User talk:FOARP

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Close at Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archives/ 16#RfC on inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in infobox

[edit]

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

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

[edit]

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: [1] "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

[edit]
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]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kąty, Dąbrowa County
added a link pointing to Brzezówka
Lechówka, Lesser Poland Voivodeship
added a link pointing to Brzezówka

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed

Interface administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

readded L235

Oversight changes

readded L235

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

I really agreed with what you said here (the third paragraph) about third-rail topics. I get that sense myself, though I usually do leave well alone. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

[edit]

It was interesting reviewing the mess around your close of the New York City Subway RM from several years back. I had forgotten that's where we had encountered each other before. Then, as now, you waded into a serious discussion while disclaiming any understanding of why people cared about the positions they were so ardently promoting. That's the kind of thing that you should leave to people who do understand why people care. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways you can contribute, as they say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would counter that capitalisation, objectively something that most users do not notice and which does not create content, is similarly objectively not worth the effort presently being spent on it. People becoming over-committed to something, and entering a disruptive battleground state against people similarly over-committed to the opposite proposition, is hardly unique to capitalisation. FOARP (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to stay out of the ones you can't understand. As for what the effort is worth, I've made a small start on the essay I promised: User:Dicklyon/Why I care about over-capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my view was is the exact opposite. If there is an issue you care greatly about, then that is exactly the issue that you should take a break from editing in. Without over-labouring the point, I would have hoped that recent events might have highlighted the wisdom of that approach. FOARP (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how that's related, nor opposite, to what I was talking about, which was not about taking a break, but about wading in to settle an argument without understanding why people are arguing about things that you think are not important. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, you're "topic banned from (de)capitalization", and I would assume that should be read as "broadly construed", which includes further discussing the topic here. FOARP (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on my talk page, you'll see that the specifically did not say "broadly construed", and the that discussion capitalization generically would be OK. But I'll leave you now. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear to me you have missed the point - that perhaps it is time to reflect on your own participation in move discussions at RUSUKR through the mirror of your comments at arbcom. At what point does your pushing these moves cease to be constructive debate and become bludgeoning? Perhaps this might put things into some perspective.[2] Cinderella157 (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

added L235

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

  • The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
  • Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pump?

[edit]

You posted:

Personally, the next time I see an essentially-groundless petition like this, I intend to open a motion to close it. We can test then just how much people agree with this process. The idea that you just can't discuss something in a discussion about that thing is patently absurd and purest WP:BURO. FOARP (talk) 7:53 am, Today (UTC−4)

And I said Hm. Something like that might be a good check-and-balance for preventing frivolous RECALL petitions -- which obviously no one wants to see. We can't know how many people watching a petition aren't ready to sign, but don't believe it's actually frivolous and would support seeing the admin RRfA. Valereee (talk) 8:20 am, Today (UTC−4)

Do you think we could suggest a process by which anyone could add a motion to a recall petition? Maybe a motion is open for seven days and stops voting for that period. It could encourage recalls to be extremely well-thought out before being started. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure whether the best thing wouldn’t be just to do it and see how it turns out when it happens. The reason I’m saying this is that a particularly bad recall proposal would be the best advertisement for the necessity of it. In contrast when discussing in abstract people are more likely to say “why is this needed?”.
Additionally, when the argument for this is based on WP:NOTBURO then it should not be something that adds to the bureaucracy of the process.
Open to suggestions, obviously. FOARP (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me! Here's hoping we never will actually have that test case. Valereee (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi I thought i would ping you regarding this discussion as you have been involved in several AFDs regarding CDPs and was deeply involved in the failed RFC regarding GEOLAND. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender healthcare and people arbitration case opened

[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting redirects with disambiguators

[edit]

Hi @FOARP, I wanted to start a separate discussion about this to not derail the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Singh (race walker).

I don't think it's appropriate to delete redirects just because they have a disambiguation in their title. There are over 120,000 redirects with disambiguators categorized as such, with probably many more uncategorized. In general, any article title can also be the title of a redirect, so I think that would extend to disambiguated article titles as well. --Habst (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
  • Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi F.

I'm writing to you in your capacity as an admin here who tends to be active in the European morning. In a recent RSN discussion, a user made this edit [[3]] . A link included in this edit, https://archive.ph/t2wxG, leads to a page which gave me a warning in Italian that stated the page had been blocked for containing images of child pornography. I suspect this may be a problem with Italy's national block list, as that is where I am, but obviously there is a potentially very big problem here. Who needs to deal with this and how? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure there is a problem the WP can fix here. The link is to an archived version of a newspaper article, just as Newslinger says it is. FOARP (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, as long as it is working correctly outside of Italy. I tried to check on a VPN but it gave me the same message, and I didn't want to check any further myself for obvious reasons.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn’t want to click on it either but it was the only actual way of actually checking. I suspect this is a result of bad actors using archive.ph meaning it gets added to a block-list. For future reference any admin can revdel material so that it can’t be seen. FOARP (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for checking it out, not a nice one to get dropped in your lap. Given who'd posted it, I was 99.99% sure there was no problem anyway, but I felt it needed looking at. Thanks for the explanation too. All the best.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah if it hadn’t been someone I know by sight but just a vandal, I’d have probably just revdel’d it without clicking the link. FOARP (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am wondering if Olympic notability should have a special carve out saying competitors in the 1904 Olympics do not get presumed notability even for winning a medal. This was basically a competition between a bunch of teams from the United States, held as a side event to the St. Louis World's fair. One medal is called Norwegian because the winner did not get his US citizenship until the year after, but he was competing for a US based club. All pre-1920 Olympics are hard pushes to think many of the competitors were actually notable, but the 1904 Olympics is basically the biggest failure in this regards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe it is not until the 1912 Olympics you get anything approaching the modern system of athletes being on teams per country. The 1904 Olympics was the furthest from this, but other pre-1912 Olympics are clearly not athletes competing by country either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I know you keep up with AfDStats

[edit]

FYI your "Delete/Redirect" !vote here somehow got coded as "merge", I guess because it's the last voteword that's bolded or because the script doesn't parse "/" correctly. JoelleJay (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Euryalus
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

readded AmandaNP
removed SQL

Oversight changes

readded AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
  • An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Wride

[edit]

Thanks for creating an article on Ollie Wride. If you don't mind, I'll be improving on the article over the course of the coming days using WP:NPOV and some more notable WP:CITE. I'll also work a little on WP:STRUCTURE. On whether he is a synthwave musician, it might be more accurate to say he is an English singer-songwriter best known for his work with synthwave act FM-84. I'll cite accordingly when I get to it. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, go for it. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think we're knocking heads right now as we're both trying to edit the article at the same time. If you allow me to update sections and add more references first, then please do suggest or make edits after. I can be done in a day or two. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All done now for the time being. I have improved on the touring and album release/chart information. I couldn't find any information to suggest that the artist cancelled a proposed 2020 tour during the Covid Pandemic. The reference didn't mention that, so I removed that line, apologies. Please feel free to edit and thanks again for creating the article. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article said that he was planning to tour "and then came 2020", clearly implying that the COVID pandemic was the reason, but if you disagree, fine. Otherwise OK with your edits. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My compliments

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your diligent efforts to change the title of the article Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have finally culminated in the 23 September 2025 page move to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 20:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Saint, though I think this is as at least as much your win as mine! You originally proposed the move to the title that it eventually moved to, even if it took a while for people to come around to your point of view!
With 100% honesty, I think there will be another move or two before this finally settles, but for the next year I don't think this page needs to go anywhere. FOARP (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision for Transgender healthcare and people posted

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Transgender healthcare and people. The proposed decision has been posted. Your comments are welcome on the talk page in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question on full protection

[edit]

Is there a reason why you fully protected Talk:Lists of Olympic competitors? I think this might be an accident as the edit summary for the action says "oops". Joseph2302 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to undo accidental protection. I’ll undo. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I presumed it was a mistake. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed Vanamonde93

Arbitration

  • After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Battle for Dream Island

[edit]

Draft:Battle for Dream Island, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Battle for Dream Island during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

[edit]

Thank you for this essential work. CS46 did real harm to the project. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been chipping away at this for years now, so have others, but I really don't think we're doing anything like what's required to deal with the issue. The problem is the WP:GEOLAND standard, which simply isn't fit-for-purpose (as we are presently discussing on the WP:NGEO talk page). FOARP (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced articles November 2025 backlog drive

[edit]
WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 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 #NOV25, 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) 07:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I see that you supervise and evaluate the sources of an article, such as the one on Copa Airlines destinations. Let me point out that this article by Calito Soul has few credible and reliable sources. 200.46.55.139 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for creating new Olympic lists

[edit]

Hi FOARP, as I'm not going to ping editors in a future Olympic competitors list proposal, I wanted to seek your feedback ahead of time as someone who was involved in the previous list. I hope that, now that a few weeks have passed, we can start working together more on improving the encyclopedia.

I'm considering creating a list by sport segmented like this in draftspace and then posting it at both VPP and WT:OLY per the plan outlined. I'm curious what your opinion would be on this, and if you think it would be a good idea to pair it with the redirect / categories proposal also discussed in that thread? I'm also not quite sure what to do about avoiding duplicate information (or multiple redirect targets) for mutli-sport/multi-year competitors. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in the VPP discussion was a WP:SNOW consensus against an alphabetical listing of all 160,000 people to have ever competed at the Olympics. I think a straight-forward reading of many of the !votes shows a concensus also against any full listing of all of them in database-like format. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking, I agree with your first sentence but disagree with the second sentence. Putting that aside, what do you think about the proposals above? -- Habst (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is why we are where we are on this. To lay it out for you:
  • I see numerous references to the availability of categories as a reason not to have a listing of all Olympians (Masem, Sirfurboy, mdm.bla, Let'srun, Anachronist).
  • Length was also cited as a reason (me, isaacl, Mrfoogles, John Pack Lambert, Blueboar, Cdr. Erwin Smith).
  • The directory/database-like nature of any such listing was also cited (Sapphaline, SnowRise).
  • The problem of maintenance was also cited (Novem Linguae, SunloungerFrog).
  • The indiscriminate, useless nature of such a listing was cited by a number of the editors already named, the unreliability and poor notability of any such listing was also discussed (JoelleJay, SMarshall).
And most of the editors above cited more than one of the above, as well as scepticism over the usefulness of such a listing. I've just only included the names as examples. CreativeLibrary460 also cast a !vote "per above" that was in agreement with these points. That's a full 17 of the ~23 or so people casting !votes in the VPP discussion.
Even the support/neutral !votes referenced many of these issues e.g., "It's not clear to me what the benefit of a huge list is" - Whatamidoing, "I'm not fully convinced that they're useful to readers" - Toadspike.
So again, I don't think any listing of all 160,000 people to have ever competed at the Olympics is going to be suitable content for EN WP, at least based on the feedback at the WP:VPP discussion. That's not a point that's possible to put aside when you are proposing to do exactly that. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hear and agree with those problems, which is why I !voted along with them. They don't lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't have any list of Olympians.
Up until this point, I had never heard from you before that you did not support any complete listing of Olympians; this comes as a surprise to me. With great respect, I don't think that was ever reflected in the consensus, and I hope you will agree with me that seeking consensus on a by-sport list, which was never asked in that RfC, would be a good idea on this even if we disagree. --Habst (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I hear and agree with those problems, which is why I !voted along with them" - OK, here's where I have point out that the reason why you !voted oppose was not this. It was, to be as fair as possible, an incredibly WP:POINTy idea that the RFC question didn't mean what it said it meant, but instead was an RFC about the theoretical creation of future duplicate articles that you described deleting under CSD A10. That's literally what your !vote said: "It seems like the only logical choice is to oppose this RfC as written because the articles already exist, and any duplicates would have to be deleted under WP:CSD A10."
"Up until this point, I had never heard from you before that you did not support any complete listing of Olympians; this comes as a surprise to me" - Sorry, but it's impossible to have a discussion where you don't appear to have been listening to what I or anyone else has been saying about this. I've said multiple times that I opposed the creation of these lists. I gave the number of items in the list as a reason for my opposition at VPP. The proposed list is going to be just as long, just differently-formatted - why would you think I wouldn't be opposed to it also? I literally told you that "I genuinely don't think that we're ever going to be OK with a 150,000-160,000-item-long-list, regardless of how it's structured".
I honestly don't think there's much more here to productively discuss here. Have a nice day. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, that was one of the reasons why I !voted oppose but not the only one. I always understood that you did not support the creation of alphabetic lists for understandable reasons at least since 8 September, but that is different than opposing creation of any complete list (for example by sport or by nation).
There are many editors who opposed creation of alphabetic lists but supported creation of by-sport lists, and yes, I thought you were one of them. I think your opinion is reasonable, and I still think we can work together on improving the encyclopedia on other topics if not this one.
I don't think the comments about "don't appear to have been listing" are productive and hope we can keep the discussion about the substance. --Habst (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comment

[edit]

Thankyou for your comment about me at a recent discussion. I very much appreciated it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As always, the way to repay trust put in you is to make sure you keep your nose clean and keep on going the way you're going. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary FOARP 🎉

[edit]

Hey @FOARP. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 18 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GEOLAND Workshopping idea

[edit]

Hi Foarp,

Something I've noticed in the RFC on the "Populated, legally recognized places" standard it that folks are all over the board on what "officially recognized populated place" actually means and what type of sourcing is sufficient. Here's an idea I came up with for workshopping this to try and find some sort of consensus:

What is an "officially recognized populated place"?

"Officially recognized populated place" can be defined many different ways. This discussion is an opportunity to workshop what editors think "populated place" means; how government soucres define "populated place"; and how it's currently applied on Wikipedia.

How do we define "populated place"?

In the discussion above we have editors discussing settlements like towns, villages and hamlets that are part of an official heirarchy of places; places that both appear in a government database and have another source stating that people have lived there; places that are specifically listed as "populated place" in a government database; and probably a few others that I've overlooked. We've created and kept or deleted articles under all of these criteria. What would be a definition that covers the types of places that we would like to have articles about?

How do official sources define "populated place"?

Goverment agencies include many different things under "populated place." For example Geographic Names Board of Canada covers "unincorporated areas" like Industrial Parks, Rail Points, Weather Stations and Localities which may or may not have populations. What types of sources, if any, could establish notability for a populated place?

How is "Officially recognized populated place" applied on Wikipedia?

We have many different opinions on what the current standard "should" mean. What are some examples of how the term is actually used in our article creation and deletion processes?

I wanted to see what your thoughts would be on adding this to the current RfC discussion or using it as a future RfC or informal talk page topic. The wording could definitely be tweaked, It kind of presupposes the use of "populated place" but I wasn't sure what other term to use. –dlthewave ☎ 21:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly just despair at the way this discussion has gone. Particularly the people who think there's nothing wrong with this standard, just that GNG should apply, or the problem is "only" that people are treating the standard as a complete pass on SIGCOV... FOARP (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way, I thought these questions might shed some light on what people think the SNG means vs how it works in practice but we're probably not going to get a productive discussion at this point. It's the same "The guideline already says XYZ, we just have to enforce it" that we saw at NSPORTS. –dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS2022 did eventually get over the line. I don't think these are bad questions, my main doubt is just whether anyone's even listening at this point. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about this a bit more, I think the way ahead is to let the discussion get archived as the no-consensus-outcome it clearly is (assuming there is no unexpected avalanche of !votes either way) and then point out the obvious: this is an important notability guide. A discussion of this kind for any other major notability guide on EN WP would be WP:SNOW-closed as fit for purpose, but not WP:GEOLAND. It's therefore time to find a standard that can achieve consensus.
Rather than just one potential option, let's put them all down and see whether any of them are runners. This includes:
  • A "Cities, towns, and villages are typically presumed notable"-style guide.
  • An NSPORT2022-style one-instance-of-sigcov requirement.
  • A country-by-country list.
Any others? FOARP (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, FOARP. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the right administrator to ask to unprotect Battle for Dream Island?

[edit]

At the AN discussion, I suggested that the restored BFDI draft be put under extended confirmed protection so that it couldn't be submitted by autoconfirmed users and put at risk of being rejected or even re-deleted to save reviewers from having any more of their time wasted. Now that BFDI is an article, that level of protection is no longer necessary. For now, it ought to be unprotected so anyone can edit it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FOARP (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP

[edit]

I need you to create a page for my soon to be released Just for Laughs film 108.88.98.49 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. FOARP (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle for Dream Island for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle for Dream Island is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Authenyo (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Toadspike
removed

CheckUser changes

added asilvering

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble, Indiana

[edit]

Appears to have been wiped away by natural disaster some decades past, if the aerials are any indication; it's totally gone without a trace now. Of course I cannot find any sourcing for its demise without fishing in old newspapers. This is why I hate having articles on these tiny places. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Stifle

[edit]
Hello, FOARP. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 15:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stifle (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]