User talk:FOARP

New Admin Bâtonnets

I may not be able to offer you the baton, but I hope you can savour these bâtonnets as you study all the new admin buttons! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! And thanks for your work on this! FOARP (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super proud of you!! Welcome to the admin corps :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Leeky. I can definitely say I couldn’t have done this without your support! FOARP (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw you passed, congrats!!! JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JJ! FOARP (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very belated congratulations. A well-deserved testament to your good judgment. Choess (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Choess! I do try! Not always successfully! FOARP (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi FOARP. Thank you for your work on Battle of Steamroller Farm. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed and wonderful days ahead!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Re: Evidence presented by FOARP for ArbCom. For this kind of information to be useful, I think there are at least two 2 more questions you can ask.

Why does the title of a page contain the word 'massacre'? How did it happen? e.g. who created the page etc.?
Are !votes consistent or inconsistent with policy? A bit difficult to measure admittedly, but I suppose consistency with outcome might be an interesting thing. That is what presumably matters, policy-based voting rather than whether a !vote happens to track a POV. Whether a !vote matches a POV doesn't contain information about policy compliance.

Feel free to ignore these suggestions of course. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add: What was the end result? If the article was moved, if so, to what? cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For interest, pages within A-I topic area that started out with massacre in the title and were moved to new titles. Pinging Zero0000, as they are interested in titles containing this word. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra and Sean.hoyland: - Thanks for getting in touch. Folks, I'm limited on the number of words I can write in evidence and the point I'm making is not that these people always voted against consensus or that there never was any basis in PAGs for what they were saying, it's that for some of the parties it didn't matter whether there was basis in PAGs or not, and contradictory arguments were being made depending on whether it was an "I" article or a "P" article (i.e., they are POVWARRIORs who are ultimately NOTHERE). However, my diffs are up so if you want to make a submission based on them please go ahead (I think Zero0000 has already done this). I'll review the above list and see if more discussions can be added, though I'm not going to go back earlier than late 2023. FOARP (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm still thinking about whether to submit evidence. Ideally, it would just be a web page with big button that says 'GO!', and some hours later, if the servers are in a good mood, the evidence might be rendered for the person...maybe. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, obviously there's other stuff I could have talked about, and it would be great if there was some easier way of explaining things. I think you can see from the above discussion with BM that "airstrike" versus "attack" was a conflict-area also, likely because "airstrike" sounds clinical whilst "attack" sounds more aggressive. But, I only have 500 words, and not for no reason either - ARBCOM doesn't have infinite time.

I actually only just looked at the preliminary statements page and saw that "massacre" had been a big area of discussion. What triggered me to do that was closing the Hollit discussion (which, as was typical, was challenged) and then seeing people make, for a Palestinian-focused page, what appeared to be contradictory arguments to the ones they made when the topic was Israeli. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source describing Ukrainian officials' comments on North Korean involvement

Hello! I'm bringing this up here since I'm not allowed to participate in the RfC because WP:RUSUKR prevents me (unlike 77.241.128.28, who seems exempt), but this Kyiv Independent article[1] has an example of a Ukrainian government source alleging NK combatant involvement.

I find myself in a weird situation where I want to contribute to the discussion in good faith, and I could contribute much more effectively/efficiently if I could respond to people's comments directly. I've somewhat jokingly thought of making edit requests for restricted areas of the talk page, since as far as I can tell nothing says I can't do that, but here I am for now! Placeholderer (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any need to respond to the IP. FOARP (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Notice

Hi FOARP, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2023 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC was a mistake, as you can see from the response. FOARP (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me upgrade this to “big mistake”. Never ask complex questions bundling matters together like this if your intention is to get a “yes” result, because in reality you’re just unifying your opposition and dividing your support.

To get a “yes” on WP, the question needs to be as simple and as clear as possible. FOARP (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russo Ukraine

Just wanted to say thanks, I agree with your case and appreciated discussing it with you last month. I'm not veteran enough to have my comments stick, but I appreciate bringing up the China example. It's a good one, probably better than Libya or Artsakh TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

Technical news

Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at RM

I would think that this edit (the middle paragraph) is casting WP:ASPERSIONS and an inappropriate comment to make in the RM discussion. I would suggest that it be struck. It would also appear that you have misconstrued the meaning of scope in the context that I have been using it in the discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinderella, since presumably this isn’t just Wikilawyering, I’m happy to strike the part about that. FOARP (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-go/Kikusui move

Hey FOARP, I guess this is really on me, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. You closed this RM as "Moved" with the rationale "No oppose !votes, no reason not to carry out the move." The nominator did not cite any sources other than Japanese Wikipedia, which is obviously not a reliable source, so I have no idea if their claims are true or not. In hindsight, I should've left a comment along the lines of "oppose until sources are provided as evidence", but I did not, choosing a softer wording instead, so your close is justified. I'm not going to ask you to undo your close, but I do wonder if you have the same reservations I have. Toadspike [Talk] 13:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the JP Wiki articles for Ten-Go and Kikusui (in machine translation - I lived in Japan for a while but that was 15 years ago now) and found them to be cited to a range of sources I wasn't able to review, but they do include the Yamamoto sortie under Kikusui (this appears to be cited to the official Japanese history and the testimony of ). I presume the proposed move was intended to be cited to the sources in those JP wiki articles, not the JP wiki articles themselves. Based on that I couldn't see any reason to deny the move.

I note that the JP Wiki article on the Yamato has this section:

"In his journal, Sensouroku, Vice Admiral Ugaki, commander of the 5th Air Fleet, criticized the response of Chief of the Naval General Staff Oikawa, saying that when Chief of the Naval General Staff Oikawa presented "Operation Kikusui No. 1" to Emperor Showa, the Emperor asked, "Will it be an all-out attack on the air forces alone?" Oikawa replied, "We will use the entire force of the Navy," which led to the Second Fleet's maritime suicide attack."

Which is cited to the Japanese book "Testimonies of Survivors of the Battleship Yamato" by Kurihara. It therefore doesn't appear inaccurate (unless the original source is misquoted) to say that the sortie of the Yamato was undertaken as part of Kikusui 1.

I'm happy to re-open for more discussion if requested. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's good, I'm glad you looked into it. I am willing to AGF on the sourcing, so there's no need to re-open the RM. Thank you for your speedy response! Toadspike [Talk] 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Marika Stiernstedt

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Marika Stiernstedt to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages needing translation into English, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article may be listed for deletion. Thank you. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly wrong since it's written in English, I assume this is a bot malfunction. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close at Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#RfC on inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in infobox

Did you look at the article and in particular, that section of the infobox in question? Perhaps you might reconsider your close if you had not. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the discussion around Vanezi’s comments if that is what is being referred to here? But as far as I could see their condition (I.e., only supporting removing the mercenaries if Turkey was included unconditionally as a belligerent) was not met and so they appear to still be opposed. Otherwise I’m not sure what is being referred to.

Personally, as discussed in this past, I prefer keeping the infobox as simple as possible, but I was closing, not !voting. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

Dennis Brown

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imjonseong Fortress

Could you explain why there wasn't consensus to move to Imjonseong (removing "Fortress")? There were 5 supports for that proposal (Myceteae, SnowFire, Toadspike, seefooddiet, and myself) versus 1 or 2 opposes (Amakuru; Ymblanter didn't comment on the alternative proposal), and the reasoning was based in policy. Malerisch (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerisch, thanks for getting in touch.

I was focusing on the consensus of the proposed move and hadn't noticed one had formed for an alternative. I think you're right so I've update the close. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor request

Hello. Thanks for your RfC closure [2]! It's so long that I thought no one was going to read it and close it.

One minor request though, would you mind adding a wikilink for WP:PAG? It's an acronym that I don't think many people are aware of. Thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weliganwala

What do you think about redirecting thus to the nearby hamlet of Selagama? Bearian (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What source says the name is anything to do with that village? FOARP (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welinganwala is basically a suburb of Selagama. Look at the maps. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The location in the article looks like that, but we don’t know it’s called Welinganwala. In that case it makes no sense to redirect. That’s my issue here.

All of these Sri Lankan “village” articles that Ser Nicolao created back in 2008-9 have the same issue: he went through GNS (or a similar database)making an article about every listing in it at a rate of hundreds in a day. He put a link to the Sri Lankan government website on each article but that clearly wasn’t the source used as there’s nothing on it about this. However, GNS is based on military or colonial-era maps from the 1940’s-60’s or earlier, and not very accurate, especially for whether something was populated or not. Location data was then added which was of even lower reliability.

Some of these places exist (and whenever I find they exist I usually leave them alone). Some exist but are duplicates (I normally just redirect those). Many just don’t exist as villages and it is senseless to keep them. FOARP (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable gymnasts?

@Sirfurboy:, @JoelleJay: as you are into removing unnotable articles: I started looking at gymnastics pages, and you might take a look at the 2014 Acrobatic Gymnastics World Championships. Stubs are created of almost every gymnast with a trivial mention in 1 primary source. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi FOARP. Thank you for your work on Tourist athlete. Another editor, Noleander, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Phrase " considered the last straw .." is slang. Should be improved with more professional wording.

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

Noleander (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sulaiman Juma Al-Habsi's presence at the Olympics

Hi, per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulaiman Juma Al-Habsi, he was definitely at the Olympics and competed. Also, I do see Al-Habsi's Arabic name at those two links. See for example the transcript of the official report here: [3] "Al-Habsi, Sulaiman". I have gone through hundreds (thousands?) of athletics Olympedia bios and have yet to find one incorrectly claiming that someone competed in the Olympics. Can you please relay this at the AfD on my behalf? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the other sources (World Athletics, Tilastopaja) both source their information independently from Olympedia, so if it were really an error, it would have to be one that was shared by both official reports and two other independent bodies. --Habst (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Al-Habsi is not at those links, other people with the same surname are (Mohammad Al-Habsi and Shanuna Al Habsi), which is why I'm questioning whether they're really there. I also am not really sure if those are independent sources to Olympedia - they're all referencing the same information ultimately, aren't they? It's not like they recorded this information themselves. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, yes, all three are run by athletics historians who compile information independently. That's why Tilastopaja frequently has additional or less non-Olympic results than World Athletics and they often have different romanizations of foreign names. There's no doubt from reliable sources (I haven't worked with Oman Daily or Al-Watan as much but speaking to the others) that Al-Habsi competed. Can you ping a native Arabic speaker to mediate if there are still doubts? --Habst (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They clearly aren't attending these events and recording the results themselves, are they? If they are I would like to know where they learned the secret of time-travel from, since these databases were set up after the races they carry the statistics for. Inevitably their statistics will come from the same ultimate source.

I've asked the question on the AFD, if other people want to answer that question they can. FuzzyMagma has apparently already taken a look at the Arabic sourcing.

Regardless, the result at this point is very unlikely to be anything but deletion or redirection. FOARP (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, in World Athletics' case, they certainly do sometimes, and their records extend far before the invention of the Internet back to 1912. Their statistics certainly don't come from the same source because there are many cases where one has more results than another.

Because the result (deletion or redirection) in part depends on this fact ("If it can be verified that this subject participated, redirect, otherwise, delete"), can you please communicate this on the AfD? Pinging User:Let'srun who wrote this. --Habst (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what exactly I'm supposed to say that isn't already apparent to everyone on that thread - that some of the sourcing says there a Sulaiman Al-Habsi attended and some of the other sourcing cited in the article does not list a Sulaiman Al-Habsi as having attended despite apparently listing all other attending Omani athletes. I think the real lesson here is: don't add sourcing that doesn't even include the name of the topic to the article, don't rely entirely on databases which may simply have reproduced the same error.

I also note that there are two different versions of the Arabic name of this athlete in the article - again, the question here is what even is the name of the athlete? How can we confirm they attended when even this doesn't appear clear? FOARP (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, the official Olympic report wasn't linked or mentioned in the AfD, can you please just link that and say that the official report states that Al-Habsi did compete in the Olympics, and we have yet to find even one source refuting this? --Habst (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to "refute" what primary sources say. We should ideally confirm them in secondary sources, and this is what's lacking.

Let's Run has been pinged in to this conversation already and can see everything you've written - no need for further action. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am thankful for your challenges and for @BeanieFan11's help citing contemporary news reports because they help make the encyclopedia better. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moustafa Abdel Naser, could you please remove "the Karel Pacák case" and leave a note because there was no indication there that Olympedia had any incorrect information on his profile? I'm not familiar with the other two cases. -Habst (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not removing that Habst, because if they don't know where or when he died (and they don't), then they don't know that he died in Germany and shouldn't be saying that they do know that. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. They do know he died in Germany though, just not when or the specific city. It's responsible of Olympedia to say that; it would be irresponsible to guess a year or city if they didn't know. This is somewhat common on Wikipedia; many articles in Category:Year of death missing only list a country of death but not a city or date, see for example Franc Frakelj. I'm just confused about what you think is the specific issue? --Habst (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not credible that they know the country without knowing either the place or even the year of death. FOARP (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that not credible? There are other cases like Franc Frakelj or William Fullerton (politician) where country of death is specified but not year or place. It's possible to know that someone has died in a country without knowing their city or year of death. If there was any WP:RS information that disagreed with Olympedia, I would agree that it was unreliable. But that isn't the case here. --Habst (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely does raise questions, particularly because of the most likely explanation of why they’re saying Germany: WW2. If this guy disappeared in to the concentration/labour camps, or was conscripted in to the German army, then we would likely have no idea of where or when he actually died, including whether it was in Germany. FOARP (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your comment, and I even agree with much of what you wrote in the AfD. But the Karel Pacák case is not an example of "incorrect information" or even an appearance of incorrect information because those are all hypotheticals. In order for information to be incorrect, it has to be, well, demonstrated to be incorrect. That's why I think that example should be struck. --Habst (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how it works. For something to be "correct", it must first be plausible on its own grounds: saying that you know with high confidence that you know that someone died in Germany, when you don't know when or where they died, is not plausible. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a step back here, are you alleging that Olympedia is incorrect to have listed a country of death as Germany because a year and city of death was not also listed? It's perfectly plausible to know one but not the others; some scenarios could be that they were told that by a family member or found it in a listing of deaths. I just don't see how this is an example of getting something incorrect when there's no indication of that? --Habst (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First "told by a family member" is not high-confidence information. Secondly "a listing of deaths" would almost always say at least what year. FOARP (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Olympedia frequently did this, maybe I would raise an eyebrow, but you don't think it's possible that in this one case out of thousands, they could have known the country but not the date or city of death? There are lists of deaths that don't have dates attached for whatever reason. In general, it's possible to have one thing without having another thing even if they're usually paired together. --Habst (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced articles June 2025 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | June 2025 Backlog Drive

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
Remember to tag your edit summary with #JUN25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search.
Interested in taking part? Sign up here.

You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]