week in these circumstances, but if there is, I will obviously change my practice.

:Memorial Park had, and still has, no significant coverage in reliable sources. I went through every one of them and found none of them both gave significant coverage and was reliable. It is entirely within the remit of New Pages Patrollers to draftify articles with insufficient sourcing and an article can be draftified either for needing more sources or having no sources. I did tick the wrong box on the page curation tool; "no sources" and "needs more sources" are next to each other, but that is not a good reason to revert the draftification. For that reason, I feel your return of the article to mainspace here was an error, and I would ask you to revert it.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::After looking at the NPP Flowchart again, I've returned Memorial Park (Providence, RI) ↗ to draftspace. It's not a draftification I would make (even as someone who has a higher than average draftification rate), but it technically falls within scope according to the flowchart. Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small> (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

RE: Harry Burnham

Hi! Could you help me understand why you flagged Harry Burnham ↗ as needing primary sources? Of the 35 sources I cited in that piece, I believe that more than half of them were newspapers. Thanks! PA Uploader (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi, yeah, no problem. It's my view that contemporary newspaper reports, especially those from minor regional newspapers, are primary sources in terms of WP:PRIMARY ↗ when we are looking at very old editions. In my view, the article as it is now stands as a piece of research done by yourself about Burnham, based on contemporary materials. I think it's probably good research, but it would be better if it was more strongly based in secondary sources.

:I would probably have challenged the notability of the article on the basis of not passing WP:GNG ↗, but because there is strong evidence in the primary sources that Burnham was a member of the Minnesota legislature, he definitely passes WP:NPOLITICIAN ↗.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for the context. The entry in the 1948 Nebraska Blue Book that I cited (which is linked here https://govdocs.nebraska.gov/epubs/l3000/D001-1948.pdf#page=226 ↗) should qualify as a strong secondary or tertiary source. The crux of the article is based on biographical details provided by the Blue Book entry, which the newspaper accounts added detail and color to. PA Uploader (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
:::The Nebraska Blue Book would be a primary source published by the Nebraska administration about itself, no?Boynamedsue (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I don't see how it would be. The legislative journal published by the legislature that recounts the contemporary session information would certainly be a primary source. But the Blue Book is effectively a biennial encyclopedia of the state of Nebraska, and includes a biography of every politician in the state. I'm not sure how a biographical entry in a compilation of biographies published from a non-first-person perspective would be a primary source. From the types of tertiary sources ↗, the Blue Book seems like it would unequivocally be a tertiary source, because it is either a directory, factbook, handbook, or manual. While the Nebraska Blue Book doesn't itself have an entry on Wikipedia, the entry for blue book ↗ lists very similar publications in Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, which are labeled similarly. If there is something I am missing, please let me know, but I genuinely do not understand. PA Uploader (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::A regional government source publishing a biography of a politician who holds office in that legislature is a primary source that is not independent of the subject.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Okay. So could you clarify what you mean by a "minor regional newspaper"? I would not use that phrase to describe the Lincoln Journal Star ↗, historically one of the most circulated newspapers in the state of Nebraska, and 10 of the now 36 citations come from that paper or its predecessors. PA Uploader (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Nebraska is a region of the US, Lincoln Journal Star is regional newspaper. I would define most regional newspapers as minor. I would probably look at something old from a prominent national newspaper, like the New York Times say, differently. I would certainly think about whether it amounted to secondary coverage rather than primary. But tbh, I don't really accept that newspapers dating back beyond the sixties are secondary sources for our purposes. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with using primary sources carefully, but it would be good practice to have some secondary sources as well.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why draftity Pepper Wars?

You draftified Draft:Pepper Wars ↗, why? Every part of the article is sourced, and its pretty decent? Am I missing something? <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <sup><i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i></sup>⚓ ↗ 20:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|CaptainEek}} Hi, thanks for getting in touch. The only modern source is a masters dissertation which does not count as a reliable source for notability purposes. The source from 1938, The Zamorins of Calicut, does not use the term "pepper wars". A 1938 source is somewhat old to be accepted as reliable, but in any case it does not provide notability for the topic as it does not treat these "Pepper Wars" as a unified topic and therefore does not give WP:SIGCOV ↗. That leaves us with two 19th century sources. I don't believe these sources are recent enough to be accepted as reliable, but in any case Danvers (1894) does not use the term "Pepper Wars" in the text and does not appear to treat the conflicts as a unified topic. Zain al-Dīn and Lopes (1898) does not use the term "guerra de pimenta" and does not seem to treat these wars as a unified topic.

:In short, I felt the sources were very poor and did not support the existence of a series of conflicts known by this name and treated by historians as events which share enough common characteristics to create an article that is not WP:OR ↗. It may be that other sources do exist that do this, and that is why I draftified to allow the creator to add better sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::Ah, I knew I had to be missing something. You might wish to copy that to the drafter's page so they know what to fix :) <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <sup><i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i></sup>⚓ ↗21:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the suggestion, I've done that now https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFróis&diff=1356120652&oldid=1354904652 ↗ and hopefully they will take a look and add a couple of better sources. If I'm sure it would pass GNG, I would have no problem reviewing it even with much of the content attributed to less than stellar sources. All the best.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::courtesy ping {{ping|CaptainEek}}Boynamedsue (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

== May 2026 NPP backlog drive – Points award ==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | 160px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia '''  
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This award is given in recognition of Boynamedsue for accumulating at least 500 points in the May 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 14884 articles during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – <span style="color:#5A4FCF">'''Dream'''Rimmer</span> <span style="color:#5A4FCF;">■</span> 15:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
|}
== May 2026 NPP backlog drive – Streak award ==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #e7dddf;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |
'''Geneva mechanism'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray; width:100%;" | This award is given in recognition of Boynamedsue for accumulating at least 25 points during each week of the May 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 14884 articles during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – <span style="color:#5A4FCF">'''Dream'''Rimmer</span> <span style="color:#5A4FCF;">■</span> 15:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

Janata Opinion Party, Republic of Caspian, etc.

You wrote, in reference to this walled garden, that you weren't sure how PROD works for drafts, or something like that. PROD is one of three methods of requesting deletion of articles, but is only applicable to articles. Drafts can be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion ↗, and multiple drafts can be bundled in an MFD nomination. Alternatively, drafts, like articles, can be tagged for applicable speedy deletion codes. I think that all of the drafts in the walled garden have been nominated for deletion as G3, hoax ↗ and have been deleted. If there are any remaining drafts or articles, they can be either tagged at G3 ↗ or nominated for deletion. Thank you for working to keep Wikipedia free of fabricated junk. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks Robert, that's really helpful.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | you seem really awesome WikipediholicRat (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Aw, cheers {{ping|WikipediholicRat}}, that's dead nice of you. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Article ''Enterobacter hormaechei''

Hello Boynamedsue, I refer to the article ''Enterobacter hormaechei ↗'', which you reviewed. The article lacked a talk page, article categories, and a taxonbar. In addition, a number of CS1 errors were noted. All of these shortcomings have now been corrected. Going forward, I would appreciate it if you could be more precise in your reviews and address such shortcomings accordingly. Regards. <span style="color:#FF4500">QEnigma</span> <span style="color:#0033FF">论</span> 07:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|QEnigma}} Hi QEnigma, it is not the responsibility of New Pages Patrol to check if an article has a talkpage, categories or correct citations. We simply check if the article likely passes WP:GNG ↗ and is of sufficient quality to exist.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Mirandese People

Heya! I’m the creator of the page for the Mirandese people, which you have deemed eligible for deletion due to having an identical draft. I will say that the draft is not identical, and as I created the article, I made changes to it, and after its creation I’ve been routinely editing it to add more information and sources. The draft and the article are not identical and never were. So, I ask of you politely to remove the warning on the page, as I think the page is good as is, and I plan on improving it further in the future, with the best of intentions. If you have reason to not remove the warning, I would much appreciate you share it with me so we can properly settle it. Thank you. MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::Hi MdMv. I'm a little confused, why did you open the new article instead of improving the draft?--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::That is likely on me due to not being as fluent with Wikipedia’s system, I deemed the article ready for publishing, so I created it, I was under the impression the draft space was akin to a sandbox, a place to experiment and work on ongoing projects until they were ready for publishing, I could’ve sworn I’ve come across that terminology before. If that is the issue, I’m more than okay with deleting the draft itself, I simply haven’t because I haven’t gotten to do it yet, hasn’t crossed my mind. MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::{{ping|MdMV or Emdy idk}} Right, so the notability problem still stands. You would need to find two sources that discuss the Mirandese people as a people rather than their language. That is "people" in the sense of "o povo espanhol" or "el pueblo español". Any language is fine, including Mirandese, but it needs to be a reliable source and contain significant coverage of the concept.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::I can name various articles and sources about cultural aspects where the mirandese culture and people are mentioned, I can also name various articles and sources about the mirandese language where it is mentioned as the language of the mirandese people. But I’m unsure if I can provide an article specifically about the mirandese people as a whole, it is a rather understudied area, and, that I know of, there is no source that discusses the mirandese in the broad cultural sense, only articles that discuss specific cultural aspects, the language or the extent of Miranda as a cultural region that mention the Mirandese as a people. Is that enough? The most notable one that I can think of is ''‘A evolução da Terra de Miranda: Um estudo com base nos Sistemas de Informação Geográfica’ ''(The evolution of the Tierra de Miranda: a study based on geographical information systems). This article has a section where various mirandese students were questioned on what cultural aspects define the mirandese culture and people, and the answers were then mapped on Miranda based on where the cultural aspects that were mentioned occur. Can that be used as a source? Thanks MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::To clarify, what I mean is that I know various sources where the Mirandese are mentioned as a people, but I know no article that is explicitly about the people itself MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::'''A evolução da Terra de Miranda: Um estudo com base nos Sistemas de Informação Geográfica’'' appears to be a masters dissertation. Is that correct?--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Precisely. If it serves of any “proof” as well, the ''Mobimiento Cultural de la Tierra de Miranda'' (Cultural Movement of Tierra de Miranda) is pretty vocal about the “rights of the Mirandese people”, but they don’t write academic articles, given they’re more of a political organisation that (I believe) is partially administered by the three municipalities that make up most of Miranda (Miranda de l Douro, Bumioso and Mogadouro). They’re less about culture and more about economical perks and political injustice regarding the Mirandese compared to the coastal regions of Portugal, but I thought it worthy of mention regardless. MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::For future reference, it is bad form to create a new article when your AfC request has been rejected. A new article goes to the New Pages Patrol for checking, we are usually stricter than AfC are in terms of notability, so if they are telling you the article is not ready, you should listen to them. I've removed the procedural deletion from the article for now. I'll give you a week to get better sourcing before I look at it again.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User Talk: Boynamedsue

Your recent edits of <bdi>Antisemitism in the United Kingdom ↗</bdi>

Trouble at Black Legend ↗

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Sourcing

= Contemporary accounts =

= Neutral =

= Source for the British Government position =

= Source for the Argentine Government position =

Falkland Island citizenship

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Mkucr talk page comment

Exasperated

Hungarian Romani Dispute

Discussion at Talk:Zakarpattia Oblast §&nbsp;Recent edits ↗

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Wartime Transylvanian Roma

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

New message from TrangaBellam

Peer review for Dinogad's Smock

Jewish Chronicle Ratings

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Requesting help on systematic vandalism on Hungarian Spectrum ↗

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

My talk page

WP:WEASEL ↗ on the Mexico City Metro overpass collapse ↗ article

Levantine Arabic FAC

Barons Baden-Powell

Nomination of :Paddy Pimblett ↗ for deletion

3rr

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

WP:Weasel

What is etymology?

Passive

Girls with Guns ↗

Re Béarnais. I'm not drive-by tagging

Ok, look (an attempt to discuss)

Ribbentrop

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Misgender

A barnstar for you!

May 2023

CS1 error on Romani people in Hungary ↗

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

the muslim gypsys of romania

Thank you

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!

Happy New Year!

Speedy deletion nomination of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people (UK)

Recent tag resolution

Evidence at ''Venezuelan politics''

Camilla Henemark ↗

Your username

John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes ↗

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

Vila do Corvo ↗

Flower chicken?

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Greetings of the season

Happy Holidays

Your thread has been archived

Your thread has been archived

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Thank you

A cup of tea for you!

By whom?

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

DYK for African gangs moral panic

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Your thread has been archived

Your thread has been archived

DYK nomination of Death of Abisay Cruz

The World Destubathon ↗

Discussion at Talk:Zakarpattia Oblast § Recent edits ↗