![]() |
Happy New Year! |
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this, it was really helpful, thank you so much. I just do not think I can do it myself, especially on such a controversial article and subject and I would need some draft, guidelines, suggested sources and help from users such as you and The Four Deuces, who are one of the best users on reading our policies and guidelines, and actually following the literature, which often times is not the case. But I consider this a challenge and a big one at improving myself. "I intended to write more articles over my break (except on topics I've already researched) but I've been doing more replying lately ;)." I would love to help and hear more about this. :)
As for the last part about Wikipedia, that makes sense and I agree. I wish, however, there were different versions of the same articles and articles that have not got neither Good article nor Featured article status should be considered as draft and be "the official version" only once they obtain the Good article status. Ideally, the Good article and Featured article status should be a summary of the topic and not be overtly detailed but I would not mind if there was a tag alongside Read that read "(See) other versions" or something. There could be different types of version such as the aforementioned more detailed version, an academic-style version, a first-person version, a throw-any-reliable-sources-about-the-topic-without-following-literature version, a translated-other-wiki version, etc. I think it would be fun or interesting to write, say, Socialism article from the perspective of socialists or from liberals, and so on, civilisation from an indigenous POV, or an article of war from a single POV, another from the other POV, and so on.
Hell, there could be a version of any article from any Wikipedian, or a version of any article from any Wikipedian where original research and synthesis are lifted while only verifiability is necessary. In a way, we already do that through drafts and sandbox but I wish there was a way where they could be stored together or something, or the aforementioned "See other versions" bottom. As long as it is clear the difference (i.e. which policies and guidelines still applies, which ones do not, etc.; from what POV is written; and that it is clearly indented to reflect that POV rather than "truth" or our policies and guidelines, which must be respected to gain the Good article and Featured article status, as only the latter would be the official and "first page" version). While these latter ideas are more "fun" or "interesting" than "useful", so one counter-argument could be that it is "counter-productive", I think the idea of making any non-Good article status article a constantly work-in-progress draft, or even dividing a "summary" and "more detailed" version of the same article, would be helpful and useful in eventually helping achieve these two versions, making easier to gain the Good article and/or Featured article status. In short, there would be the "official" Wiki-encyclopedia where the goal would be to create as many Good and Featured articles; and then there would be the "free" Wiki-encyclopedia where the goal would be to create as much free knowledge and perspectives as possible, with the main policy and guideline being verifiability and attribution.
One issue could be the servers, as that could be "too much", but I like to think big and be optimistic someday it will really be possible to have all knowledge and perspectives, properly attributed and verified here. Are these just crazy and nonsensical ideas? Good but too much, too ambitious, too hard? More like "Eh"?
Regarding pings, my bad about it. It happened a few times that users did not respond and I thought it was good manner to ping but you are right. I also understand if "it's not a discussion I'm looking to follow." However, could you please write a neutral RfC about the scope and your own suggestion you proposed? That would be a way forward.
I also wanted to add I think this comment of yours ("ML is a floating signifier. To this bleary-eyed, third-opinion reader, there is no single reducible definition that applies to all of the ways it's invoked. Our article appears to jumble these different meanings into an invented, contiguous whole.") is a perfect summary of the issues regarding the main topic and scope at Mass killings under communist regimes and its talk page, i.e. I am referring to scholars stating that "a connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and under the Stalin era are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category" and "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss." Davide King ( talk) 18:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
January 15, 6pm: Wikimedia NYC celebrates 20 years of Wikipedia | |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Wikipedia Day is always a big day for Wikimedia NYC. While we cannot meet in person, we still have something special planned. We will begin the event with the debut of a new video celebrating our community. This will be followed by a panel discussion with some of the people you'll see in the video talking about Wikipedia's 20th anniversary, Wikimedia New York City, and the amazing work they do on Wikimedia projects. The event will be broadcast live via YouTube. Feel free to ask questions for the panel through the chat! We will also have some NYC wiki trivia you can participate in, with confectionery prizes.
|
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
-- Wikimedia New York City Team 14:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The article
Kronstadt rebellion you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Kronstadt rebellion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tayi Arajakate --
Tayi Arajakate (
talk)
08:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
06:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
On 23 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moynihan Train Hall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed an expansion of New York Penn Station as a homage to the original station, where he had once shined shoes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moynihan Train Hall. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Moynihan Train Hall), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I was just going to move Robert Service back to Robert Service (disambiguation) but I thought I'd talk about it here first. I believe "Robert Service" is the primary topic for Robert W Service. I'm not sure why you say otherwise. I have books of his poetry that only say Robert Service... no "W" at all. I believe "Robert Service" should redirect to the poet, and if you still insist otherwise there should be an RfC on the move. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for writing Unabomber manifesto - quite an interesting topic, isn't it? I was surprised to see it was created relatively recently - always cool to see the encyclopedia expanding. Have a great day! Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 01:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently been working on creating a page on the topic of the Fresno Nightcrawler, which you can find at the top of my Sandbox. I noticed that a similar page was deleted in 2019 for failing WP:NFRINGE and having "dodgy citing", with examples of this included. I feel that there may now be sufficient coverage of the topic by reliable sources (including The Fresno Bee) to warrant an article, and was wondering what steps I would take to make this a reality. Thanks, - JJonahJackalope ( talk) 20:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure it should have been closed yet, besides the nominator mine is the only !vote. IMHO relisting would have been better. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello czar! I'm conducting a feature for the video games newsletter similar to that of a survey. I'm going to ask users their opinions on a specific matter and highlight unique and common answers to determine consensus on a subject. Your input would be very valuable, alongside others, to help answer this question.
The question is: How do you determine what makes a video game character notable enough for their own page? Do you follow pre-existing guidelines or have your own opinions on the matter?
P anini 🥪 22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premise (company) 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.
DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:De minimis has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Aasim (
talk)
00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you. Is it possible to revdel this edit? -- Ashley yoursmile! 06:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm puzzling over this passage in the article on Chomsky's book Reflections on Language: "blank slate upon which psychological and social forces act (empiricism)" -- Why the word "empiricism"? It seems misplaced at best. Regards, Anomalous+0 ( talk) 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm conducting another survey for the Wikiproject Video games Newsletter. If you could leave your thoughts on the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Every response will be compiled into a MOS-Esque answer that balances the thoughts of our top contributors. You're one of them! The question is as follows:
What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?
If you would like to respond, please ping me here and write your reply. I'll handle the rest. Thanks in advance, Panini! 🥪 14:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Palantir. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Palantir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
162 etc. (
talk)
20:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikipedia:ROSE. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 25#Wikipedia:ROSE until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) |
o toki tawa mi.
21:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Is italicized has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Gonnym (
talk)
14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
22:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not the smartest when it comes to dab pages and the like, I'll admit that. But was there some kind of requested move or other consensus-reaching discussion that I missed? Sro23 ( talk) 15:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have been erroneously closed to redirect to the nominated page. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Czar,
I don't think you saw my last comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semen Hitler but an editor moved the page to Semyon Hitler so what you deleted was a redirect, not the article itself which you can now find at Semyon Hitler, complete with the AFD tag. I didn't think pages were supposed to be moved during deletion discussions so I questioned whether to move it back. But you closed the discussion soon after I commented. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Czar! I would've emailed you about this, but since I'm on the Wikipedia app the "email this user" button doesn't work. I'll just keep stuff anonymous and say it here instead.
I haven't been getting responses from Thibbs this past week about questions I have about the Video Games Newsletter but I have gotten an email from him yesterday. He filled me in on what's happening in his life at the moment (he mentioned you are aware of what) and said he will be out for an indefinite amount of time. Due to the lack of participation in the Newsletter from GamerPro64 and the retirement from IAS that leaves just me on the Newsletter; I'm new to it, and have gotten Thibbs to help all this time, and with him gone, I have no idea what I'm doing! Hehe...
I'm gonna break this up into two pieces because I dont want to risk clicking the back arrow and losing this whole Ted Talk. More info in a second. Panini! 🥪 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I haven't seen you around at all but there's a reason why I'm telling you all of this. Here's an excerpt from his email to me:
"He (Czar) has expressed the view that the WP:VG Newsletter should be merged into the The Signpost as a special section. I know GP64 has worked with The Signpost too so he may be helpful if that seems to be the best course going forward."
And due to these events, I think this is the best course going forward. He explained how he has gone out before and the Newsletter next to collapsed because of it, and it left GamerPro doing it all by themself about 3 years ago. I think this will be a repeat of those events. And, since GP64 hasn't been active in the field I doubt they have any interest in having to do it by force.
I would really appreciate your help in this, because if it gets to the point where arrangements start getting made I will definetely need some help with it. I've only been here a year, after all. I still dont know what a sysop is!
Should I make a post about this on WTVG in hope to get more participants? In my view, I dont think so; I made a post on the unofficial Wikimedia Discord server to yield only one response, who agreed with the decision to bring it up to The Signpost. Should I pull the plug on the Newsletter for good this time and request the merge? Please please please help me out here. Panini! 🥪 03:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. I tried to leave a note about it on WTVG but Wikipedia mobile refuses to publish it for some reason... Panini! 🥪 03:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Would you be willing to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largo, California and either relist or close it? It seems to have got lost down a black hole. Thanks -- Pontificalibus 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar--could you move Draft:John Wick: Chapter 4 to John Wick: Chapter 4? Cheers! NathanielTheBold ( talk) 19:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The article
Growing Up Absurd you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Growing Up Absurd for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tayi Arajakate --
Tayi Arajakate (
talk)
10:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? Even though expanded, your rationale still seems to hold true. Onel5969 TT me 21:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The article
Kafka's Prayer you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Kafka's Prayer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Etriusus --
Etriusus (
talk)
01:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar! I already finished my article on Domingos Passos. It's a translation from the Portuguese Wikipedia article that I wrote, with some little improvements. It is considered a good article there. I'll be glad if you can review it. Feel free to fix any mistakes and improve the article's text if it is necessary. Greetings! El Descamisado ( talk) 19:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi King George56 ( talk) 04:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The article
Emma Kinema you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Emma Kinema for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
02:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar, I hope you're doing well! I was wondering if you would be willing to contribute to Template:Did you know nominations/Typequick? Another user RoySmith has begun a review, but it isn't very thorough. I believe the article could use a second opinion fromm a WP:VG mainstay. Thank you in advance!-- Coin945 ( talk) 11:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion#Approaches_(21_articles) should be changed to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion#Approaches_(22_articles), since the "approaches" sub-section in "ethics" section now contains 22 rather than 21 articles.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 07:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Czar: You seem in the business of enforcing American-only style of dating MM DD YYYYY rather than accepting DD MM YYYY, which is standard practice in Europe (and elsewhere, I believe): is there some particular driver for your actions? Respectfully - Aboudaqn ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The page has been reviewed by me and it meets the GA rules. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 06:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for the kindly redirection on my too-frequent answers.
I took a break from it and I would've hoped things would get better but they aren't. It's always the same stuff, the discussions go nowhere, etc. This is a good summary.
I don't trust the AfD or RfC process for this article because, despite Wikipedia clearly not being about voting, it boils down to that, because more users are just going to say "per sources" and our arguments for why they're engaging in original research, synthesis, and other policy violations, and sources don't support what they claim they do... they're just going to be ignored. I may have to go to the noticeboard for sources and go one by one whether each source support the article. If you can write a neutral AfD or RfC, go for it.
Even though I'm skeptical, that is the only solution. Thank you again for your time. Davide King ( talk) 09:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The article
Paul Goodman you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Paul Goodman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sahaib3005 --
Sahaib3005 (
talk)
09:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alberta Association of Architects. 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.
Note I don't think you closed it incorrectly given the information available to you at the time but given the new information I think it might need reassessment. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Czar. I am sending you this message as I am being targeted by a random user who is accusing me of vandalism and falsifying information on an article here on Wikipedia. The article is about the South Korean movie, Once Upon a Time in High School. This user is even threatened to report me to the admins to have my account or, at the very least, my editing privileges removed. Before I tell you my request on this issue, I need to tell you how it all happened. So I was browsing through different articles on Wikipedia and then I encountered the Once Upon a Time in High School article. Upon reading it, I noticed that the last paragraph of the movie's plot was incorrect as I have seen the movie multiple times before and the last paragraph of the plot did not match with the movie's. I initially was taken aback for a few moments until I eventually decided to change the article so that the last paragraph was more accurate and correct. This was my first time editing an article on Wikipedia so I took careful actions when doing it. I even took the time to re-watch the movie once more before finalizing it, making sure there wasn't any errors. A week later, another user, the one I am referring to, reverts it back and starts accusing me of vandalism and falsifying information of the article. I then responded to the other user on the user's talk page, clarifying that I wasn't falsifying information nor vandalizing anything and I even provided a link of the movie for the other user to view to back my statements, but I have not heard from the user since. From there, I went back and undid his/her revision of my revision. I gradually waited for the other user to respond to my reply, but the other user instead went back to undid my revision again of Once Upon a Time in High School and once again accuses me of vandalism. This time, I started to get irritated and think that this other user is disregarding what I have to say and believes that he/she has justification for his/her action. I even looked up the revision history of the article and it seems that this may or may not be the first time he/she has done this to the article. Soon after, I did once more revision to the article and this again clarify that I not vandalizing nor falsifying anything, but the user still reverts it back and threatens me that he/she will report me to the admins. This is when I started to get on edge and decided to take matters into my own hands and contact the admins myself. I took some time to look up how to report to the admins, came across your name, and decided to message you. As for my request, I would like for you to confront this user and probably consider having him/her removed or blocked. You can find the user using this link: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:A580:3900:7558:734B:E6FB:64D4. When you go to the article and read the revision history, you can see a small conversation between me and the other user. For the link to the movie I used to back my statement, here it is: https://archive.org/details/once-upon-a-time-in-high-school. You may view the movie and the article side by side and decide who is correct. This is urgent as the more people vandalize and make innocents fall to their schemes, the more victims will fall into misinformation and disinformation. I have been a long time guest on Wikipedia and it hurts me to see someone drastically change an article, inputs false information, and then accuses others of falsifying information when it gets corrected. Thank you. Detective Stranger ( talk) 21:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Czar,
I'm going through a list of orphaned talk subpages and came across this one you created. But there doesn't seem to be an associated article. Should this just be deleted or can you think of a place it can be moved to? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. It was the best I could do for now. I didn't find much material on the web. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 13:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit to Crass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? — Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey man so we're having a discussion on the talk page for The Last of Us Part II regarding whether or not the narrative/transgender character was polarizing among critics and if we should remove it. I saw you chime in on the "Universal acclaim" descriptor thing for The Last of Us Part II's reception, maybe you could chime in here as well. TheMassEffector ( talk) 01:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the links and suggestions, Czar. I'm not specifically interested in Anarchism but in plugging historical gaps, often to do with foreign subjects not covered in English Wikipedia pages. Most recently, this has had to do with the Spanish and French struggles from the last century. Dm4244 ( talk) 18:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar,
To be fair, I'm happy to receive your invitation, and I'm willing to help improve articles' qualities about anarchism, especially about anarchism in Asia. However, I'm a little busy in real life recently. But if I have time I will help, so if you need my help, don't hesitate to let me know. Also, I had monitored some articles about anarchism.-- ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 15:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowser's Fury 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.
SkippyKR ( talk) 23:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Flaglist+link. 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. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey Czar,
Due to recently announced conference realignment news, UAB and Memphis will return to playing regularly as conference opponents. I think this may warrant a revival of the previously deleted article on the rivalry.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UAB–Memphis rivalry
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanternofdiogenes ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar! How are you? Hope everything is alright. -- Captain Assassin! « T ♦ C ♦ G» 07:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems up your alley? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your mensage in my page! I have done one or two things in english wikipedia, but i am actually a editor in portuguese wikipedia, and i will problably remain exclusively there for some time since i do not have a sufficient grasp of english grammar to really contribute. But we should definetely do more exchanges to expand both projects! Nice to meet you! JoaquimCebuano ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi again, need restoration of deleted edits from Draft:The Woman King (film) and Draft:Blade (upcoming film). Thanks -- Captain Assassin! « T ♦ C ♦ G» 20:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AFD8, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AFD8 and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:AFD8 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Qwerfjkl
talk
18:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I gather anarchism is maybe more your area of expertise than Marxism, but I see you've worked on a lot of politics-related book articles and I'm looking for reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Why Marx Was Right/archive1. All feedback welcome, if you're interested. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors ( User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022! |
Hello Czar, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hello thank you for your message. I will check out the links when I have the time. Thank you for posting them. Please have a good day. Take care, Centralia1 Centralia1 ( talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey Czar, thanks for reaching out. I'm admittedly very new to editing on wikipedia, so I appreciate the help and the heads up. Would definitely love to be more involved in coordinated efforts. Thanks! Anarkiddie ( talk) 14:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Czar,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Happy new year, dear friend!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Czar,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk)
14:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Template:Progression rainbow/project has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Gonnym (
talk)
19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
A token of thanks
Hi Czar! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
![]() |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this, it was really helpful, thank you so much. I just do not think I can do it myself, especially on such a controversial article and subject and I would need some draft, guidelines, suggested sources and help from users such as you and The Four Deuces, who are one of the best users on reading our policies and guidelines, and actually following the literature, which often times is not the case. But I consider this a challenge and a big one at improving myself. "I intended to write more articles over my break (except on topics I've already researched) but I've been doing more replying lately ;)." I would love to help and hear more about this. :)
As for the last part about Wikipedia, that makes sense and I agree. I wish, however, there were different versions of the same articles and articles that have not got neither Good article nor Featured article status should be considered as draft and be "the official version" only once they obtain the Good article status. Ideally, the Good article and Featured article status should be a summary of the topic and not be overtly detailed but I would not mind if there was a tag alongside Read that read "(See) other versions" or something. There could be different types of version such as the aforementioned more detailed version, an academic-style version, a first-person version, a throw-any-reliable-sources-about-the-topic-without-following-literature version, a translated-other-wiki version, etc. I think it would be fun or interesting to write, say, Socialism article from the perspective of socialists or from liberals, and so on, civilisation from an indigenous POV, or an article of war from a single POV, another from the other POV, and so on.
Hell, there could be a version of any article from any Wikipedian, or a version of any article from any Wikipedian where original research and synthesis are lifted while only verifiability is necessary. In a way, we already do that through drafts and sandbox but I wish there was a way where they could be stored together or something, or the aforementioned "See other versions" bottom. As long as it is clear the difference (i.e. which policies and guidelines still applies, which ones do not, etc.; from what POV is written; and that it is clearly indented to reflect that POV rather than "truth" or our policies and guidelines, which must be respected to gain the Good article and Featured article status, as only the latter would be the official and "first page" version). While these latter ideas are more "fun" or "interesting" than "useful", so one counter-argument could be that it is "counter-productive", I think the idea of making any non-Good article status article a constantly work-in-progress draft, or even dividing a "summary" and "more detailed" version of the same article, would be helpful and useful in eventually helping achieve these two versions, making easier to gain the Good article and/or Featured article status. In short, there would be the "official" Wiki-encyclopedia where the goal would be to create as many Good and Featured articles; and then there would be the "free" Wiki-encyclopedia where the goal would be to create as much free knowledge and perspectives as possible, with the main policy and guideline being verifiability and attribution.
One issue could be the servers, as that could be "too much", but I like to think big and be optimistic someday it will really be possible to have all knowledge and perspectives, properly attributed and verified here. Are these just crazy and nonsensical ideas? Good but too much, too ambitious, too hard? More like "Eh"?
Regarding pings, my bad about it. It happened a few times that users did not respond and I thought it was good manner to ping but you are right. I also understand if "it's not a discussion I'm looking to follow." However, could you please write a neutral RfC about the scope and your own suggestion you proposed? That would be a way forward.
I also wanted to add I think this comment of yours ("ML is a floating signifier. To this bleary-eyed, third-opinion reader, there is no single reducible definition that applies to all of the ways it's invoked. Our article appears to jumble these different meanings into an invented, contiguous whole.") is a perfect summary of the issues regarding the main topic and scope at Mass killings under communist regimes and its talk page, i.e. I am referring to scholars stating that "a connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and under the Stalin era are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category" and "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss." Davide King ( talk) 18:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
January 15, 6pm: Wikimedia NYC celebrates 20 years of Wikipedia | |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Wikipedia Day is always a big day for Wikimedia NYC. While we cannot meet in person, we still have something special planned. We will begin the event with the debut of a new video celebrating our community. This will be followed by a panel discussion with some of the people you'll see in the video talking about Wikipedia's 20th anniversary, Wikimedia New York City, and the amazing work they do on Wikimedia projects. The event will be broadcast live via YouTube. Feel free to ask questions for the panel through the chat! We will also have some NYC wiki trivia you can participate in, with confectionery prizes.
|
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
-- Wikimedia New York City Team 14:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The article
Kronstadt rebellion you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Kronstadt rebellion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tayi Arajakate --
Tayi Arajakate (
talk)
08:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
06:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
On 23 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moynihan Train Hall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed an expansion of New York Penn Station as a homage to the original station, where he had once shined shoes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moynihan Train Hall. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Moynihan Train Hall), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I was just going to move Robert Service back to Robert Service (disambiguation) but I thought I'd talk about it here first. I believe "Robert Service" is the primary topic for Robert W Service. I'm not sure why you say otherwise. I have books of his poetry that only say Robert Service... no "W" at all. I believe "Robert Service" should redirect to the poet, and if you still insist otherwise there should be an RfC on the move. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for writing Unabomber manifesto - quite an interesting topic, isn't it? I was surprised to see it was created relatively recently - always cool to see the encyclopedia expanding. Have a great day! Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 01:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently been working on creating a page on the topic of the Fresno Nightcrawler, which you can find at the top of my Sandbox. I noticed that a similar page was deleted in 2019 for failing WP:NFRINGE and having "dodgy citing", with examples of this included. I feel that there may now be sufficient coverage of the topic by reliable sources (including The Fresno Bee) to warrant an article, and was wondering what steps I would take to make this a reality. Thanks, - JJonahJackalope ( talk) 20:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure it should have been closed yet, besides the nominator mine is the only !vote. IMHO relisting would have been better. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello czar! I'm conducting a feature for the video games newsletter similar to that of a survey. I'm going to ask users their opinions on a specific matter and highlight unique and common answers to determine consensus on a subject. Your input would be very valuable, alongside others, to help answer this question.
The question is: How do you determine what makes a video game character notable enough for their own page? Do you follow pre-existing guidelines or have your own opinions on the matter?
P anini 🥪 22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premise (company) 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.
DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:De minimis has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Aasim (
talk)
00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you. Is it possible to revdel this edit? -- Ashley yoursmile! 06:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm puzzling over this passage in the article on Chomsky's book Reflections on Language: "blank slate upon which psychological and social forces act (empiricism)" -- Why the word "empiricism"? It seems misplaced at best. Regards, Anomalous+0 ( talk) 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm conducting another survey for the Wikiproject Video games Newsletter. If you could leave your thoughts on the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Every response will be compiled into a MOS-Esque answer that balances the thoughts of our top contributors. You're one of them! The question is as follows:
What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?
If you would like to respond, please ping me here and write your reply. I'll handle the rest. Thanks in advance, Panini! 🥪 14:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Palantir. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Palantir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
162 etc. (
talk)
20:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikipedia:ROSE. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 25#Wikipedia:ROSE until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) |
o toki tawa mi.
21:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Is italicized has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Gonnym (
talk)
14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
22:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not the smartest when it comes to dab pages and the like, I'll admit that. But was there some kind of requested move or other consensus-reaching discussion that I missed? Sro23 ( talk) 15:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have been erroneously closed to redirect to the nominated page. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Czar,
I don't think you saw my last comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semen Hitler but an editor moved the page to Semyon Hitler so what you deleted was a redirect, not the article itself which you can now find at Semyon Hitler, complete with the AFD tag. I didn't think pages were supposed to be moved during deletion discussions so I questioned whether to move it back. But you closed the discussion soon after I commented. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Czar! I would've emailed you about this, but since I'm on the Wikipedia app the "email this user" button doesn't work. I'll just keep stuff anonymous and say it here instead.
I haven't been getting responses from Thibbs this past week about questions I have about the Video Games Newsletter but I have gotten an email from him yesterday. He filled me in on what's happening in his life at the moment (he mentioned you are aware of what) and said he will be out for an indefinite amount of time. Due to the lack of participation in the Newsletter from GamerPro64 and the retirement from IAS that leaves just me on the Newsletter; I'm new to it, and have gotten Thibbs to help all this time, and with him gone, I have no idea what I'm doing! Hehe...
I'm gonna break this up into two pieces because I dont want to risk clicking the back arrow and losing this whole Ted Talk. More info in a second. Panini! 🥪 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I haven't seen you around at all but there's a reason why I'm telling you all of this. Here's an excerpt from his email to me:
"He (Czar) has expressed the view that the WP:VG Newsletter should be merged into the The Signpost as a special section. I know GP64 has worked with The Signpost too so he may be helpful if that seems to be the best course going forward."
And due to these events, I think this is the best course going forward. He explained how he has gone out before and the Newsletter next to collapsed because of it, and it left GamerPro doing it all by themself about 3 years ago. I think this will be a repeat of those events. And, since GP64 hasn't been active in the field I doubt they have any interest in having to do it by force.
I would really appreciate your help in this, because if it gets to the point where arrangements start getting made I will definetely need some help with it. I've only been here a year, after all. I still dont know what a sysop is!
Should I make a post about this on WTVG in hope to get more participants? In my view, I dont think so; I made a post on the unofficial Wikimedia Discord server to yield only one response, who agreed with the decision to bring it up to The Signpost. Should I pull the plug on the Newsletter for good this time and request the merge? Please please please help me out here. Panini! 🥪 03:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. I tried to leave a note about it on WTVG but Wikipedia mobile refuses to publish it for some reason... Panini! 🥪 03:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Would you be willing to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largo, California and either relist or close it? It seems to have got lost down a black hole. Thanks -- Pontificalibus 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar--could you move Draft:John Wick: Chapter 4 to John Wick: Chapter 4? Cheers! NathanielTheBold ( talk) 19:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The article
Growing Up Absurd you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Growing Up Absurd for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tayi Arajakate --
Tayi Arajakate (
talk)
10:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? Even though expanded, your rationale still seems to hold true. Onel5969 TT me 21:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The article
Kafka's Prayer you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Kafka's Prayer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Etriusus --
Etriusus (
talk)
01:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar! I already finished my article on Domingos Passos. It's a translation from the Portuguese Wikipedia article that I wrote, with some little improvements. It is considered a good article there. I'll be glad if you can review it. Feel free to fix any mistakes and improve the article's text if it is necessary. Greetings! El Descamisado ( talk) 19:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi King George56 ( talk) 04:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The article
Emma Kinema you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Emma Kinema for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
02:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar, I hope you're doing well! I was wondering if you would be willing to contribute to Template:Did you know nominations/Typequick? Another user RoySmith has begun a review, but it isn't very thorough. I believe the article could use a second opinion fromm a WP:VG mainstay. Thank you in advance!-- Coin945 ( talk) 11:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion#Approaches_(21_articles) should be changed to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion#Approaches_(22_articles), since the "approaches" sub-section in "ethics" section now contains 22 rather than 21 articles.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 07:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Czar: You seem in the business of enforcing American-only style of dating MM DD YYYYY rather than accepting DD MM YYYY, which is standard practice in Europe (and elsewhere, I believe): is there some particular driver for your actions? Respectfully - Aboudaqn ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The page has been reviewed by me and it meets the GA rules. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 06:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for the kindly redirection on my too-frequent answers.
I took a break from it and I would've hoped things would get better but they aren't. It's always the same stuff, the discussions go nowhere, etc. This is a good summary.
I don't trust the AfD or RfC process for this article because, despite Wikipedia clearly not being about voting, it boils down to that, because more users are just going to say "per sources" and our arguments for why they're engaging in original research, synthesis, and other policy violations, and sources don't support what they claim they do... they're just going to be ignored. I may have to go to the noticeboard for sources and go one by one whether each source support the article. If you can write a neutral AfD or RfC, go for it.
Even though I'm skeptical, that is the only solution. Thank you again for your time. Davide King ( talk) 09:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The article
Paul Goodman you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Paul Goodman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sahaib3005 --
Sahaib3005 (
talk)
09:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alberta Association of Architects. 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.
Note I don't think you closed it incorrectly given the information available to you at the time but given the new information I think it might need reassessment. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Czar. I am sending you this message as I am being targeted by a random user who is accusing me of vandalism and falsifying information on an article here on Wikipedia. The article is about the South Korean movie, Once Upon a Time in High School. This user is even threatened to report me to the admins to have my account or, at the very least, my editing privileges removed. Before I tell you my request on this issue, I need to tell you how it all happened. So I was browsing through different articles on Wikipedia and then I encountered the Once Upon a Time in High School article. Upon reading it, I noticed that the last paragraph of the movie's plot was incorrect as I have seen the movie multiple times before and the last paragraph of the plot did not match with the movie's. I initially was taken aback for a few moments until I eventually decided to change the article so that the last paragraph was more accurate and correct. This was my first time editing an article on Wikipedia so I took careful actions when doing it. I even took the time to re-watch the movie once more before finalizing it, making sure there wasn't any errors. A week later, another user, the one I am referring to, reverts it back and starts accusing me of vandalism and falsifying information of the article. I then responded to the other user on the user's talk page, clarifying that I wasn't falsifying information nor vandalizing anything and I even provided a link of the movie for the other user to view to back my statements, but I have not heard from the user since. From there, I went back and undid his/her revision of my revision. I gradually waited for the other user to respond to my reply, but the other user instead went back to undid my revision again of Once Upon a Time in High School and once again accuses me of vandalism. This time, I started to get irritated and think that this other user is disregarding what I have to say and believes that he/she has justification for his/her action. I even looked up the revision history of the article and it seems that this may or may not be the first time he/she has done this to the article. Soon after, I did once more revision to the article and this again clarify that I not vandalizing nor falsifying anything, but the user still reverts it back and threatens me that he/she will report me to the admins. This is when I started to get on edge and decided to take matters into my own hands and contact the admins myself. I took some time to look up how to report to the admins, came across your name, and decided to message you. As for my request, I would like for you to confront this user and probably consider having him/her removed or blocked. You can find the user using this link: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:A580:3900:7558:734B:E6FB:64D4. When you go to the article and read the revision history, you can see a small conversation between me and the other user. For the link to the movie I used to back my statement, here it is: https://archive.org/details/once-upon-a-time-in-high-school. You may view the movie and the article side by side and decide who is correct. This is urgent as the more people vandalize and make innocents fall to their schemes, the more victims will fall into misinformation and disinformation. I have been a long time guest on Wikipedia and it hurts me to see someone drastically change an article, inputs false information, and then accuses others of falsifying information when it gets corrected. Thank you. Detective Stranger ( talk) 21:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Czar,
I'm going through a list of orphaned talk subpages and came across this one you created. But there doesn't seem to be an associated article. Should this just be deleted or can you think of a place it can be moved to? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. It was the best I could do for now. I didn't find much material on the web. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 13:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit to Crass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? — Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey man so we're having a discussion on the talk page for The Last of Us Part II regarding whether or not the narrative/transgender character was polarizing among critics and if we should remove it. I saw you chime in on the "Universal acclaim" descriptor thing for The Last of Us Part II's reception, maybe you could chime in here as well. TheMassEffector ( talk) 01:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the links and suggestions, Czar. I'm not specifically interested in Anarchism but in plugging historical gaps, often to do with foreign subjects not covered in English Wikipedia pages. Most recently, this has had to do with the Spanish and French struggles from the last century. Dm4244 ( talk) 18:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar,
To be fair, I'm happy to receive your invitation, and I'm willing to help improve articles' qualities about anarchism, especially about anarchism in Asia. However, I'm a little busy in real life recently. But if I have time I will help, so if you need my help, don't hesitate to let me know. Also, I had monitored some articles about anarchism.-- ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 15:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowser's Fury 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.
SkippyKR ( talk) 23:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Flaglist+link. 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. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey Czar,
Due to recently announced conference realignment news, UAB and Memphis will return to playing regularly as conference opponents. I think this may warrant a revival of the previously deleted article on the rivalry.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UAB–Memphis rivalry
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanternofdiogenes ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar! How are you? Hope everything is alright. -- Captain Assassin! « T ♦ C ♦ G» 07:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems up your alley? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your mensage in my page! I have done one or two things in english wikipedia, but i am actually a editor in portuguese wikipedia, and i will problably remain exclusively there for some time since i do not have a sufficient grasp of english grammar to really contribute. But we should definetely do more exchanges to expand both projects! Nice to meet you! JoaquimCebuano ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi again, need restoration of deleted edits from Draft:The Woman King (film) and Draft:Blade (upcoming film). Thanks -- Captain Assassin! « T ♦ C ♦ G» 20:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AFD8, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AFD8 and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:AFD8 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Qwerfjkl
talk
18:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I gather anarchism is maybe more your area of expertise than Marxism, but I see you've worked on a lot of politics-related book articles and I'm looking for reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Why Marx Was Right/archive1. All feedback welcome, if you're interested. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Czar, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors ( User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022! |
Hello Czar, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hello thank you for your message. I will check out the links when I have the time. Thank you for posting them. Please have a good day. Take care, Centralia1 Centralia1 ( talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey Czar, thanks for reaching out. I'm admittedly very new to editing on wikipedia, so I appreciate the help and the heads up. Would definitely love to be more involved in coordinated efforts. Thanks! Anarkiddie ( talk) 14:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Czar,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Happy new year, dear friend!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Czar,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk)
14:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Template:Progression rainbow/project has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Gonnym (
talk)
19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
A token of thanks
Hi Czar! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
![]() |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)