User talk:Hadal

Pterophorid

For older correspondence see:

/Archive1 (December 5, 2003 - March 31, 2004)

/Archive2 (April 1 - July 31, 2004)

/Archive3 (August 1 - October 29, 2004)

/Archive4 (November 1 - January 31, 2005)

/Archive5 (February 1 - April 27, 2005}

/Archive6 (June 2005 - December 2010)

/Archive7 (December 2010 - April 23, 2015)

/Archive8 (April 25, 2015 - March 1, 2023)

---

I don't have as much time as I used to for wiki stuff, so if your query is urgent please feel free to email me. -- Hadal (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Closures of RM's related to NZ places

Thank you for closing those discussions. I note you closed them all with the same closing reason; Aside from a lack of consensus, the arguments for moving do not convincingly obviate WP:NZNC.

I have a few questions about this:

1. Can you expand on what you mean for all four moves regarding the arguments for moving do not convincingly obviate WP:NZNC?
2. Can you explain why you closed as "not moved" rather than "no consensus" if you see a lack of consensus?
3. Can you explain why you see a lack of consensus at Talk:Hinenui / Nancy Sound?

BilledMammal (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try to answer each question in-line:

1. Can you expand on what you mean for all four moves regarding the arguments for moving do not convincingly obviate WP:NZNC?

NZ naming conventions are established guidelines. These articles appear to be named in accordance with those guidelines. Moving them would go against those guidelines; and in general, work done within a certain project interest (NZ-related articles, in this case) is generally viewed through the lens of guidelines designed for those interests. I declare that I have no conflict of interest in this matter (I'm Canadian and don't generally edit NZ articles); but even so, even without my particular judgment, the lack of consensus is enough to close a discussion that has gone on for much longer than 7 days and was not producing an actionable result. (IOW, I was helping to clear a backlog and these were an easy close.)

2. Can you explain why you closed as "not moved" rather than "no consensus" if you see a lack of consensus?

I think this is mostly a stylistic choice, no? The result of the RM is that the page was not moved. And I mentioned a lack of consensus. I apologize if this caused any confusion.

3. Can you explain why you see a lack of consensus at Talk:Hinenui / Nancy Sound?

This particular discussion featured 2 opposed, 3 approved. This is not a consensus. Furthermore, all of these slash name requests were closely related, with similar/identical rationale, and should therefore have been submitted as a multiple move request to better consolidate/gather feedback. From that perspective it was prudent to consider all discussions across all such articles, e.g. at Talk:Wharepapa / Arthur Range.

I hope this helps?! I suggest, before re-requesting any moves, that you instead try to address WP:NZNC as it stands. If you want to see slash names removed, perhaps change the guideline first? --Hadal (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive reply, it does help. However, I think your understanding of NZNC is a little out of date; NZ naming conventions have already been updated to remove the preference for dual names, following a recent RfC. Does this information have any impact on the wording of the closes or the results?

For #2, it is partially a stylistic choice, but I also think it is important to have clarity on what the result was - even if it doesn't make any difference to the current result, "no consensus" vs "not moved" can have an impact on future requested moves.

For #3, I believe it was 2 opposed, 4 approved? Regarding multi-move requests, these have been tried in the past and generally failed as train wrecks; since these moves come down to what the WP:COMMONNAME is, we've found it to be better to do them individually where we can discuss the naturalness of that individual name, rather than in groups. BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: The discussion on NZ naming conventions, this appears to have been from 2021? I see that there was an appetite for some kind of change at that point; but I'll admit that I don't have the contextual knowledge to parse what was done as a result of the RfC. All I can do is look at the guidelines themselves. If you believe the dual name convention has been deprecated, why not edit the guideline page itself?

I still contend that a multi-article RM would have been better, because as I understood it the argument was the same for all moves you had requested. I don't accept that higher engagement = trainwreck. In any event I will try to be more explicit with my language when closing from now on. --Hadal (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for looking through that; it was from late 2021. The guideline page has already been edited, to remove the requirement - previously, the guideline stated Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names. The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage.

At the moment, the only instructions at NZNC about dual names are about what format should be used if an article title uses a dual name, and it does not instruct that the dual name should be used; If an article title uses a location's dual name, it should use the spaced slash format, regardless of the orthography recorded by the New Zealand Geographic Board.

Considering this, would you be willing to update your closures at Talk:Wharepapa / Arthur Range, Talk:Te Toka-Tapu-a-Kupe / Ninepin Rock, and Talk:Maniniaro / Angelus Peak to remove the reference to NZNC, and to clarify that the result is "no consensus" rather than "not moved"? Separately, would you be willing to reassess the move request at Talk:Hinenui / Nancy Sound?

Regarding whether they turn into train wrecks, this has unfortunately been established by practice. Examples proposing moving articles from dual names include Talk:Doubtful Sound / Patea#Requested move 2 November_2021 (one of the articles proposed here was one of the four you closed - Hinenui / Nancy Sound), and examples proposing moving articles to dual names include Talk:Cam River (Canterbury)#Requested move 22 March 2022. BilledMammal (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the language I used for the closures. I'll point out that the NZNC still does not preclude the use of dual/slash names; but I won't take a side on whether any of these individual articles should be single- or dual-named.

As for Talk:Hinenui / Nancy Sound, I still consider this a lack of consensus. I'm an old admin (since 2004!), I'll admit, and from my perspective the nominator is not included in the 'tally'. --Hadal (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No, NZNC does not preclude the use of dual names (although it prefers using a different method of disambiguation than using the dual name, if disambiguation is required), but it doesn't require it which I think is what matters here? Regardless, thank you.

2004; that feels like a very long time ago, but at the same time it feels more recent than two decades. Current practice for RM's and other discussions where the opening statement is not expected to be neutral (AfD's, merge requests, etc) is that the nominator is assumed to support the proposal, with their argument for their position being the opening statement. Would the tally being 4:2 be sufficient to establish a consensus in your mind? BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If it were more than a total of 5 users + the nominator, perhaps; but, in context w/ the other related move discussions, I think a general lack of consensus is a valid conclusion. I'm posting this via mobile for the first time so I apologize for any malformed text. Hadal (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mateusz Grzesiak

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mateusz Grzesiak. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding RM close

When closing the page regarding 2023 United States bank failures to 2023 global banking crisis, would you be willing to provide more information on how you accounted for the fact that an article with that topic was literally deleted as SYNTH/OR during the move discussion, as well as the fact that the prompt was changed midway through the discussion? The closure of the requested move doesn't seem to discuss any of the arguments present related to how you ascertained the consensus, and I don't think the choice to move was obvious in light of these sorts issues brought up. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The votes for the title "2023 global banking crisis" date back to at least March 20. I don't think there's any real policy re: how much longer to wait/tack on to the discussion period if the original title proposal was modified. But it was relisted. Edit: It wasn't relisted but the adjusted title proposal was done quickly and the requester was transparent about it. I see no indication anyone voted "Support" for the wrong title?

I won't comment on an old AFD I had no involvement in, except to say that this is not the same article that I moved.

Would it have been better to simply say "Moved"? I've noticed RM closures are more likely to get pushback if the closer says anything outside of the temple language. It's starting to make me feel punished for communicating. -Hadal (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

With respect to Would it have been better to simply say "Moved", no, since this is the sort of close that warrants a more than a one-word closure. There were several individuals who !voted in support of moving it to the first proposed title (i.e. the one that did not include "global"), including myself, Northern Moonlight, and Knightoftheswords281.

I understand that you have no intent on commenting on that AfD, but that AfD was brought up in the move discussion in the context of WP:CONLEVEL, so I would have hoped that you had something to say about addressing the concerns there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If you object to the word "global" you're welcome to start another RM. There was nothing about the word that seemed improper, from the outside. Otherwise, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here.

Re: the AFD, I was very recently reminded (cf. Mateusz Grzesiak) that, in the context of deleted articles, it matters not a whit whether an article shares the same title, subject, or even information. Is that absurd? Sure! But that seems to be the community consensus. So, the fact that the article you nominated for deletion shares the same title/subject matter/whatever, does not matter. Unless, of course, CSD:G4 needs a rewrite? If it bothers you, why don't you list this article for AFD too? By your logic it should be deleted. --Hadal (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to nominate an article for deletion merely because it is mistitled. What I'm trying to accomplish here is to understand why you found consensus in favor of inclusion of the term "global", and I would like to know how you weighed the arguments in the discussion in determining that affirmative consensus. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Both Northern Moonlight and Knightoftheswords281 voted on March 20, the same day the "global" title was originally broached. They had plenty of opportunity to follow up with more comments as the discussion evolved.

Of the people who seemed to have any problem with the move, we have:

• You
• 67.180.143.89, and
• MZMcBride - both parroting your asssertion that it's headline sensationalism, despite this being rebutted, and despite it being a subjective take
• Zaslav, who wanted to wait until it wasn't March anymore (it's April now)

The reasons for moving it were pretty clear: It's not March, and it's not just a US topic. Nothing sensational there. All very reasonable.

I tend to put less weight on IP votes, especially if they're not bringing anything new to the table. Similarly, I tend to weigh ditto votes less favorably if their reasoning has been shown to be more subjective than based on policy. I don't think the AFD angle is relevant here, because it is not the same article and it is not the same month, even. You say you won't nominate an article based on its title, but here we are arguing over it... because it's the same title as the AFD article! If you want AFD results to carry more weight beyond the very specific specific AFD, maybe we should collaborate on that. It would help reduce the revolving door routine I'm seeing with several articles.

It's clear that you're invested in this topic and have a particular issue with discussing it in a global context. You may even have a sense of ownership over the content or subject. In other words, it's possible you just don't like it. And that's fine, but rather than trying to grill me, maybe use that thermal energy on something more constructive? It's late in my corner of the world; I need to go to bed now. --Hadal (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You've been here for a while--I really appreciate you still helping to improve this project. Take care and thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Drmies! My first barnstar since... 2005? Yikes, I feel old. At least I have a good excuse to revamp my userpage! --Hadal (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You do that--I probably need to do it myself, though Saban is still our coach and Sewell is still our representative. It's funny: I don't think she was when I put that picture up, but then they gerrymandered Alabama a bit more. Keep on rocking in the free world, Drmies (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Cricket World Cup final can now be closed

Hello Hadal, I would like to let you know that I have myself redirected the article I had created to the main article 2023 Cricket World Cup. As I had mentioned before, I had only intended to create this article for the benefit of the readers and the encyclopedia, but I can completely understand the point of view given by you and other editors. I have also never claimed ownership of any kind of article anywhere and my primary purpose has always been to improve the encyclopedia. I have also redirected the other redirects which were there to the main article as well. Hence, the deletion discussion can be closed as required by any closer, so that everyone else can go ahead and spend time in doing the most important thing which is to improve other articles and Wikipedia in general as well. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Novator 91R

Hi @Hadal: I'm dismayed that you acted so hastily in deleting Novator 91R. In addition to the impugned material, which was copy-pasted directly from Kalibr (missile family) here, and was not my work, there were many references that were found by me, and at least four images that were again found by me, and I would like access to my work, none of which was in violation. Can anything be done to fix this matter? Herreshoffian (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Replied on the relevant section of your talk page. We'll discuss it there. --Hadal (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Hadal. Thank you for your work on Dracaena americana. User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi there, thanks for the article. According to POWO this species is a synonym of Dracaena ghiesbreghtii, I've reviewed it but asked for assistance from another user to get there thoughts on whether this is correct or not. Regards.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hughesdarren:

Hi there, no problem. I'm not as well-versed in botany as a rule, but I went with D. americana because that's what was linked at Dracaena (plant) given that D. ghiesbreghtii wasn't even mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. It appears to be valid under certain taxonomic views, and most recent scholarship I could find used D. americana. But I have no objections to changing the title if necessary. --Hadal (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Greg

Sorry to bother you mate but I had to put back this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bucharest&diff=prev&oldid=1151197220

It was discussed last years and they agreed for it. Grosvenor Group is a serious publication.

Regards, 2A02:2F09:3603:DB00:C24:599D:5967:8DA1 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Source from the largest financial newspaper of Romania, although Daily Express only published Grosvenor Group's study. Grosvenor was founded in 1677 and its total assets are 63-64 billion. https://www.zf.ro/business-international/studiu-britanic-pana-in-2060-bucurestiul-ar-putea-ajunge-cel-mai-bogat-oras-european-18244058

Also G4Media, one of the most reliable Romanian newspapers. https://www.g4media.ro/bucuresti-cel-mai-bogat-oras-european-in-2060-cum-si-de-ce-perspectiva-unui-expat-grec-stabilit-in-romania.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F09:3603:DB00:C24:599D:5967:8DA1 (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes. That kind of speculation is not really relevant, especially not in the lede. The articles of other important cities don't have that kind of projections. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:DUE. Please don't add them back before discussing in the talk page. Vpab15 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The first article that you link is stated to be based on the Daily Express, so is unreliable, and the second says "Articol de Ilias P. Papageorgiadis – director executiv al companiei MORE în România, Preşedinte al Asociaţiei Române de Biomasă şi Biogaz (ARBIO), membru ales în consiliul de Administraţie al Asociaţiei Europene de Bionergie (Bioenergy Europe) şi Vicepreşedinte al Federaţiei Agricole ProAgro. (Ilias P. Papageorgiadis scrie periodic articole despre România, în special despre mediul economic, încercând să o promoveze ca destinaţie de afaceri pentru oamenii de afaceri greci n.trad.)." so is promotional. That the Grosvenor Group was founded centuries ago and has large property assets has no bearing on whether we accept everything that was published by Grosvenor Casinos, which seems to share only the name anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! The source was always after the Ziarul Financiar, it's like the Financial Times. From Antena 1 (Romania), affiliated to CNN, a top 2 Romanian private television. https://a1.ro/news/inedit/studiu-capitala-romaniei-va-ajunge-cel-mai-bogat-oras-european-id888205.html All the capital cities introductions present studies, but for Bucharest it's not allowed. I know it looks funny for some of you, but it's the city with the largest development in Europe. With a HDI of New Zealand. 33% of Romanian economy and with a GDP bigger of Serbia although way smaller as population. It surpassed the economy of Budapest 10 years ago. Grosvenor Group IS NOT IMPORTANT AND RELIABLE? With 64 billion dollars assets? Grosvenor launched it, it was on the website as well.

Now regarding G4Media, they did personal, individual interview with a Greek expat. They cited wrongly Grosvenor Casinos, it was also on that website published since it's also owner by Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F09:3603:DB00:C24:599D:5967:8DA1 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I am just saying, mates, this time is not about a Romanian study or an anonymous British one. A period of such prosperity should be mentioned. I hope it doesn't bother many friends because the chances of growth are the same for every location of this world.

I've blocked you from editing for a period of 2 weeks, for disruptive editing - which includes a demonstrated failure to get the point. Other users have already said this, but: Please read and understand Wikipedia:CRYSTAL and seek consensus at Talk:Bucharest before making any further edits to the article. Thank you. --Hadal (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

A new user harrasment at Vriddhi Vishal

Hi, I have created the page Vriddhi Vishal yesterday and a new user named Uncle Spock, who created his account 13 days before ie; on 9th april 2023 placed the G4 deletion tag, which you declined. He is HARRASING now by placing the AFD tag after you declined the G4 tag. I think he is more for a destructive edits in wikipedia rather than doing constructive edits Christopheronthemove (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I've replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vriddhi Vishal (2nd nomination). --Hadal (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Please delete article about me

First, I don't want article about me to be existed in Wikipedia. Second, this article created in block evasion. And also, this article is created when I was underage! 2403:6200:8871:98EF:64FF:3205:D265:71F9 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for info on how, why, and where to nominate articles for deletion. The most common pathway to deleting established articles such as Alisa Kozhikina is to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (commonly called "AFD"). There are instructions on that page regarding how to list articles for deletion. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion; however, you should review Wikipedia:Deletion policy first to see if you have a valid reason first. Note that I do not believe you have given a valid reason: As a public figure to some degree, you cannot expunge yourself from the website without cause (e.g., slander, libel, etc.).

Given that you are claiming to be the subject of the article, this means you are also editing with a clear conflict of interest. If you need help navigating Wikipedia and its deletion process, you can ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion or more generally at the Help Desk. --Hadal (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

WHY IS AN ADMITTED, CABAL-LOVING LEFTIST IN CHARGE OF THE TORONTO MAYORAL BY-ELECTION PAGE?

You're nothing but a pathetic, puny Leftist propagandist liar! 2607:FEA8:341F:94E0:898:757A:608C:C3C5 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the fan mail! For the record, I'm not "in charge" of anything. All I've done at 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election is to remove vandalism/POV/unconstructive edits; and, as a precautionary measure, I have enabled Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection. The latter was as a result of the increasing number of poor-quality, unsourced, and often disruptive edits coming from new/unregistered users. All of this is evinced by the article's edit history. Have a great day! --Hadal (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"poor-quality" = your opinion

"unconstructive" = your opinion

"precaution" = your opinion

You have "I <3 the Cabal" on your USER PAGE.

May God have mercy on you. 2607:FEA8:341F:94E0:39A3:4EEE:DADE:D620 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocking IPv6 adresses

Hello, when blocking IPv6 addresses, it is generally best to block the whole /64 range. Whilst this contains a massive number of addresses, it will almost always only be used by one person. For more information, see WP:/64. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks for the tip! --Hadal (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Emir Suljagić

Hi Hadal,

First of all, welcome back.

I think 2001:8f8:173d:e6e5:5d40:ec4c:4c62:4a2c's contributions might not meet the criteria for being rollbacked without a specific reason. I have now reminded HeartCat1 about the general issues with such reverts; you may like to have a look at my message there in case it contains anything surprising that was added during the last 10 years.

Please let me know if any questions arise, in general. Recent changes patrolling and specifically rollbacking was what I started with in 2018; most of my contributions are from this task. Combining that with your experience might be the ideal symbiosis.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the burden would still be on the editor who removed sourced material from the article to begin with. The user says that this content is "slander," which I find hard to believe, given it was apparently reported in the news? Do you speak the language, for that matter? In the end, I don't speak the language; so I'm perfectly content to step back from the article. But given the user's inflammatory use of edit summaries, which belie a certain POV, I don't think the reverts were out of order. After HeartCat1's first revert, the IP user should have tried discussing this. --Hadal (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: I'll point out also that Special:Contributions/2001:8f8:173d:e6e5:5d40:ec4c:4c62:4a2c has not once attempted to communicate beyond their inflammatory edit summaries, and that you have also not attempted to communicate with them. I won't link to any essays or policies, but we both know editing Wikipedia requires certain competencies; is there a reason you have not critiqued this user's edits, or attempted to communicate with them? Were the warnings given to the user by me, or by HeartCat1 inappropriate? --Hadal (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hm. Let's assume for a moment that the person editing the article has been the article subject himself. He then has a strong conflict of interest, should normally not edit the article directly, and might base his edits on information that isn't available in any published source accessible by us.

As even in this scenario, having a discussion on the article's talk page before restoring the material is beneficial, there is no such burden for removing text from the article. A burden of verifiability does exist for the content of these edit summaries, which would be incompatible with WP:BLPPRIMARY even if they were based on court records, and which may qualify for revision deletion (WP:RD2's BLP violation use-case). All granted.

I don't know about the reliability of the used sources and don't speak their language, but at least one of them (the last in the diff) is no longer accessible through the link that was repeatedly restored. When dealing with the matter on this level (that is, merely making sure that WP:BLPRESTORE is followed), there is usually no need to detailedly inspect the sources and judge whether the material should stay in the long term or not. This need only exists for those arguing about its inclusion, mostly those who are in favor of it.

I can't complain much about the competence of a new editor; I saw two questionable reverts and wanted to deal with these. Now that it has been specifically asked for, I can of course address this: The second message at User talk:2001:8F8:173D:E6E5:5D40:EC4C:4C62:4A2C (as of [1]) is suboptimal. The first one (by HeartCat1) complains about the lack of an explanation, and an explanation was actually not present at that time. I misread this in the article's history; HeartCat1's revert and message are understandable. The second message is relatively unspecific and asks the user to seek a consensus in a situation where doing so isn't primarily their task. The explanation provided above in response to my message would probably have been more useful to the unregistered user. It isn't something I could have provided, though, due to the lack of information I came here to complain about.

Frustratingly, messaging IPv6 users often means talking to a wall, so explanative edit summaries might be even more important than when dealing with registered users. We need range talk pages, but we can hardly blame newcomers for Wikipedia/MediaWiki not having them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, you believe that a user can remove content from an article, while including inappropriate edit summaries, and we are expected to let this slide? A user can edit any BLP article and simply say "SLANDER!" RACISM!" and remove or blank entire sections, and this is OK? I'm struggling to understand your logic here. Again, you keep referencing WP:BLPRESTORE as your cornerstone; yet you don't seem to have read this page yourself. How can you take the anon's edits as being in good faith when they are attacking other editors? --Hadal (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The "good faith" in this case is, and I still do interpret it as such, an attempt to remove outdated material and the description of incorrect accusations from a biography of a living person. It can of course be present even when it comes with incivility towards those who wrote the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have a very strange interpretation of good faith if you would include accusations of slander and racism. I think you're reaching here. We block users all the time for such aggressive language and naked POV-pushing. --Hadal (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course users are (correctly) blocked for incivility, casting aspersions, disruptive editing in general. The definitions of vandalism and its opposite, good faith, focus on the intent towards building an encyclopedia (the project's purpose), and yes, someone loudly complaining about perceived issues while trying to fix them is acting in good faith (or in other words, not a vandal). Accusations of slander and racism are not a failsafe indicator for bad faith. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Users can be blocked for making inappropriate edit summaries, full stop. Users can be blocked for making personal attacks, full stop. Users can be blocked for making legal threats, full stop. Once the well has been poisoned it matters not what you believe the user's motives to be. We can only go by what they tell us. Your attempts to read the anon editor's mind are... very strange.

Instead of trying to communicate with the anon editor, you decided to criticize others who were indeed acting in good faith. You deflected by mentioning how difficult it is to talk to IPv6 users, describing it as "talking to a wall." Yet in the same breath, you spent energy on critiquing my and HeartCat1's good faith attempts to communicate with the user. Which is it, a futile gesture or worthy of your critique? Or, perhaps it was a reasonable response to a single-issue editor making ostensibly bad faith edits? I will repeat my request that you be more careful with throwing templates and policy at experienced users, especially when it is clear that you have an especially idiosyncratic view of some extremely core Wiki principles. .--Hadal (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Kalush Orchestra

They meet WP:NMUSIC. WP:NMUSIC states that any band that "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition" is notable. Consider sending the article to AFD. 87.97.89.238 (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Given that you seem to lack interest in reading the warnings on your talk page, I have blocked you temporarily for repeatedly failing to attribute copied content. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:SPLIT for more info. At Wikipedia we take attribution and adherence to copyright standards very seriously. Please take this time as an opportunity to read and better understand our policies before you resume editing. --Hadal (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for the quick response to reports! Mr.weedle (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Gee thanks! I appreciate the note of encouragement, honestly; as well as your own diligence in reporting. I do need to go to bed now however: My co-workers won't quite understand why I was up so late. ;) --Hadal (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Soy . . . .

"In the time of the chimpanzees I was a monkey" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for that. I reverted the vandalism but by the time I realized how messed up the username was in context, you'd beaten me to it. Cheers. --Hadal (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of link removal

Hello Hadal, Thank you for your message and for your diligence in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles. I appreciate your concern regarding the external links I added to the Bengal cat article and other pet breed articles. However, I believe my site doesn't violate the guidelines as it provides valuable educational information without any financial gain. There are no advertisements on the site, and it serves purely as a source of knowledge for users. In each instance where I added a link to my site, it was in response to a citation needed on the respective Wiki pages. My site offers credible sources for the information backing up the claims made in the Wiki articles. I understand that it might seem as if I am promoting my own website, but my intention is solely to contribute to Wikipedia with relevant, reliable, and verifiable information. I kindly ask you to reconsider the removal of the links and, if necessary, to engage in further discussion about their appropriateness. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I'm happy to address them and work together to ensure the accuracy and quality of information on Wikipedia. Best regards, JamesWarmly (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. --Hadal (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Kaumudi Nemani

Please restore Kaumudi Nemani. A draft being cut-and-paste moved into mainspace (which is what I assume happened here) is explicitly not a valid speedy deletion criterion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Please take this up with the nominator, as it was implied as a maintenance issue. It's up to them to move the article to complete the "fix" of the move. I will point out also that there is a significant edit history at Draft:Kaumudi Nemani, and that the user who performed the copy/paste may have violated our policy on attribution when copying within Wikipedia.

Alternatively, you can fix it yourself, if this bothers you so much. Move the draft to mainspace if you think it is acceptable to publish. Don't push this decision onto others. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and that includes behaviour such as yours. Please don't make drive-by demands of people based on a log alone. Thank you. -Hadal (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Mori Calliope fan: Your thoughts? --Hadal (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pppery and Hadal: Hadal explained it well; the copy and paste move was a violation of the attribution policy. I tagged the page for deletion not because I wanted to move it into mainspace, but to allow for a possible clean move. The G6 criteria indicates that deletion for copy and paste moves are intended to be temporary, but also please consider WP:IAR.

Personally I did not see the page as fitting for mainspace, and to just move the copy and pasted article to draftspace would create a duplicate draft. While I recognize that duplicate drafts are not a speedy deletion criteria, I personally think it would be less confusing to have duplicate drafts. Do we need an RfC for this? Mori Calliope fan talk 14:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your work!

Hiya,
I see your name everywhere when I'm looking for unconstructive edits or vandalism. You're a real asset to Wikipedia. Just thought I'd leave a message on your talk page. -ASHEIOU (THEY/THEM • TALK) 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you too! The encouragement is always appreciated. I'm trying to make a concerted effort to be more consistently active lately. If I succeed, we'll probably bump into each other more often. ;) --Hadal (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Article

Hi Hadal,

Sorry about the article, didn't know you shouldn't change that one. I'll revert it today. Kardinitari (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Some questions about a block

Hello, Hadal. You have blocked an editor called TheOfficialNaruto, for a username policy violation. You must have made some mistake, because on the user's talk page you posted a block notice saying "Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change ... To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one", and yet you disabled account creation in the block. Also, your block log entry says "{{uw-ublock}} <!-- Username violation, soft block -->", which obviously makes no sense. It isn't at all clear whether you actually intended to make a soft block or a hard block; can you clear that up?

Also, the editor has posted an unblock request at UTRS, where Cabayi has questioned why there is a block at all, and I must say I too can't understand the reason. It doesn't seem offensive, it doesn't appear to impersonate another person, it isn't the name of a company... in short, I can't see anything in the username policy which it infringes, but if you can see a reason that I haven't noticed, can you say what it is? I have at least once come across an administrator (not you) who for some reason thought that any username containing the word "official" should automatically be regarded as a promotional name, though there is absolutely nothing in the username policy which, as far as I can see, can possibly be read as meaning that. Is that by any chance how you see the matter?

I see that you have not been editing recently, so it may be a while until you see this message, and I don't think it would be fair to leave the editor waiting for too long before their unblock request is dealt with, so if you aren't able to respond for some time, it may be necessary for the request to be dealt with without waiting for your input. However, I hope that won't be necessary, as I think it will be better if you can clarify the two points I am asking about before a decision is taken. JBW (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Re: "official" names in usernames, I understand that this isn't an automatic issue. However, Naruto is a fairly big manga/anime IP. There could therefore be a potential issue with someone calling themselves the "official" source/authority on the IP and its many articles.

If however you or another admin doesn't agree with this concern, I won't object to an unblock. We're all just trying to do our best!

I'll see if I can repost the same info on their talk page (on mobile for most of today). --Hadal (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that response Hadal.

User accounts were unified across all WMF projects in 2015, shortly before you reduced activity. Other wikis have different username policies. Commons and dewiki allow organisation accounts for example. And there are goodies such as The Wikipedia Library which are only available to users who have no blocks anywhere. If a user hasn't edited this wiki they're not beholden to this wiki's username policy and we have no business blocking them.

Of course usernames which are grossly offensive in English are still fair game for a zero edit block on enwiki.

With respect to JBW's point about disabled account creation on a soft block, can I recommend installing & using Twinkle for doing your blocking. It offers a standard set of block settings and a suggested duration according to the block you're imposing, which you can then adjust if you feel the need. Cabayi (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)