User talk:Servite et contribuere

Welcome!

Hello, Servite et contribuere, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Kumar Dayal (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

A lengthy welcome

Hi Servite et contribuere. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Hello, I'm Hipal. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Bo Horvat, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! --Hipal (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What should I do to add his last name language status? Should I include a link to a wiki dictionary? Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

See Horvat for the etymology.

For WP:DUE mention in the article on Bo Horvat, a reliable source about Bo is required. --Hipal (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Such as like, putting in the name Horvat, but with a link to the article of the name of Horvat or a link to Horvat in the Wikipedia dictionary? Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I meant redirect actually Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

With a Target page Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Bo Horvat is an entry in Horvat. I'd leave it at that. --Hipal (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Coups Creek moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Coups Creek. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Coups Creek moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Coups Creek. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Honestly, where do you live for starters, just what country? Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Travis Head protection

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Travis Head, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. What are you doing? You are not an admin. You cannot protect the article. Meters (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t know I couldn’t protect the article. Thanks for letting me know. I was just worried about potential vandalism after his test century as India is a country with over 1 Billion people, and Cricket is considered a religion there, and with over 1 Billion people can come some crazy fans, and due to his performances against India, unfortunately has resulted in vandalism. I would recommend (If you are an admin) to give Semi Protection, because his page is repetitively vandalised Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the advice mate Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If you think the article needs to be protected then the place to request protection is WP:RPP. Note that we don't proactively protect articles. Being worried about potential vandalism is not a reason to protect an article. Meters (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t appear to be working. Oh well, I guess these vandalised edits on Travis Head are usually reverted anyways Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Dallas Texans (NFL) content

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dallas Texans (NFL), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Do not restore material that has been removed as being unsourced unless you provide a reliable source. Meters (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

OK… But other things aren’t sourced, some things are just facts, and if everything had to be sourced, I would recommend going to list of defunct sports teams in all 4 of the Big 4 Sports, come back and tell me, just a reminder that so many things are just so obvious Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I just find some things a bit weird Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You were previously warned about adding unsourced claims. Did you read the links? "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." When you added an unsourced claim this time I challenged it by removing it with the edit summary "unsourced". That is a direct request for a source. It does not matter if you think it is obvious (this is clearly not a case of WP:BLUESKY), or if there is other material that is unsourced. And adding the "while many believe ..." aside only makes it worse. Unless a reliable published source says that Dallas is the most recent major sports team to fold, we do not say that. And it would be WP:SYNTH to add sources for the fold dates of any other folded teams and then reach the conclusion that Dallas was the most recent.

Please read WP:BRD for what to do when you edit has been undone. Meters (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

OK. Let’s just leave it as it is I guess. What should I do? Add a link to a list of defunct teams? Just a reminder that other lines are unsourced Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean, what should you do? Did you read what I wrote? Did you read the links? Add your claim with a reliable source that says that the team was the last major sports team to fold, or don't add it at all. Meters (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

OK. I will obey these rules of requiring a source and I will focus on editing my Wiki User page instead, and use reliable sources Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Meters You are 100% correct. "While many believe" statements are unencyclopaedian. I actually did believe they were the last to fold, but no source said so, I thought "The Barons merged, they didn't fold", but what I didn't realise was that the San Jose Sharks reversed the Merger. So if no source supports a claim, it is likely not true (Some might be true EG: Bo Horvat might be of Croatian descent, but he just doesn’t care, and thus in his view is irrelevant to him). Thanks for the advice to help me get better. It's probably best for me to just stick to things I'm good at (Like reverting vandalism on Cricketers and correcting their role per the source cited) Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources needed

Hi! I'm about to revert a bunch of your recent updates. If a page says sources are needed, it's probably best to provide the sources before removing the warning. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

First of all, what part of Australia are you from? Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No, not "first of all". It is irrelevant where User:Doctorhawkes is from, and it is not appropriate to ask any editor personal questions. Meters (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

OK. I won’t ask without asking their permission (Unless that is Inappropriate, and please tell me if it is). But I can tell you that I was born in Wahroonga, a suburb on Sydney’s Upper North Shore Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Original research on Northern Eagles

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Northern Eagles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

OK. Understood. I will leave citation needed in there. It might seem obvious to me that the decision to not play at North Sydney Oval angered North Sydney fans, but it doesn’t seem obvious to everyone. And that is what counts Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I just asked Meta AI, and it seems pretty obvious that all Norwegian Australians are part of the Norwegian Diaspora. How could it be majority and not all? Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Servite et contribuere, 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 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Public transport

On Friday 27, December 2024, if you have stuff to talk to me about, I will not be looking at my Wikipedia page until at least 13:00PM AEST. Do not expect a response before this time as I am returning something I accidentally put in my purse at a relative’s house that actually belongs to them Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Threw up

On 28 December 2024, in the morning AEST, I threw up. I might need some time off and if you have anything to say, I might not reply Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Northern Bears (Disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Northern Bears (Disambiguation) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 9 § Northern Bears (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maheesh Theekshana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bowler. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That was a mistake on by behalf. I meant to link to Bowler (cricket) but I just don’t think I was thinking about it at the time Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Attempted protection of Mitchell Owen

Did my attempt at protection at least work? Sushidude21! (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to protect Travis Head, but I couldn’t since I am not an admin. Trust me, it won’t work Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Servite et contribuere@Sushidude21! I'm not sure what you guys mean but page protection can be requested at WP:RPP. Cheers. GoldRomean (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Non civil comment

Hello, I'm ProClasher97. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 10:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for letting me know. What comment was it? Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@ProClasher97 I do apologise for the personal attacks on User:Gamerboykarl. I definitely went too far. This is a complete violation my values. I should try and educate him in a more polite way on the differences of seasons by hemisphere Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello there! It’s ok, I just figured I would give you a reminder about it so you were aware of it and so you don’t do it again. I see your other question from before, it was the edit that you made on HiLo48’s talk page mentioning how he didn’t realize it’s Summer in Australia. (I also saw they subsequently responded to you in what appeared to be a non-civil way, and I did also send a message to them about their comments as well). ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 13:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

i am not a baby Gamerboykarl (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Josh Inglis

This was a bad edit. I'm all for not updating stats while a game is in progress, but you didn't have to revert it - it was a completed innings, and in fact the batting stats haven't changed since that time - and you certainly didn't need to remove the category. St Anselm (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your words. I am actually about to take a short nap. The category can go back now. It’s just best to not update anything until the match has ended. It was a completed innings, but there is a generally accepted standard not to edit stats until the match is complete. But I think it’s probably best to not update anything (Including categories) until the match is complete Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The issue is not so much whether to update or not, but if it has been updated, whether to revert or not. Please don't remove valid categories, even if you think someone is jumping the gun. St Anselm (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for statement. I do understand that editors can disagree on what they believe should and should not be done (Apart from consensus like no vandalism, like fake names for example). I can understand your view (Correct me if I am wrong) The innings was complete, and thus cannot be undone Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. St Anselm (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I am very unwell

Hi everyone. Just letting you know that I am currently very unwell in my Sinuses. It is really annoying me. I will be prioritising my health for the next while. I might not be as active. If you do have something to say, feel free to say it, but I am very unwell. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Servite et contribuere! Your additions to Gordon RFC have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. You also cited a journal article which has nothing to do with the subject-- why? Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Moneytrees! I didn't see your notice. Much of the content removed (Specifically club history) was not added by me. Second of all, was the club rivalry copyright? Third of all, if you are wondering about me citing a journal article that has nothing to do with the article about the subject, if you are talking about this: , I would suggest that you read it again and tell me what you think. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Moneytrees Does that mean we cannot use the source at all, or just cannot copy all or parts of the source? Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That just means we can't copy from the source; the vast majority of sources are under copyright and can't be copied from at all, unless you're quoting from it. Otherwise, we're free to cite it; I don't think there's any sources that you aren't allowed to cite, unless they don't exist or something... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Moneytrees I actually wanted to know specifically whether this means we cannot copy anything or not copy most. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

We really shouldn't copy anything from sources in general, unless we're explicitly quoting it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Moneytrees OK, back to the question I had before please. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

About what source you cited in the edit? I've asked some other admins offwiki to verify what I've said, but regardless, even if you cited the right source, it wouldn't have mattered; it would still be a copyright issue. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Moneytrees The same one as before: what my question is, is only a limited amount allowed to be copied or none (For more specific words, 0%)? Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Ideally, nothing gets copied. That said, proper nouns and basic facts (such as, x graduated from y university or the score of the game was xxx to yyy, so and so made a goal, etc) are considered to not be copyrightable, so you needn't worry about copyright overlap there, if that makes sense. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Moneytrees I would find it easier personally if you just said yes or no to the question you just replied to to TBH Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the way you posed it wasn't a yes or no question? But to cut all the other verbiage out: "none". Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Moneytrees Oh. Well first, to be loud and clear, you mean 0%? And second well that is a problem unfortunately I get in way too often when I don't understand what others say. I have Austism and ADHD so by Brain operates differently to others, thus; I sometimes get into misunderstandings. BTW, this I am not requesting a mental health expert. I am just letting you, my brain operates differently to other people's. Sorry you didn't understand my question. I could have been more specific. Anyways, I guess those things happen sometimes. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

0, yeah. And don't sweat it on communication; it happens, especially on Wikipedia. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Fox Valley Road

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fox Valley Road, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it. It might be fine actually, I did put the citation in and that is what happened… Please put in title Sydney Adventist Hospital to help me. I am not very good at coding. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed✅ Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect capitalisation

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in First Lady of North Korea, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In "The first lady or North Korea", "first lady" should be lowercase because it's modified by the determiner "The". See the manual of style about capitalization. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 17:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Eyer Not going to even bother reading the manual style right away. All I know is I made a mistake. Thanks for the correction Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries, friend. Happy editing! —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 17:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Vermont Open

Last month you reverted my red link edits for some of the champions of the Vermont Open. First you stated that "We don't add red links" but we clearly do. Then you noted that the "red links don't seem necessary or relevant." But these champions are all clearly worthy of a page; in fact, I intend to create pages for all of them. I think these red links should be re-applied.

Regards,

Chief disambiguator (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Chief disambiguator Thanks for your comments and expressing your concern. If we do add red links, my bad. Also, can you please cite a manual guideline that does say we that we do add red links please? Thank Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

We definitely use red links. Some examples of red links we use for golf pages include the North Carolina Open tournament page and the article for Vic Bennetts. Overall, the rationale for red links is provided here. In addtion, we have discussed the purpose of red links on the WP:GOLF talk page a couple of years ago.

Chief disambiguator (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Chief disambiguator

Chief disambiguator Look, I’m not a Wikipedia Golf expert. I should probably focus on things I am expert on. One comment did say Red links are OK if an article is possible. I don't know whether these are notable people. I should just focus on things I am more of an expert on TBH Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It's ok and thanks for your honesty. Now you know that we use red links. Most people - including golf afficionados - would be unaware of these golfers but there is potential for a page for each one. I will return the red links soon.

Chief disambiguator (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Chief disambiguator

RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Hi, I promised earlier today that I would explain this edit. Basically, I removed the |rfcid= parameter in order to force Legobot (talk · contribs) to visit the page and assign another rfcid. This is because each rfcid must be unique, and in this edit you assigned your own (something that should never be done) but worse still, you appear to have copied the value from a completely different RfC - the one at Talk:United States#RFC: Is English the official language of the United States?. This meant that there were then two ongoing RfCs with the same rfcid, which compromises the data tables maintained by Legobot. This in turn has caused duplication, mislinking, and corrupted the RfC listings (example). Please, always let Legobot assign its own rfcid, unless you know exactly what you are doing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Reversion of move

Hey, just wondering why you reverted my move of NATO Air Training Command – Afghanistan for being undiscussed? Whilst it's true that it was undiscussed, my understanding is that minor moves – such as correcting a hyphen for an en-dash and fixing spacing – don't generally require a move discussion, unless there's a reasonable expectation that it would be contested. Cheers in advance, RadiculousJ (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know if I was aware about the correct hyphen TBH. Just thought it was incorrect at the time. I will do more research and find sources so I can find out the correct hyphen. If you want to say it is the correct hyphen; Provide sources Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. RadiculousJ (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Reversion and Deletion of Boele Controversy

With political candidates, any controversy is worth noting to give readers the best perspective. If a candidate, no matter if you support them or not, makes a sexually aggravated comment to a teenager, it feels worth noting on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wrote it with a neutral tone, providing not only the report, but also her apology and a source. I am confused why it was deleted. I had been a Boele supporter for a while, so political influence had nothing to do with it. I was confused why you reverted my edit, and then proceeded to remove the whole controversy section, saying "don't draw attention or bad stuff". That was clearly politically motivated, and I don't blame you. So, I would just like your context or reason so I can have an understanding before I add it back. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Youshouldchooseausernamethat I understand, I made some mistakes with one edit. Also, with the other I don't think the transaction one is notable Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Megan Bell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dundonald.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

DPL bot My mistake Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

DPL bot Fixed Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

on... your user page, apparently

this has probably already been asked before, and if it hasn't, it's still really not important, but why is your user page counted as a dab? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 19:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Consarn I don't know why. I didn't do anything to make it count as a DAB. I literally did nothing. It must have just decided to do that. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It's because the Hillary Knight pages and {{Hndis|Knight, Hilary}} have been copy/pasted on the user page. If those are removed, the hidden disambiguation category goes away. Schazjmd (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Where is the Hndis one? Please do not remove without permission Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything from your user page. It is still listed in Category:All disambiguation pages. If you remove the Hillary Knight disambiguation article and the Hndis template, your user page will no longer show in that category. Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Schazjmd What section is Hndis in on my user page? Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Bibliography. Why do you have all this article content on your user page anyway? That's not its purpose. Schazjmd (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Servite et contribuere, in this edit, you added two instances of {{Hndis|Knight, Hilary}}, which had put the page into Category:All disambiguation pages. They have since been removed (one, two). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Servite et contribuere! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to take a redirect for RFD, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Servite et contribuere! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Is there a way to request Un Deletion of a page (Through a discussion or elsewhere), has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .

Please follow instructions

Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves when requesting moves. You keep doing it wrong. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Celia Homeford Requesting moves and getting these technical things right like these are truly my weakness. I will try to Improve. Thanks you Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fox Valley Road

The article Fox Valley Road has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article lacks third party references.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Catfurball (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me understand. I guess I was looking for something to do. I did provide an edit summary. Can we discuss this further? Thank you for collaborating. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You provided an edit summary of "unnecessary". The issue is that that summary does not appear to be valid in the vast majority of cases in which you've used it. For example, you removed citation needed tags from claims that continue not to have citations - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue. Can we discuss the point of tags further? Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The point of maintenance templates is to identify issues to be addressed in a particular article. For example, a citation-needed tag identifies a claim for which a citation is needed. The tag can be removed when a citation is added. If you're looking for something to do, that could be a task for you? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I am currently sick, have autism and ADHD, but I am not requesting your help because if I was I would be asking the completely wrong person. But I think I know why they are called maintenance tags (Or templates). They must be used by editors when adding unsourced stuff to say stuff like (Just an example): "Listen, I am trying to find a source for this, it might be true, but a source is needed". Is that an example? Are there more? Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Tags can also be added by other editors - for example, if I added a sentence without a source, you could add a tag to request that I or someone else provide a source for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I understand. They are often added by unsigned in users. But that is another example. And you know what? The more I think about it, It's probably best to provide a CN instead of removing unsourced claims, with exceptions of like just total vandalism (Like if someone put in that Sam Konstas is illegitimate son of Jasprit Bumra, or someone added he is the father of Bumrah). Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Either tagging or removal is allowed, whether by IPs or regular editors - see WP:BURDEN. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I am actually aware that it is allowed by IPS or regular editors. It had nothing to do with that. But can we go back to my previous reply before this one please? We can talk about adding CN needed over removing unsourced content. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Either tagging or removal is allowed by policy. But you generally shouldn't remove the tag and leave the claim there unsourced - agreed? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Agreed. But look, my idea is that Wikipedia should be made best for those who read it. I am sure the CN needed tags help readers if I think about it. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I don't know what I am saying even. I know I can be more sensible. I honestly believe Wikipedia should be best for those reading it. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have a question. What is the use to redirect 2031 World Cup to its main page. I know the 2027 World Cup hasn't even started but it would be good for users to know that there is no information about it. And one more thing. What about some information for the Indian Premiere League 2026. @Servite et contribuere Gamerboykarl (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Gamerboykarl The 2026 IPL will happen in 12 Months and will be the next tournament within by the end of June for sure. The 2027 World Cup doesn't take place for 29 Months. And it will be another 4 years for the next tournament. WP:Too Soon Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

otay Gamerboykarl (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Untitled

I saw that discussion with @ProClasher97. Gamerboykarl (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Gamerboykarl Why do we need to bring this up again???😂 Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Unavaibility

I won't be able to access Wikipedia for 13 days as I am going to England-Scotland on May 16.@Servite et contribuere Gamerboykarl (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Gamerboykarl Unless you are going to both England and Scotland, you probably mean United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Also, if you are unavailable, you don't need to tell me where you are going, you could just say it on your user page. Also, the location of your Holiday/Vacation is not relevant to us. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

ok Gamerboykarl (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

AFD Comments

Hello. I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. I've run across your comments at AFD a few times recently. I feel like it would be good for you to brush up on the list of arguments to avoid at deletion discussion, as I feel like you're falling into a number of them. Please be sure to cite specific notability guidelines, and list off specific sources help meet them.

When Admin close discussions, they routinely ignore stances that aren't rooted in any sort of policy or guideline. So, when you say things like "There must be sources out there somewhere" or "there's no harm in keeping it around", your voice isn't really going to be heard in the discussion. It won't persuade anyone, and the closer will likely disregard it.

Let me know if you have any questions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Sergecross73 As always, I would like to thank you for your collaboration and I welcome discussions on these things. I guess my perspective is actually a disagreement on the "Who can see deleted content policy". I am open to negotiating with actual Wikipedia staff (Not editors) in person or via email to discuss possible changes. As of now, any deleted content can only be seen by an admin. I totally agree that there is so much content that is so bad that only admins should be able to see (Such as copyright violations, hateful comments, deadnaming and more). However, I do think that non notable stuff with no copyright violations or stuff that is not extreme (Like non notable deleted articles without any copyright violations) should be able to be seen by the public, maybe with a warning saying like: (This content is a former article that was deleted). Thank you for collaborating and thank you for your message comments.

Please note that this conversation is not over and I will happily welcome more comments and messages

Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You're free to your own opinions, I'm just saying, the current consensus is that many of the stances you're giving at AFD are not valid, and will be ignored if you keep doing them. My opinion is that you should start learning the WP:GNG and the various other notability standards we have if you wish to keep contributing to AFDs on Wikipedia. Be aware that continuing to provide invalid stances could eventually lead to your account getting blocked, or getting you topic-banned from the area. So my hope was that you would change your approach well before anything like that ever happened. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I am aware of GNG. But with Blocks or Topic ban, I didn't realise that, don't think I thought of it like that. Thanks for providing the notice Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Servite et contribuere. Thank you for your work on Oil in Texas. Another editor, Old-AgedKid, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

the page is too short for such a significant subject.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Old-AgedKid}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Old-AgedKid Thank you for your comments. It is still being worked on. I just wanted to get the article started in case of a crash so I didn't lose my work. You are welcome to contribute to it and I would appreciate help. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy editing then! Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

BLAR notice

Hi there. While reviewing new pages, I noticed that a page you created, Fox Valley Road, does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a standalone article. As an alternative to deletion, I've redirected it to Wahroonga. If you disagree, feel free to revert my redirect and we can proceed to a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (If you reply to me here, please ping me as I am not watching this page.) Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Death Becomes Her

I am tired of you reversing my edits. I have written synopsises for many pieces of media and they do not need to be sourced. All I am trying to do is make the page the most accurate as someone who has seen the show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Sourcing_and_quotations 47.18.223.45 (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP. If you say you have seen the show, I would easily believe that what you published is true. However, using your own knowledge from watching the show qualifies as original research and is not verifiable. Thanks for your understanding Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

RM on Virat Kohli

Hey, requesting you to open an RM on the "Virat Kohli" article for the reasons I mentioned on the talk page.

— YeedyYaada (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

YeedyYaada The reason I haven't done that yet is because I have had a lot of things to juggle lately. Thanks for the reminder Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

LGAs on railway station pages

Hey, I think the addition of LGAs are an interesting idea but I disagree with it, and as a fellow North Shore boy I disagree with the importance of local councils for stations. I don't want to start an edit war so I've set up a discussion at Talk:Milsons Point railway station#LGAs on railway station pages, where your input is welcome surrounding this issue. I think it would also be good to see what the rest of the community thinks. Thanks Hlmrjk (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere: I just wanted to let you know that you've rebutted every single opposing comment on that discussion. It is fine to add extra information or extra ideas over time (which you have done), but restating the same thing over and over again to multiple different editors can make it harder to determine WP:CONSENSUS. I read the entire thread before I posted my comment, I did not ignore any of the replies made by other editors or by you. Fork99 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Jack Brodie

@Servite et contribuere: Thanks for starting a discussion on Brodie. Could you please also start a discussion at Talk:Aegialeus (strategos)? Something like "Not notable enough to stand on its own, so it should be redirected to Achaean League#List of Strategoi (Generals)". Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

James Anderson

Hello. I have been recently working on the page of James Anderson. I fixed a spelling mistake. Now Anderson has got knighted by King Charles. Should I add that information? Also since he took a ten year break from T20 cricket he marked his return with Lancashire. I have added that information. I have been trying to add a citation that describes his feeling of his ten year break. I found a page that matches it but I am finding difficulty putting that citation. I just wanted to discuss this. Gamerboykarl (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board archive

The bot will continue to attempt to archive those discussions as it meets the criteria for archiving set up on that page. If there's any discussion you want to keep there, since this page uses User:Lowercase sigmabot III (there's two different bots that can archive, the other one is User:ClueBot III), see User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo#Delaying or preventing archiving of particular threads for instructions. See WP:ARCHIVE for general information on archiving talk pages. Fork99 (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Fork99 Thanks for that note. Maybe we need a discussion to slightly update the discussion. Also, how do you get bots to use pages? P.S. don't make my User Page or Talk Page have bots operate it please (Unless it is out of our control)! Also, thanks for telling me. I'll see what I can do. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It's always manually set up, I have it set up on my user talk page as an example. Your page will never have it unless you set it up yourself or someone else does, but no one should do it without your permission (and I don't see why anyone would bother) - see WP:OWNTALK. Fork99 (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Date field

In this edit you changed the date field in Use mdy dates template. Take a look at the documentation for that field at Template:Use mdy dates. It says that it is 'The month and year that the article was last checked for inconsistent date formatting. May use "{{subst:DATE}}" template instead'. So you should convert to mdy dates when udating the date field. This is an example where that date field should be updated.

Happy editing! Cheerio ^_^ ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Panamitsu Thanks for that. So was like one part of the edit to month correct whilst the other was incorrect? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I gave you the wrong diff number, didn't mean to confuse you. In this edit I used a script (there's a link to it in the edit summary) that converted all the YYYY-MM-DD dates to mdy dates. The use dmy dates date field is updated when you convert dates like that. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Panamitsu So which one should be updated every month (Regardless) and which one should not or is it neither? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The |date=... should only be updated when you format the dates. You don't need to do it manually though -- this script will do it for you. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Panamitsu So yes for MDY/DMY dates and no for what type of English to use. Have I got that correctly? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we might be communicating in different wavelengths lol. For mdy/dmy dates, the date field is for when the dates have been last updated. See how in this edit (scroll down a bit) I've converted the dates to mdy.

For the English variety template, there's no need to update it. See the documentation which says the date field is "The month and year that the template was placed (in full)". ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Milsons Point railway station".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Hlmrjk (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere: As you are the only one who wishes for the LGA to be mentioned, are you willing to continue discussion there at DRN? It requires continued effort from the parties involved. Fork99 (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Fork99 I am willing to compromise and further discuss. I would say at bare minimum remove from short description. Maybe keep in lead? Maybe only for suburbs in Multiple LGAS? One exception for the short description I do support is for the North Sydney station for the suburb. I would also suggest replacing the term "Serving" for something else as Train stations aren't restricted to residents of those suburbs, people with family or friends in those suburbs or nearby suburbs, or people who work in those suburbs ETC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

As the DRN is still ongoing, please go there and discuss. I would read the volunteer/moderator's instructions. Fork99 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Servite et contribuere! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Computer transition, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .

National team

Indian cricketer playing for the national team. INDIAN playing for his national team. Adding Indian again is redundant because he is playing for the team of his own nation. "Indian cricketer playing for the Indian national team???" Majority of players play for their national team.

But there are exceptions of course. In the case of Tim David, it's different. "Singaporean cricketer playing for the Australian national team" makes sense. I cannot explain this in any clearer terms, if you still want to keep being disruptive it's on you. OCDD (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD It doesn't matter that you think it is redundant. Articles on pretty much every athlete specify what National Team they play for. You have made these changes without any discussion. You have previously been warned by so many editors over so many of your actions. Also, adding most successful Test captain when the source doesn't say it and just going off how many times they held the Test Mace is WP:OR. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The source does say it. This is fact based. Maybe do some research before making allegations. ICC source itself. He has the most wins as an Indian captain. And you can't change that with your disruption. OCDD (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD Sorry. Didn't see that you updated the source. By bad. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It's always your bad. Nothing new, you keep making such blatant assumptions and mistakes. You have also claimed consensus about many different things when there has been none. OCDD (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The consensus is via WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

But could you also stop making these major changes like having the Test mace in the lead and saying just "National team" without consensus? I recommend you start a discussion at WT:CRICKET. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Prose is not something major that needs consensus. It's basic editing that every Wikipedia page sees everyday. The mace is an official ICC trophy btw. OCDD (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD Going from India National team to simply National Team is actually quite a big change. Pretty much all other athletes with articles specify National Team, even if one might think it is redundant. Making the change without discussion when it is line with articles on other Cricketers goes against WP:CONSISTENT. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning which you claim I never do and then I added India to the article long before you started this thread. But that's nothing new you never check before making assumptions. OCDD (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You can check the time stamps as well. Make sure you do before making another round of allegations. OCDD (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

What are the stamps? Could you specify what you are referring to? I should no this but I do not. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The time stamps that reveal I added India national team to the article before you started that thread on the admin noticeboard. OCDD (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD Thanks for clarifying. If you want to start a discussion over this issue (National Teams) on WT:CRICKET, then I am not going stop you at all and I would say if you want to discuss it and attempt to gain consensus, go for it. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"I'm not going to stop you"???

You CANNOT stop anyone. Maybe check on your entitled behavior and tonality. OCDD (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Miller Street moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Miller Street, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It's a DAB page. Not an article Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Dan arndt Thanks for your concerns. But this is not meant to be an article. It is a Disambigation Page. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Citation for Mohammed Siraj

Hello. Whenever I edit a page you ask for a reference. So when I edited the Mohammed Siraj page I added a citation but it got deleted immediately after I reviewed it. Can you look into that problem? Gamerboykarl (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

And it reappears again. Gamerboykarl (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Servite et contribuere (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I honestly should have acknowledged this when filing to WP:AN/EW, but felt a bit afraid to. I actually wasn't paying attention to my revert count. When I realised I had made 4 edits within 24 hours, I stopped reverting and probably should have acknowledged it (I actually felt too afraid to acknowledge fearing I would be blocked, but I knew I should have acknowledged it (And every mistake). I should always collaborate with everyone to avoid an edit war, even the most difficult customers.)

Decline reason:

It's a 24-hour block; please just sit it out and think about how you can avoid doing this again. asilvering (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Servite et contribuere,

This unblock request actually sounds like an admission of wrong-doing and not a request to review and lift a block. If you do admit to edit warring, you might just want to sit out this block and remove this appeal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz Oh, what is the difference of a acknowledgement and wrong doing? This is kind of both in a way. I honestly didn't exactly to say. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, here's the key. If you find yourself having to check whether you've reached three or four reverts, that means you have acquired the habit of edit warring. Read WP:EDITWAR. It's not about not doing too much of it; it's about not doing it at all. Use the article talk pages to resolve content disagreements. That should be your first, not your last impulse. There's pretty much nothing short of vandalism that has to be fixed Right Now. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Jpgordon I feel like I was dealing with an editor who often refuses discussion and collaboration. It wasn't very nice of me to the other editor for refusing to collaborate rather than using the edit summary. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You still don't get to edit war. It doesn't matter in the least who is right or wrong, once you cross the line into edit warring. WP:DR is a useful guide to dispute resolution. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Jpgordon I should have specified that those were the reasons I did not discuss, and am clarifying that should have specified that I should collaborate with everyone. Even the most difficult editors. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your time and service today. I will sit it out. Even though I am a bit disappointed personally, I deeply respect these rules that keep a healthy environment on Wikipedia. Without further due, I am renaming this discussion after the specific topic rather than the month in accordance with other topics on this talk page and will close this discussion. Thank you everyone. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry

Liz, I meant to ask about the difference of request and acknowledgement. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Archive bottom

Speedy deletion declined Draft:Cars 4

Hello Servite et contribuere. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Cars 4, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Whpq Didn't think it would be. Thanks for that. I was actually trying to do a proposed deletion but I couldn't find it anywhere in Twinkle for some reason. I do want to notify creator about this though. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

PROD does not apply to drafts. If you really think this must be deleted you will need to use MFD. -- Whpq (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Whpq Thanks for that. So it does work in articles but not in drafts? Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Drafts are not eligible. See point 5 of "before nominating" on WP:PROD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Whpq Sorry but let's make sure we know what we are saying. Articles are eligible, but Drafts are ineligible. Is that right? Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing

I noticed at WP:Articles for deletion/Juniors Kingsford light rail station you pinged some selected editors. While I am WP:AGF, this could be interpreted as WP:CANVASSING. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Mounstreip (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Mounstreip Thanks for letting me know about your concern. So what precisely is WP:CANVASSING? Is it possible to explain more? Also, I do agree it is not the best idea to do a light rail station 36 hours after another. Probably would have been best to mention stuff like: "I also nominate the following articles for (Whether that is merging, redirecting or deleting, whatever). But there can always room for improvement. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi there Servite et contribuere, wanted to say that I shared some similar concerns in sports AfDs, one in which I was pinged to. A guideline-compliant alternative to summon more participation is to alert the relevant WikiProject talk page with a neutral notification like {{Afd notice}}. Most of the people you pinged are regulars or watchers of the WikiProject talk pages, so they would've been alerted anyways. I've used that approach countless times and no one has ever made a fuss about it. Best, Left guide (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Left guide Thanks for that. I feel like I get concerned very few will actually see it. Appears to be the complete opposite. Might be from my experience. I don't check all the projects I am listed as being part of all the time mainly because I try to balance so much out. I was about to say, when did I ping you? The I remembered it was the Bills Titans rivalry deletion discussion. I feel like I also pinged you on the Islanders location in opening RFC? Is that right? It's just that I feel like making changes to different types of articles at different times, and have edited articles on a wide variety of topics. It is good how there are editors who will regularly check that. I think I was pinging because I felt it was quicker than just copying and pasting what I notified on one WikiProject talk page and notifying another. So my strategy of pinging I feel like was to save some time. Now I do think it is totally better to notify talk pages since it actually will likely reach out to more editors. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
For some topics, yes, very few will see it, but for the sports projects we seem to share an interest in, the project talk pages are pretty busy and active, so anything that gets posted there will usually get lots of eyeballs on it. WT:RAIL also seems to be one of the busiest project talk pages I've seen, so I think you're in luck there too. Left guide (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Light rail stations

If you have not yet, you may find it instructive to view the discussions that took place in 2006 and earlier this year regarding Sydney light rail stations.

Talk:Light rail in Sydney#Merge Suggestion (March 2006)

Talk:Light rail in Sydney#Merge Suggestion (December 2006)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations

Talk:Light rail in Sydney#Articles for light rail stations cont.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Involved relist

Hi there, I noticed that you relisted WP:Articles for deletion/Beit Jala Lions in an involved manner which is generally advised against per WP:RELIST:

Editor qualifications to relist a discussion are the same as required to close a discussion - see #NAC, for further information.

Another factor is that in this instance, I didn't find any past PROD attempts or AfDs for the article, and thus it may have qualified for soft deletion which doesn't require quorum, and the relist potentially hinders that process. There are plenty of uninvolved admins who patrol the AfD logs and are capable of making a well-informed decision in a reasonably timely manner, so it's typically better left to them. Regards, Left guide (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Left guide I didn't see anything specifically saying not to re list. I did see the Non Admin closure. I felt like a re list was better, but do you have any further comments on my actions? Like doing something wrong, making a mistake, or just what I should have probably should have done. Like should I have specified by Non Admin status by using the (non-admin closure) when re listing? Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. As explained above, the qualifications for closing and relisting are the same, and WP:NACD says:

Non-admin closers are accountable to the policies at WP:ADMINACCT and WP:UNINVOLVED.

Relisting and closing are administrative-style functions, so there are certain standards to be aware of that may not exist in other editing processes. Ordinarily, I might ask you to consider self-reverting, but given that someone else has subsequently commented, that would distort the history, so we'll leave it be this time. I understand it's an innocent good-faith mistake since it seems like the first time, and it's certainly not the end of the world. As for what probably should have been done, leaving the decision to someone uninvolved is usually the wisest move. I hope this is helpful and informative. Best, Left guide (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

List of NHL rivalries

While I don't disagree about some Fan's POV language, the citations needed for verification seem a little curious? Each rivalry with a link has its own article with sources on the subject. The remaining list have at least one source of its rivalry. May we discuss which ones can be removed or how I can resolve that? Conyo14 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Conyo14 It might be that some sections need more. I do feel like there are (Or have been) many sports rivalries on Wikipedia that are written from a Fan POV. It just seems like some people want to make the rivalry seem bigger than it really is. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

catchup-Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Michalski

Hi! got to your message a bit late, but nevertheless thanks for the heads up. Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Spouse of the deputy prime minister of India

Hello Servite et contribuere, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Spouse of the deputy prime minister of India, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop doing reverts like this one. If a match has started then the player in question has become an international player. I can understand wanting to revert statistical changes, but these are different. St Anselm (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh. It's different to statistics? Thanks for letting me know the differences StAnselm. I understand it. I think my concern was WP:CRSYTAL. I do have some issues to raise on WT:CRICKET including image changes on articles like Cricket World Cup and possible claiming of ownership of articles by a certain user that appears to believe any image they need to add needs consensus to remove. I could possibly raise a discussion on the Debut stuff, but I think creating a consensus for images on Cricket Tournaments (mainly ICC Tournaments) about a consensus of image to use in InfoBox is more of a priority. This might be worth a discussion to establish a consensus for sports in general. But back to the debut stuff, thanks for letting me know a difference. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

hi

If you have time, you can nominate nearly every redirect from this page. Thankyou! zglph^•talk• 05:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Undid tagging as nominated: Victoria Tjonadi

Hi Servite et contribuere, just a courtesy heads up to let you know I've undone your tagging of Victoria Tjonadi as nominated for deletion as there was no entry of it at RfD. Looks like a Twinkle error may have undone your nomination. Just letting you know in case you wanted to renominate it.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I've caught a couple more:

Best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Bobby Cohn Oh yeah. Wouldn't be shocked if there were more considering I did it all in a rush to make sure all of them could be listed all in a row. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That should be all, as I'm browsing for redirects no longer patrolled because the redirect has been removed and replaced with an RfD nomination notice. Otherwise a bot will get them if they are listed at RfD. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Mass RfDs

Hi there, when nominating similar types of redirects with the same rationale like you did with badminton players at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 6, it may be preferable to do a bundled nomination. This typically makes it much easier for other editors, closers, and admins to deal with, and possibly for you too. An example of this can be found at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 19#2026 wildfire redirects. I carried it out using the mass XfD script, which I'd recommend you to consider using too. I believe there is also a Twinkle option to expedite bundled nominations. Thanks for helping the community clean up problematic redirects. Left guide (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Left guide Thanks for letting me know. I tried my best make sure they were listed in order. I will try and figure out how to do a bundled nomination, and might even ask the teahouse for instructions without doing it for redirects. Twinkle is undoubtedly the most useful thing I have discovered in Wikipedia. This bundle one could also be useful. It might also be good for these badminton redirects to be bundled together. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk page headers

They seem to have greatly weakened the ban on adding talk page headers until they are actually required. I must say I regard this as a great pity.--Grahame (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Grahamec With the talk page headers when there has been nothing there, I honestly don't see anything harmful about having it. I mean the not a forum and talk page for improving articles is just basic facts about what the talk page is and is not for. I mean, it kind of is unnecessary for a talk page that gets very little comment, but I don't see any harm of having it anyways, and do not see how it would be inappropriate. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Straw Poll

A straw poll has been added to thetalk page of an article you authored, Nicolette Boele. You are welcome to add your opinion to the discussion section or cast a vote.

Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 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) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

National rugby teams

Hi. It's an interesting view you have around these articles, about national teams and governing bodies. Do you have sources to back it up? // Hippo43 (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hippo43 First of all, I will kind of admit is a bad rationale, but anyways, I don't agree with your rationale of unsourced either. I think it is a bit hypocritical considering both (Represents the Governing Body/Represents Nation) are unsourced. Anyways, articles were like this for a long time. Next thing, there is nothing that officially designates them as representing a nation by statue of a country. But if a had a good rationale, one could be that representation often comes in a form of politics. Next things, representation in sports is a complicated issue. Another argument I make is that not everyone in a country is going to support that national team. There can be many reasons, some make sense some are weird. Next thing... well I guess there is only one national team (Barring lower level teams, maybe a little bit off topic, but for example, cricket has like A teams as second to the senior team, so basically only around senior teams). But these teams are a part of Governing Bodies. I like how articles like South Africa national rugby union team are written in the opening TBH. I also like the opening of Australia women's national soccer team which doesn't even mention representation. In truth, these teams in my view represent whoever is trying to play for that national team, and their performance often represents rather like the strength of a sport in a country compared to other nations. Another one is, that the involvement in sports (Like national teams) by governments differs by country. Where I live in Australia, the government has some involvement, primarily stadiums, don't know anything about countries with heavy nationalisation, but countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar and other states that have a lot of nationalised assets, as well Cuba I would assume get involved the most, with Cuba particularly for Baseball. Whereas say for example the United States basically doesn't get involved with these whatsoever, usually just good luck or congratulations messages. What pretty much every national team in the world has in common is they represent the governing body, and/or they are overseen by the governing body. And I also feel like representing a country is just a spiritual thing rather than an actual thing. This could be tough. I definitely think it is a no brainer to include the governing body in the lead in some form. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for trying to explain. Sounds like a personal preference, not based in policy or anything similar. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hippo43 Hmmm… Yes… I see what you mean. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hippo43 I mean both are unsourced still. But don't forget MOS:CITELEAD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Your user page

You need to add {{clear}} after the Info section, and also after the Wiki Info section. I have tried out this change using the Preview feature, but I didn't go so far as to publish a change to your user page. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

FYI

I saw your comment at MfD and thought you should be aware of my report here . NicheSports (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

NicheSports If you are referring to the December one, I was aware of that. But thanks anyways. It appears to have been closed without discussion. I still stand by my vote. I feel like it can just stay there for 6 Months. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

oh no comment on your MfD vote. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the editing approach given you are active on some similar articles! NicheSports (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The Hundred redirect

Hi @Servite et contribuere. I don't remember creating that redirect? I think there is a glitch with XfDCloser, as it has done that before. My apologies. Courtesy pinging @Novem Linguae. 11WB (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Just looked at my edit history. I closed an AfD, which had a consensus to draftify, which I then did. I don't understand what you did here? 11WB (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi 11WB! According to this, you did: . I don't think you have the ability to move pages without leaving a redirect. So it might have been best to leave it to someone who has the ability to do that. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the page mover permission, no. I still don't understand what it is I did wrong here? 11WB (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh! Never mind. I understand now. I should have requested a speedy deletion for the redirect that was leftover. I'll make sure to do that when dealing with drafts at AfD in the future. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I was still typing before I saw your most recent comment, but yep. You got that right. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I totally assume these contributions were made in good faith as consensus was to draftify. But when a page is moved and a redirect is created, it considers it a new article, and considers the article that previously had that title the same article. And I think any time an article is like blanked and redirected for example or redirects to a page it never has redirected to, it is tagged a new redirect. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the only reason I became aware of this is because it showed up as a new mainspace creation of mine on Xtools. I can draftify, I just need to remember to R2 the redirect that follows in future! 11WB (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@11WB. Howdy. Looks like the only issue with XFDcloser here is that it didn't automatically tag it {{Db-r2}} for you. Feel free to create a GitHub ticket to request this feature. That'll get it in the queue. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Novem Linguae! Many of the reviewers also have the page mover permission which also has that ability. I haven't requested PM yet, so I still have to request R2. I have actually never used GitHub before, as I am not a coder I've never needed an account. I'll keep this in mind though, thank you! 11WB (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

"Boele" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Boele has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 21 § Boele until a consensus is reached. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 09:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Offensive and defamatory remarks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Lindsey Vonn, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not add racist defamatory remarks to articles, or revert changes to re-add them. Electricmemory (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Electricmemory Sorry! I didn't want to restore anything offensive! That was bad on me. I hold myself accountable for these actions. This was bad. I saw it as unexplained removal. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Electricmemory Looking back at what I restored, it was terribley offensive. I should not have restored it. As an editor, I hold myself accountable for my actions. This was a bad mistake. That content was purely offensive, and I wouldn't be against deleting those revisions. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Electricmemory I don't think I checked what I was restoring. But thanks for letting me know. Restoring that offensive content is one of the biggest mistakes I have made as an editor. This does not reflect my views and does not reflect what Wikipedia should be. I am deeply deeply sorry. I think I was watching the Super Bowl whilst making the change, or something like that and wasn't fully switched on properly. I pledge not add racist defamatory remarks to articles, or revert changes to re-add them. I never thought I would get this kind of message, because it does not reflect who I am as a person. This is especially awful timing considering what has recently gone on. Is it possible to suppress these revisions? This is a serious BLP violation. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere Thanks for your response. This kind of warning is usual procedure for this type of action, as most times this occurs it is intentional and the editor is acting in a malicious manner. However I must stress how important it is to check what exactly is being changed before hitting the "Publish" button. Electricmemory (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Electricmemory I think I either thought or intended to restore this version: . But the content I restored was a purely despicable action. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere It looks like you tried to use the rollback function of Twinkle, which doesn't work well for edits made by different temporary accounts. Electricmemory (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Handled that better than most would have. Electricmemory (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

A gold bar for you!

	A 24k Gold Bar
	You deserve it! Robloxguest3 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Servite et contribuere! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to nominate an article for GA Reassessment, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .

A few comments about relists

Regarding relists:

Consider allowing other users to relist when your name already displays as a relister. Other users may come to a different conclusion about how much consensus is displayed. One of these happened in the past few days.
Consider choosing not to relist more than a 3rd time, (and tbh 2nd times are questionable). I think I saw one of these in the past week or so.

Neither are particularly big deals, but it's completely fine if a discussion (at TFD) hangs out in the old grouping before one of the other regulars comes to close or relist a discussion. Izno (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Izno! Thanks for your message. One thing I do with re listing is I am very careful to make sure that the discussion has lasted 7 days ad 24 hours, and I basically only re list or close a discussion if I can clearly tell there is a consensus. E.G. if there some votes that I cannot tell are based on P&G or it just way too big with votes both ways for me to process, I will just leave it. If the consensus looks clear, E.G. there is plenty of discussion and all votes are keep, or that the template has been speedy deleted (You might be aware how I closed a discussion where a Template had already been G7ED by you), or if all votes are redirect to the same page in AFD or RFD, and per P&G. And I can understand why there are concerns over editors who might have limited experience like me closing and re listing, because I was involved in a discussion where an editor with limited experience voted Strong Delete and then re listed like 5 minutes later and it personally really pissed me off, specifically here, and I was actually waiting for a closure, but I wasn't going to close to avoid a WP:NACINV, although I will admit I did re list a deletion discussion before, but I did not vote, and thought it would be re listed, as the 168 hour period had happened. In regards to the 3rd and 2nd re list, I pretty much always specify when performing a 3rd re list that it is the final re list. Anyways, thanks for this information, especially around how different users come to a conclusion. But I do try by best to be as cautious as possible in these matters, and try to keep myself out of these tough decisions. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

If I were generally concerned or concerned about those other specific things you wrote about, I would have said I was concerned about those also. ;) Izno (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey from TfD

Hey Servite,

I saw your name come up lately at WP:TFD, so welcome! I noticed that your comments, visually (not the content), are a bit strange and I'm not sure if these are done with a script or manually. If you look for example at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 February 16#Template:Sports governing bodies in Niger, your comment's indent level is two deep instead of one which messes with the list readability. In some comments I wasn't sure if you were replying to the editor above you or to the original nom.

Additionally, your signature is always on a different level while I see on this page that it's on the same line as your comment (which it should also be in TfD). Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gonnym! Sometimes I will amend my comment a bit if it doesn't seem too right. I would say these are manually done by me? I don't know whether you mean that I put the signature down below myself or my comments. If that was about the level, I just typed in my vote and argument of why, and did not do anything in regards to location of signature, I just think that's where it ended up. I don't exactly know how this happens. My reply is to the Nominator of these discussions. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know whether you mean that I put the signature down below myself or my comments I'll give examples.

At Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_17#Template:Football_stadiums_in_Colombia because you use :* instead of either one of those, your comment is placed two indent levels deep and is replying to User:GiantSnowman, not to User:44 Gabriel.
At Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:NBC_News_personalities your comment is on two different lines. The first line is your vote which is again two levels deep using :*, while your signature is one level deep using :. This makes your first line not-connected to your signature (and probably acts strange with screen-readers).

Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gonnym. I meant to say meant and not "mean". I probably should have specified referring to my comments. So how do I make sure I don't make this error that causes confusion? I am definitely not fully used to these technical codes around this. Like, I do know how to create links and Bold text. But sometimes the technologies around these can be a little bit confusing. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Closed CfD for Category:Incumbent members of the House of Lords

Hallo, You closed this discussion on 23 Feb as "Delete", and I can see that you removed it from a handful of pages, but have you done all that is necessary to make sure that it gets deleted properly? I'm not familiar with the closing procedures for CfDs but it looks as if perhaps it ought to have been listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working and I don't see it there. Did you get distracted onto other editing before finishing this one off, perhaps? The banner at Category:Incumbent members of the House of Lords still says that it is under discussion, which may be confusing. Thanks. PamD 09:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey PamD! It is a bit hard removing all of these in a category which has so many articles in it. It has like hundreds. In regards to the confusion, it might be a good idea to create a new template for these holding. I do get distracted on a lot of things TBH, but no. Not typically ready, but it might be a good idea for an admin to delete it, because I think a bot is assigned to remove from these categories. It might be best to speak to experts on this matter. I would say I have some knowledge on consensus, but tend to leave tougher discussions (E.G. when a better judge is needed to determine the best arguments), but I tend to close when it is clear consensus one way. But it might be best to speak to another editor, or bring them to this discussion. That way they can also give be instructions on this. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

By closing the discussion, you took it out of the system whereby someone else would close it and complete the job. Perhaps it would be better not to close discussions unless you are going to be able to carry through the whole process.

The instructions at WP:CFD#Closing say Editors closing discussions must follow the administrator instructions and implement the result or log it at the Working page to ensure it is implemented. As noted at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, non-admins may follow the process at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working, and list discussion results there for an admin to review, and to log to the page directly. Please now do that, rather than leave this large category deleted-but-not-deleted. If you're not willing to do this, I'll ask at WP:AN for an admin to do the necessary, and I might suggest there that you should perhaps be blocked from closing CfDs in future. Thanks. PamD 12:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

PamD Perhaps it would be better not to close discussions unless you are going to be able to carry through the whole process.. That's an idea. Because CFD takes way more time. I wish CFD had the same tools as TFD where you can add a notice that says that it is currently being deleted. I might ask for more help aswell to improve on it. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

For now, are you planning to follow the instructions as quoted above, so that it gets into the system to be cleared up? PamD 12:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

On the Category I closed? Right now? That is a lot. It is nearly midnight where I am. Anyways, thanks for letting me know about this for the future. Is there any Template that can be added to the category to say it needs to be deleted? Anyways PamD, I will take that note for the future. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@PamD For me personally it has been a very stressful week and day TBH. Please be respectful of editors personal time and lives. Don't just expect editors to be robots doing everything. It has over 800 Articles in the category. Don't expect it to get done overnight with a very tired, sweaty editor who is very stressed out right now. I think I shall refrain from future closures (Mostly). I think it is just because that category is very big. I should stick to smaller ones. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh wait, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working? Is that where I should put it? I think I understand now PamD. I see another Non Admin I recognise who has been involved in CFD listing stuff there. If it is, thanks for these instructions that help me become a better contributor! Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the moral of this is "Please read and understand the instructions before doing any actions like a non-admin closure of a CfD".

It's pretty clearly explained, but your actions left all those articles still categorised, in a category which ought to have been deleted but was never going to be now because you'd closed the CfD and not added it to that "Working" listing.

I care about this because I was the editor who nominated that category for deletion, and your inaction of closing the discussion but not following through would have left the category to continue to exist, as if the CfD discussion had never happened.

If you have closed other CfD discussions and felt unable to remove all the categorised articles, please now go back to those discussions and complete the work. Thanks. PamD 14:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

PamD Yeah. I think I should refrain. It is literally 1:40AM where I am. I don't know how this works. Berry sorry. I don't really want to waste my energy. I have had a lot wasted on personal issues today TBH. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@PamD Meaning refrain from future TFD discussions. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No. I meant CFD. I am very overwhelmed by personal things right now. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to be giving you grief in the small hours of your morning. Sleep well. I hope tomorrow is a better day. Wikipedia is trivial in comparison to real life, though some routine jobs can be quite therapeutic (I've just been happily working through a list of MPs and making the missing redirects from short forms of their names: quietly satisfying). Best wishes! PamD 15:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

About 2026 Kansas City Current season

Hi Servite, I apologize if I didn't help out - I didn't realize that you wanted help with it and found parts of it tricky. I'll go and add to it now and help you out :) RossEvans19 (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

TFDH sections

Hi, I noticed you've recently made some closes like this one where the outcome was to delete and there were no transclusions. In these cases please select "~~To delete~~Ready for deletion" in the XFDC script when you close it, so that it goes in the most accurate section. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Primefac! So I am a non admin and cannot delete pages immediately. Anyways, out of Review, Convert, Substitute, Orphan, and Ready for deletion, which is best for each situation? I have been closing and relisting a lot of discussions of different, basically all which the consensus looks pretty clear, or there is pretty clearly no consensus, and basically avoid closures and relisting of discussions where I cannot clearly tell whether there is a consensus or not, mostly when it is hard to judge some replies of whether arguments are based on P&G or not, but it would be good to learn these further things on those 5 options for what option is best depending on the situation. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

My apologies for the apparent confusion, I mean to say the "Ready for deletion" section, which indicates that the template has no transclusions and can be deleted directly (it also, I believe, tags the page with {{db-xfd}}). To expand a bit on the other options:

Review: this is for very complex things, or where there might need to be a lot of consideration as to the implementation. As a NAC you probably won't need to use this.
Merge: as the name suggests, this is when Template A is being merged with Template B.
Convert: this group is for templates where the information needs to be kept, but isn't necessarily being merged directly into another template
Subst: another possibly-obvious one, if there is only one transclusion (or a few that could be dealt with via WP:LST) that should be put directly into the article, use this.
Orphan: used for straight deletion, but when there are still transclusions and those transclusions need to be removed.

Let me know if you have any other questions, and thanks for helping out! Primefac (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

NAC

Please carefully read WP:NAC, particularly the WP:BADNAC section. You should not be closing discussion as delete when no further action other than deletion is needed as you are not an admin capable of performing a deletion. This is a direct violation of WP:NAC policy. I appreciate that you have been very active in the TFDs closing many discussions but you need to be cautious. You are still a relatively inexperienced editor. I would encourage you to focus on participating in these discussions and !voting and leave the closures to admins or those with a much more experienced hand. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

For the record, that is why I (even with over a half million edits and nearly 15 years of experience) STILL did not perform a WP:NAC on the 3 related templates. I (like you) am not an admin and thus cannot delete those templates. Rather than closing, I chose to just !vote. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Remember, WP:NAC is an essay and not a policy. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zackmann08! I am pretty sure non admin closure allows for TFD and CFD closure for Non Admins. I am being very cautious and only closing and re listing those where the consensus is pretty clear and no one would disagree. I understand you concern around NAC, particularly involved re list. When it happened here, it really pissed me off, you can be the first to understand. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann08 Are you going to answer my questions? I think we should go to the teahouse or ask even more experienced editors. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You need to settle down. It has been less than 10 minutes since you pinged me. I was literally typing my response! Are you going to answer my questions? is not helpful. You need to give me a moment to respond...

Again, you need to read WP:BADNAC... It allows for TFD closures for non-admins in certain circumstances. Your response is actually even more concerning because it indicates you did not read my message or WP:BADNAC. You said "I am pretty sure non admin closure allows for TFD and CFD closure for Non Admins" which ignores what I said.

I will now quote WP:BADNAC: NAC closures should not be performed when the result will require action by an administrator, or are expected to be done by an administrator such as Deletion (except for TfD discussions where orphaning is needed...) (emphasis added by me). When no orphaning is needed you should not be closing TFDs as delete.

As for your comment about asking even more experienced editors. You are absolutely free to seek input from others, but you should realize that there are very few editors with more experience than myself so you should do your homework.

I would welcome feedback from Primefac (an admin) on this. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08 I did read the message. And I do understand your experience is significantly more than mine. Thanks for quoting it. Let's look at WP:NACAFD around TFD and CFD. If I am being honest, sometimes I do lose my cool. I did read it. I think the fact that WP:NAC is an essay and not P&G is a very important thing to note here. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I will also point out that I am FAR from the first person to caution you about your behavior at TFD/CFD/RFD. Reading through your talk page, Izno, Primefac, PamD, Gonnym and Left guide have ALL, in their own way, warned you about past behavior at different venues (be it TFD, RFD or CFD). We ALL have much more experience than you.

Now I came here fully AGF with a very gentle reminder to read the essay describing the LONG accepted consensus for closing these discussions. Rather than acknowledging that you violated that consensus, you have doubled down on your beliefs that you were in the right and implied that someone more experienced should be telling both of us what is right.

At this point, I'm not being gentle anymore. I have seen a large number of editors blocked from editing for inappropriate NAC closures of discussions. I would remind you that you are still VERY new to Wikipedia with fewer than 11,000 edits and less than 2 years editing. I cannot and will not tell you what to do. What I can and will do is strongly encourage you to focus on commenting on TFD/CFD/RFD discussions. Leave the closures to those of us with the needed experience to do so. You absolutely should cast your !vote on what should be done, but I would strongly recommend your stop closing/reslisting these discussions. The fact that no fewer than 6 editors have had to come talk to you about this in the last 7 months indicates you do not understand how NAC works nor have you taken the time to actually read how to do it properly.

I will also reiterate that your loosing your cool (your words, not mine) with this comment because I had not replied to your comment in under 3 minute is an enormous red flag. I don't owe you any response, but what is more, I have other things I am working on and sorry but it takes me more than 180 seconds to respond. I would remind you again that I came here in good faith to remind you gently to read WP:NAC. How that jumped to you getting upset that I took more than 3 minutes to respond... It does not endear me to want to help you further.

Best of luck with your future endeavors. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann08 I understand your concern. I would say I have actually learned from these discussions. I will admit I was trying to rush and got into a panic. I have answered my questions. And TBH, I honestly don't have very strong opinions on whether these should be deleted or not. I think I asked for help before from you and got nothing. And I do it because I don't feel there is much else to do besides recent changes patrolling, and discussing other changes. Anyways, I was going to start a discussion on Talk:Presidency of Richard Nixon which I have not yet done. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If you cannot find other projects to work on, I would recommend Category:Unknown parameters. Every one of those sub-categories should be empty. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I actually vehemently oppose anyone reading WP:NAC. It remains an essay and essays (including specifically that one) have and have had an issue with drifting from the intent of the relevant policy.

Zackmann, the actual guideline: Non-admin closers should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages. Certain venues have made an exception to this rule: Non-admins may close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion discussions as orphan and ... You might consider reviewing the originating RFC. It's clear in the context there that orphan is a "substate" of delete, and not its own separate thingamajig.

In general, I'd say it's fine for SEC to be closing things as delete when no orphaning is needed.

I will say, it does make more work, not less, for everyone (admins and WP:TFDH patrollers both) when the close is delete and the only thing to do is to delete the template(s), so SEC should consider not doing so. Izno (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Izno! So the concern is more about that it creates more work for everyone, rather than lack of experience? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

In the specific case I pointed out, yes.

I do think maybe you should consider less closing and more commenting. It would show you understand general norms in the area, and right now we seem to have a dearth of participation post-block of a contributor for harassment. There are a lot of TFDs with just a nomination statement right now. Izno (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

So it wasn't the orphaning, but the speedy deletion that was the concern. Understand. If Zackmann wants to call it a night, then good night. It might be a good idea to ask these questions elsewhere. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No, you probably were doing things By The Book. I'm pointing out that XFDCloser does everything that needs to be done, including deletion, without any significant effort on anyone else's part, which includes maintaining WP:TFDH, which is probably why Zackmann is annoyed.

As I said, consider making more comments and fewer closes. Izno (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point. I should do significantly less rather than just every single one, and comment more. And if am closing discussions, should focus more on ones that do not require significant effort. Such as keeps and redirects for where the consensus is clear. I can now easily understand the concern of Zackmann. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well Izno I certainly defer to you. I would argue that the guideline you posted above and your final comment about it making more work for admins and WP:TFDH patrollers (of which I am one) is the exact point I was trying to make... If you cannot delete a template, you should not be closing a discussion as delete.

Now if you think that my infrequent closures of widely used templates that need to be placed in the holding cell for orphaning or conversion (a project I often then pick up) is in violation of policy, you and I should discuss that elsewhere (drop me a message on my talk page?) because I certainly want to make sure I'm not the one breaking the rules here! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I had no intent to criticize any of your actions. Izno (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. Good sign to call it a night! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If you had pinged me first I feel like a lot of grief could have been spared. I wholeheartedly disagree with what is a very strict interpretation of BADNAC to say "if it needs to be orphaned it's okay, if it's just needing to be deleted it's not okay". TFD is an exception to the "can't close as delete", full stop. An admin will be spot-checking the TFD as valid when deleting the template in question so any bad closes will be noticed. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere, you closed this AfD without leaving a reason, despite there being many !deletes with reasonable rationales. I'll also emphasise that @Zackmann is correct, you cannot close discussions which you are unable to implement. Only admins can delete articles, thus only admins can close as such. This is written in point 3 of WP:NACD. A guideline, not an essay. 11WB (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

11WB I honestly felt at the time that discussion would have resulted in keep anyways. I am open to a deletion review, because it might be worthy of overturning to No Consensus. I honestly feel like that one was a tougher one, but I have read it actually and I do assure I became aware in the last couple of days, and I did read WP:NACD which states:

* Non-admin closers should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.

Certain venues have made an exception to this rule: Non-admins may close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion discussions as orphan and – per the implementation process at WT:CFD/W – may close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion discussions as delete.

I definitely don't think it would have been delete, but it might be worthy of going to WP:DRV. I will take this as an opportunity to learn as always, but always, should this and can this go to WP:DRV? Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

No, this doesn't need to go to DRV. The close is defensible, with a reason. I also believe an NC close gives too much weight to the !deletes. 11WB (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I had really thought you had learned from this. I was really hoping you were going to heed the advice of multiple editors who are massively more experienced than you, Stop closing AFD/TFD discussions. Your actions are disruptive and prove you do not have the experience required to do so. The next step is an ANI and possible block. If you wish to participate in these discussions, you are absolutely free to do so, but STOP CLOSING THESE DISCUSSIONS. PERIOD. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann08 I have mostly closed ones were the results for these were unanimous for like redirects. I have only been closing TFDS which need orphaning. We only discussed TFDS. Can we discuss further? I would welcome the comments of other admins. As I have said many times before, I don't really hold a strong opinion on all of these. I should probably provide ones which I have closed because I wouldn't think some of the closures I have made are too controversial. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You aren't listening. You are making excuses for why your actions are justifiable. There is ZERO reason for a user with less than 2 years of experience and fewer than 12,000 edits to be performing non admin closures. I've been here 14+ years with over a half million edits and I still rarely perform a non admin closure because I am not an admin. There is no urgent need here that you are fulfilling. Every single one of your closures has to now be reviewed one by one because so many of them have been incorrect that we don't trust you know what you are doing. If you don't really hold a strong opinion on all of these then don't participate, no one is forcing you to. My point was that I am not saying you cannot take part in the process. I am saying you need to immediately and permanently stop performing actions reserved for admins and users who are significantly more experienced than you are. Find another project to work on! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann08 Here are some of the discussions I have closed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alagappa Polytechnic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandian Saraswathi Yadav Engineering College, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda College, Devakottai, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arumugam Pillai Seethai Ammal College, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Arts College for Women, Sivaganga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Stars '05 – Wibtada El Mishwar? I closed all of these as redirects. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't need you to list discussions you closed. I can view your contributions. You continue make excuses and not listen. I'm done explaining myself. Do this again and it will be an WP:ANI. I've tried being gentle. I've tried being kind and explaining. You simply aren't listening or hearing. You're just making excuses for one someone with over a decade more experience than you understands the rules less than you do. I'm done trying. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08 Is there a good place to discuss this with other editors? Like not on my talk page? Like the Teahouse? I take this as a warning. And I intend to stop until we can discuss this with other editors. Trust in Wikipedia's community is a vital part of a healthy Encyclopaedia. I should probably do more recent changes patrolling. There are plenty of discussions where I can offer an opinion and probably should because I do have opinions on plenty of these, it is just that I do not view it as being impactful. Wikipedians deserve to know whether their editors are acting in bad faith or not. And I will tell you I am not acting in bad faith. At this point, discussions need to be healthy and not being closed by those who might lack the trust. I do believe there are great admins and trusted non admins who are trusted in these things, and the result of most of the discussions I closed would have likely gone the same way. But no user is above Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines. Unfortunately we do not have the official determination of what is an experienced user (Such as number of years and edits) in NAC. Wikipedia is by far the biggest Encyclopaedia there has ever been. And P&G are the core of our community. There have been some times where I was going to move a page but opted for discussion instead. I can definitely find plenty of things to do on this great Encyclopaedia. If my actions put community trust in risk, then those actions need to probably cease. In regards to this case, I do intend to find a better venue for this. The topic should be "Did User:Servite et contribuere violate Wikipedia's Non Admin Closure Policy? And were his actions harmful in any way?" Because once the more broader community shares there thoughts, we should be able to put this issue to bed for good. I have always tried to respect the consensus of the community, even when it does frustrate me. If a discussion can be reached amongst a bunch of experienced editors, obviously you Zackmann08 are a very experienced editor and I would honestly trust you to make a right call on closures significantly more than I do, but I would say that my level of experience on these is higher on these than most editors who have been around for my time. But when the actions of anyone, including me cause a lack of trust in the community, it might be time for that user to change their actions in order to preserve the confidence and peace of the community. The closures of discussions does not matter unless the decision was biased or not with what the broad community would believe consensus is. Regardless of where editors find their strengths, I have personally found them here, keeping the community at peace and not losing it is more important. Because when trust is lost, it can result in editors constantly tracking users contributions. I did this last year because had virtually no trust for a user by the name of OCDD. Trust is what keeps our community safe and peaceful. Editors might have different opinions and might disagree with what P&G mean, just like United States Constitutional Lawyers have disagreed over the law of some parts of the Constitution. But when trust is restored, things change. And on this Encyclopaedia, trust is earned. And I do not have the trust of Zackmann08 clearly which shows the actions I am taking could be Poisonous towards trust and peace. But one of the best places to discuss this is through a broad community discussion. Therefore, I do intend to discuss more rather than close, and I do intend to start a community discussion about the possible mistakes I made, and whether I have earned the trust on the broad community about my actions at NAC and whether they did violate Wikipedia's P&G. Because Consensus is the core of Wikipedia, and if consensus is reached that I should not be closing these discussions. There are definitely things that are more important than who closes the discussion, and these closures and relists are also wasting what could be a possible vote and rationale. Although I do not intend to stop permanently, I do think a clean discussion is needed on the actions I have been taking with the broad consensus. Therefore, with the strong warning, I do intend to stop for now for the sake of our community. It might come in tough, but the importance of a healthy community is more important then this, frankly it is more important than whether I even make any contributions or not. Although I have carefully read the NAC section which is a guideline and not an essay. But the importance of a healthy community is more important than anything. I would like to possibly invite other editors in. And while Zackmann08 has made his frustration with me clear, I still do think it would be good to get more than just to editors, because this is regarding AFD and the previous one was TFD. But until that discussion happens, and trust is restored, I intend to do more discussing and other parts of Wikipedia where I can contribute. I do think the parameter one is a great suggestion. Anyways, just pinging so both @Zackmann08 and @11WB get notified about this. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT. I really don't think a full discussion is required. You've received the advice of multiple editors here, so that should be enough to act on. 11WB (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@11WB Well we are discussing very different issues to the one we discussed previously. This is AFD and this is TFD. I do personally feel like the trust perception was a bit much for just one closure, but I healthy community comes first, even if what the community wants from me is frustrating to me. I have to put that aside and keep the community calm and at peace. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You don't need a consensus to choose where to contribute. That needs to be a decision you make yourself. You've had a bumpy tenure so far, so TfD/AfD likely isn't for you. There are many other parts of the project you can invest time into instead. Whilst @Zackmann is clearly frustrated, their advice strongly suggests they agree this would be a good idea. 11WB (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

11WB There have definitely been some highs and lows of my editing career. And you know what, voting on these discussions instead of closing might be worth something as providing a good rationale with a vote can actually impact the result, whereas a closure does literally nothing. I know I don't need a consensus where to contribute, but in my view it is rather a P&G issue. I do understand the frustration and concern that I am not capable of closing these discussions, despite that I strongly disagree. But as I have said, Avoiding being disruptive in a way that editors have to check my edits all the time is not what we want, and keeping peace and calm and free from ANI discussions and possible blocks is way more important than doing something any editor could have done which is close a discussion. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you agree with the examples I provided? Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with your closing history. I can only speak for AfD, as I'm not active at other deletion venues. Non admin closes are fine, as long as they aren't in contention and the close isn't a likely deletion. For the one I linked, a reason should have been given.

On the point @Zackmann makes about edit count, that would also mean I am unqualified for closes, which I have done at AfD. I've had one taken to DRV, but it was endorsed. If other editors believe it is a good idea to cease doing closes, then for the time being it might be wise to heed that advice. Being taken to AN/I is never a pleasant experience for any editor. 11WB (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere, I've had a brief look over your talk page history. Most of the discussions here are about errors you've made. I don't doubt for a second that you're acting in good faith, but instances like this and the canvassing notice above that build up a not so great picture of your contributions over a longer period of time.

@Zackmann is clearly aware of your contributions and seems to have reached a point where they have become less patient. They work in the area you've been actioning these closes. I think it may be a good idea to slow down and contribute elsewhere for a while, building up experience on other parts of the project. I've recently given up the new page reviewer permission and now review GANs, with some article improvement as well. As editors, we are adaptable, you might find your strengths lie elsewhere! 11WB (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I will just note that when I first started at TFD my account was only (effectively) three years old and I had <11k edits (with probably 3k of those being AWB edits). Hell, we give WP:TPE for editors with 1/10 of the edits they have. Just because an experienced editor chooses not to close discussions does not mean someone with less experience shouldn't close discussions. I'm honestly surprised at the ~~vitriol~~hostility being posted here; Servite is clearly interested in learning, and yall are threatening with ANI and blocks; no wonder they're getting defensive.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that the critiques are completely invalid (a pause is probably be a good idea for everyone's sanity), I'm mainly concerned about the tone. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I would take issue with my tone being labelled as "vitriolic". My tone, in my view, has been quite measured and fair. 11WB (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You are also not the only participant in this conversation, but I will admit my word choice was a bit hyperbolic. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Different editors communicate in different ways, I don't think anybody here has been overtly hostile or vitriolic, those are both very loaded words. This editor's talk page shows a history of errors dating back to last year. AN/I might be a bit disproportionate, but suggesting a break certainly isn't. 11WB (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT definitely applies. Full disclosure I am not reading everything that was said above. There is simply too much here.

@Primefac: I just want to point out this is far from the first time this issue has been raised. Threatening with ANI and blocks for a first, second or even third warning might be overkill, but this is now the 5th time I have raised this issue with this user and there are warnings dating back over 10 months. I want to be clear that I have chosen my words carefully to avoid BITING. My frustration has steadily risen as Servite has refused to listen or heed the advice given by multiple users.

I will also point out that this isn't occasional closure of TFD/AFDs. This is MASSIVE closures (please review the xtools edit history showing just what a large percentage of their edits have been TFD/AFD closures) with a refusal to listen to other user's concerns. I have personally had to revert at least 5 separate TFD closures that were not done properly over the past few months.

So while I agree that my latest comment is very aggressive, I would remind you that I did not start out that way. I started out with a gentle suggestion that they slow down and make sure they are doing things properly. What I was met with was WP:WIKILAWYERING and talk about essays vs firm policy. At the end of the day, where we current are is that EVERY closure this user performs needs to be reviewed as so many of them have been incorrect. This makes more work for the rest of us and is, therefore, disruptive. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough; I will admit I did not read through every section on their (very long) talk page, only seeing a few discussions about TFD closures (which I have not found issue with myself other than a few housekeeping issues) so I clearly missed the longevity of the apparent issue. I'll take a step back and let yall work things out (though at this point it would appear everything that needs to have been said has been, and it's just a matter of "what are we going to do next"). Primefac (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann08 I have personally had to revert at least 5 separate TFD closures that were not done properly over the past few months. I am pretty sure that was one day? And I did notice a few today which by the way I am going to give you a polite notice that you did not undo my closure. If you are going to revert it as an Inappropriate Non Admin Closure, also make sure the discussion looks open and not still closed, otherwise it could end up misleading. Thank you. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere: I am going to take a deep breath and try one final time to make my points, gently but firmly.

I appreciate that you are trying to be constructive.
You do not yet have the experience to be performing NAC closures as indicated by the numerous times your closures have had to be reverted.
Please do not close or relist any TFD/AFD/XFD/CFD/etc. again
Please do feel free to participate (!vote) in any discussion you wish to.
I encourage you to find other projects to work on. If you are at a loss for what areas might need a passionate editor, drop me a message on my talk page. I have a lengthy todo list and can certainly find a task for you.
If you incorrectly perform another NAC, I will file an ANI. The fact that you have been repeatedly warned by editors way more experienced than you and yet will have ignored those warnings will not look good for you at ANI.

I will not respond further to you in this thread as I feel we are going in circles and further discussion will not help anyone or anything. I hope that you will heed the advice that has been repeatedly given to you and find other ways to use your talents. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you help

Hi. I have been trying to figure out how to edit but it is saying editing is blocked on every page I visit. Can you explain why and help me? HavenKid2014 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi HavenKid2014! Just wondering what articles you are trying to edit. If you are trying to edit articles and they have a WP:SILVERLOCK or a WP:BLUELOCK, then since you have only made 2 edits and only been registered for 1 or 2 days, then you do not have the rights to edit those articles. You can follow those links for details. You can almost submit edit requests on the talk page of articles. It should be done with the topic title saying Semi Edit Request. Do note that the talk page is not a forum for discussion about the subject and nor is Wikipedia itself. Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I have been trying to edit articles about famous celebrities but every article is blocked. Like John Cena Dwayne Johnson and many more HavenKid2014 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

OK HavenKid2014. That is not a block from editing them. You just can't edit them yet. Both of these are Semi-Protected Indefinitely, links here: , and can only be edited by accounts with at least 10 contributions (Assuming this was your 3rd just now) but you are always welcome to make edit requests on the talk pages of those pages at Talk:John Cena, Talk:Dwayne Johnson. I would recommend scrolling through the page and suggesting what changes you want. Also, if you want to add content you will need to provide a reliable source (This can be done by copying and pasting for example) but it needs to be reliable. I would also recommend reading WP:RSPSOURCES. Avoid sources that would not seem reliable, focused on gossip. If the source has not been listed there, I would only do sources that are very well known. If the source is not well listed and is full of advertising and just listing random facts, I would avoid citing it. If you were to cite it in a request, it may result in a denied edit request because the source is not reliable. Most importantly, please read WP:PROTECTION and WP:SEMIPROTECTION for more detail. Thank you. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the guide HavenKid2014 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Infant Jesus Matriculation Higher Secondary School

Greetings, you indicated a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infant Jesus Matriculation Higher Secondary School. I added the name to List of educational institutions in Coimbatore#Private, which I think would be a far better target. If you get the chance, could you review this? -- Otr500 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

I'll give you the same advice I gave Theeverywhereperson: don't bother mass-rollbacking on a blocked user's talk page. It just makes them want to annoy you more. The damage is contained, let it be, eventually an admin will clear it out. This user is a long-term abuser, and the more you undo them, the more you feed them. StartOkayStop (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That is very good advice. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @StartOkayStop. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Cricketers' contracts

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#For information. The project has decided that a player does not have to play for a new team before it is added to the player's infobox. We have aligned with WP:FOOTY in regarding a contracted player as that club's or team's player for the duration of the contract, even if they never play for them. Therefore, you must refrain from infobox edits like this one, which has been undone.

Editors who revert IPL contract updates have caused us a lot of problems. Chief among them has been the evident loss of new editors who had been criticised for doing something that wasn't actually "wrong". The only time a new team update is incorrect is when there is no reliable source to verify the contract or auction information; also, the contract must be mentioned and sourced in the main body of the article.

Please ping me and ask if there's anything you don't understand. Jack (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

A big thanks for the update BlackJack. Anyways, looking at the discussion, it looks like there were only 2 editors involved. I might consider discussing further seeing if other editors also agree with this, or maybe discuss/propose more changes around this, but nonetheless, a big thanks for that update. That is very useful. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion was left on CRIC for more than two weeks, and there were no objections, so that qualifies as a consensus. If you have any ideas about how to improve our infoboxes, do please bring them to WT:CRIC. Thanks, Jack (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

1998 NFC Championship Game

The "cleanup" to which I referred was intended to aid readability in the opening paragraph by removing unnecessary details:

The fact that the game was the 29th title game is insignificant; a spot check of other conference championship game articles do not include this detail. Its inclusion awkwardly breaks up the first two sentences, which I believe flow better as one.
The teams that followed up the Vikings' 15-1 record without reaching a Super Bowl are irrelevant and add excessive detail to the introduction. I believe it suffice to mention that the Vikings were the first of such teams.

Let me know what you think of my logic. I do genuinely believe the article to be better with these changes. We could also add these as endnotes instead.

DisplacedSportsGuy (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, looking at the 29th bit, yeah. I kind of agree the more I think about it. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Mikaela Shiffrin

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mikaela Shiffrin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:NPA

You said:

I do have concerns that many of these users are not voting based on P&G. One concern I do have is that BlackJack has been WP:BLUDGEONING AFD discussions
I will not be filing any ANI threads (Yet) about my concerns of your WP:BLUDGEONING as it would not be fair to do so without giving prior notices

These accusations against me amount to casting aspersions, especially as you are trying to discredit me at WP:VP, in a proposal discussion where the WP:POINTs you are trying to make are completely irrelevant. After the first one, you were told to take it to either AFD Talk or ANI. But, no, you came back with the second one.

If you think I am guilty of bludgeoning an AfD discussion, then please take it to ANI now. If you carry on making accusations against me without going to ANI, then I will take you there. Okay? Jack (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I did not provide the evidence. That is very bad on me. I am also very sorry for being off topic. I thought it somehow was relevant but wasn't. I had not intent of wanting to discredit you, or any intent of defaming any contributor. But I do have concern looking at prior AFDS such as these discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Suffolk first-class cricketers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Berkshire and Oldfield cricketers to 1795, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent County Cricket Club in 2010, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 World Twenty20 officials, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian cricket team in Australia in 1946–47. Despite this, since you weren't given a notice until this discussion, it's probably best just to give you a warning. So hence the lack of prior notices and concerns, I do not think you are guilty of WP:BLUDGEONING, but actions like responding to each individual comment could be seen by some as WP:BLUDGEONING I will specifically quote the third note on this page in a nutshell on WP:BLUDGEONING. Dominating a discussion is a violation of the disruptive editing behavioral guideline and can get you blocked.. And the one above says: The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become.. So I would heavily encourage you keep that in mind. Further actions that could be seen as Bludgeoning may result in an ANI thread. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave it there, and move on. Jack (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Vaishnavi Sharma

Hello, Servite et contribuere. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vaishnavi Sharma, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

A page of that title already exists in mainspace. If anyone does read my talk page by any chance, just don't edit and let it go for 6 months. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vaishnavi Sharma

Hello, Servite et contribuere. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Vaishnavi Sharma".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That was a duplicate of one already in the mainspace. Another user (That is now blocked) went on to create it (My personal perspective is they might have had feelings about me creating it), but I truly don't care that I didn't end up as creator. I was going to Tag it as G13 anyways. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

About the AFD for Arizona Coyotes

Hello there, I was creating the AFD due to the fact that the Coyotes no longer exist as a team as a whole and most of its assets have been moved to Utah to form the Mammoth. Just wanted to see if this is still the case, but apparently most of it still exists as a historical figure. Sorry about the confusion. It is not a joke. Thanks Bryce M (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

See WP:OUTOFBUSINESS. For clarification, we do have stand alone articles for teams like the Atlanta Thrashers, Hartford Whalers, Kansas City Scouts, Minnesota North Stars, and Quebec Nordiques for example. You can take those to AFD, although I strongly advise against doing it for any of those as all of those will likely be speedy kept, and could be perceived as bad faith, and those who make persistent bad faith or very disruptive nominations may be blocked from editing. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)