User talk:Ser!

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2021/August; 2021/October; 2021/November; 2021/December; 2022/April; 2022/June; 2022/August; 2022/October; 2022/November; 2022/December; 2023/June; 2023/July; 2023/August; 2023/September; 2023/October; 2023/November; 2023/December; 2024/January; 2024/February; 2024/March; 2024/April; 2024/May; 2024/June; 2024/July; 2024/August; 2024/September; 2024/October; 2024/November; 2024/December; 2025/January; 2025/February; 2025/March; 2025/April; 2025/May; 2025/June; 2025/July;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

BEFORE YOU POST HERE:

If you are replying to a comment I have made on another talk page, please reply to me on that page instead of here, for the sake of convenience.
Please remember to sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~), so I know who I'm replying to.
To start a new topic, please click on this link.
If you'd rather email me, you can do so here.

Interested in Voting for you as an Admin.

I have a few questions however. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. The question section of the elections will open up on July 18th and I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have on my candidate page, but if you'd rather ask them here then go for it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The question section of the elections will open up on July 18th and I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have on my candidate page"

Oooooh I apologize this is the first time I am actually participating in a wiki election.

I like that Fire salamander by the way.

These 4 questions categories I am asking ever candidate I am considering voting for (in your case I may be able to guess parts of question 4).

What is your opinion on flag icons for military articles? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Flag icons Should the guidelines be discussed, altered, or changed? If there is a military conflict where only two countries are participants should their flags be presented in the info box or would this be considered decorative? (These questions are a line of questioning I have encountered and is met to be more of a microcosm question to analyze your thought process in a random topic, next election I will ask a different set of questions).
In recent history the media including the co founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger believes that Wikipedia is biased. Do you think that is true or false? Why or why not? Do you have any comments on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?
Are there any Wikipedia essays that you agree with?
What has been your favorite Wikipedia article to create or work on? What is something you are working on now or would love to in the future? (: These next too questions are for advice and in no way will reflect my voting choices: 1. How do you set up a selective archive ability for your talk page? I tried doing that myself and then I tried getting help though teahouse, but was still not able to work out the templates. 2. Do you have any history book recommendations for a military history of Ireland. Preferably 1 in general and maybe 1 that goes from the 1800s till at least the Good Friday agreement? Thank you. (:

Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks! To answer your questions;

To be completely honest, I have zero military history editing experience, and as such I have no informed opinion on the topic either way.
On a project of millions of editors, with millions of pages, I think it would be fair to say there will naturally be some areas where bias can be seen. This isn't an exclusively political issue; I think in particular of times I've found articles in sparsely-edited topic areas (such as more obscure divisions of football) and seen that the content therein is nowhere near a neutral POV. That being said, I don't think this means Wikipedia in itself is biased. I've worked with editors from basically every political point of view, and similarly seen editors of every political point of view sanctioned. As for NPOV, I've always tried to maintain a neutral point of view and report accurately what any relevant sources say.
There are a couple that come to mind. As I cite in the answers on my candidate page, I am very fond of Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot as a guideline for keeping your head when things may become frustrating. Regarding sockpuppet filings which I frequently work with, I also like User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI as solid guidance. Finally, I am always amused by the concept of Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page - something I promise I will not do if elected.
In general my favourite articles to work on are generally ones about Irish political history; partially because it's something I'm very interested in researching, and partially because of the treasure trove of untapped resources available with which to write and expand pages. Recently I've been working on expanding the pages for Irish by-elections; with the stellar work that was done on 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election a few years back I figured there's a lot of scope for expanding other by-election pages so I'd like to get around to developing a few more of those beyond stub class.

As for advice, I'm not too familiar with archiving beyond having added it to my own page - for what it's worth, I used the Cluebot script in WP:AUTOARCHIVE. Regarding book recommendations, I honestly have not done that much reading in Irish history in many years, but what I can recommend is if you can find any decent books on the Easter Rising of 1916 - it's something we studied in school and I vividly remember the centenary of it about a decade back. Thanks again for the questions, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm a fair and honest answer.
Also a fair response. Generally when I create articles my goal is to take any and every mainline position that I can find and include them all. Ideally I want it to be that no one can guess my political, religious, or even sports affiliations, and to be able to give our readers the ability to think for themselves with good references and a neutral point of view. Would you say you try your best to do this as well? I realize too that being in a leadership position can be hard. You can't please everybody and nor should you try to depending on the circumstances, but my point is that it is not always easy because everyone is a critic. Is that something that concerns you? Or would you say that this is a natural condition that comes with power? It is annoying, but manageable. (:
Hmmmmmm I like all of these, but I especially like that you mentioned Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I like it when they say to remember that there is a person behind every username. This is something that should be understood and focused on in ever part of the internet let alone Wikipedia. I believe that what we do on Wikipedia is important as I am sure you do, but surely if we forget to treat people well even if we are 100% right, but have a horrible approach then we are harming society as every individual is a part of society.
Hmmmm its very important to be unbiased in political pages. I have not done an in depth read, but I looked for your edits and talk history and it seems you have tried to be impartial. Bravo. :D I appreciate that yes. I will keep a look at out. If you read anything on that subject in the future though please inform me. (:

Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much I wouldn't want to make my political views immediately noticeable through my edits, which is also why I don't display any political infoboxes or allegiances on my profile. Regarding criticism, I think it does very much come with the territory - some healthy criticism is always a good thing. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm good points to all. You are definitely a top contender for my vote. The only problem is that you have stiff competition among some of the other very good candidates. I think you should be made an Admin at some point, not sure which one of you would be better, compared to the others. But I am narrowing down my candidates. Thank you for your time. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyguy1138: Sorry to be a WP:Talk page stalker but it is not a competition. You can support as many candidates as you want in the elections (including me). :) Sahaib (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh no a wiki Jaguar. Take ser! not me.

In all seriousness though I did not know this was a thing until now. How funny.

D Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the July 2025 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

July 16–17: Housekeeping phase (we are here)
July 18–22: Discussion phase
July 23–29: SecurePoll voting phase
July 30–c. August 3: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the Housekeeping phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend this phase getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from July 18–22. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). You are strongly encouraged to be around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your vote total during the election.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time. This phase took approximately four days during the October 2024 election, but could take up to a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the July 2025 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

noni madueke

your stated photos are free licence that allows reuse Ihyric (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihyric: The license on the Madueke photo is CC0 which also means it's in the public domain and freely usable; it's not conditional based on who he plays for at the time. While we do prefer to have images of the players at their current clubs, there are no freely licensed ones of Madueke with Arsenal yet. If we get one (which we may do during the year), it will likely be added, but for now this image will have to do. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ser is completely correct here and the removal of the photo is nonsense. Giant Snowman 10:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakimi Best RB

you said i edited that in unsourced but i didnt add that in at all Draymondlabiad (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Draymondlabiad, what my edit summary said was that it restored your version, not reverted, so I know you didn’t add that bit in. Hope that clears it up. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok gotcha. Sorry i misunderstood Draymondlabiad (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts in the question & discussion phase of AELECT2025

I'm certain many others feel the same way. I appreciate your putting yourself forward, answering questions (including mine) with candor, and demonstrating BOLD while still maintaining AGF. Thank you, and good luck to you in the next phase. We've certainly learned more about all the candidates during the last few days. BusterD (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the lovely message! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

July 23–29 – Voting phase
July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Cucurella being one of the best full-backs right now

Hello there! I noticed that you mentioned my sources were just 'Team of the tournaments' dont mean he's the best. But Team of the tournaments in some of the biggest tournaments are most full backs achieve as they are not in the running for major awards like Forwards and Midfielders. Everyone who watches football understands Nuno Mendes and Cucurella are the best LBs in the world right now, with Cucurella upstaging the former in both Euros and Club world cup, being recognized as the best LB in both. There will never be a source calling a full back "one of the best right now" as rankings are subjective and possibly biased.

Either way, all the work you do protecting information is appreciated! Thank you. RVC79 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RVC79:, thanks for the message. Generally speaking to call players one of the best in the world, we'd need reliable sources saying exactly that, and there are some players for whom that applies. Contrary to your belief about sources never saying full backs are one of the best right now, plenty of them do have that. For example, Achraf Hakimi, Trent Alexander-Arnold, Jeremie Frimpong, Alphonso Davies, etc. The burden of proof for these claims are generally pretty high (understandably because after all they're pretty big claims to make), but sources that actively dub players among their best either in their position or in football as a whole do exist - if you can find a wide range of these sources you're welcome to bring them to the relevant article talk page so other editors can weigh in on them. Further to this, it's generally advised that these sort of claims are added to the body first before being put into the first few sentence per our WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY policy. I hope this helps somewhat, and thanks for the kind words at the end. Best, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Have fun with the mop! (But not too much fun, wouldn't want you to slip on a wet floor...) Toadspike [Talk] 15:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, and thank you for giving me the push to run! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, well done indeed. You have a lot of new tools to play with, if you ever need assistance or a second opinion, my email and talk page are open. Best of luck and welcome to the mop corps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much - I’ll be in touch if I have any questions along the way! And a massive thanks to you, @Dbeef and @Daniel Quinlan for putting your faith in me, I’m truly honoured. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you would make it :) feel free to ask me about SPI things if you ever want to go there. dbeef [talk] 03:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and have fun figuring out the new tools that will come with your (rapidly impending) mop! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Thadeus! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on gaining Admin status 🎉 CeltBrowne (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Celt! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Andre🚐 20:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Andre! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ser! I am pretty sure that you'll become a great administrator. Cheers! Fade258 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 01:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I was delighted to see you run, and even happier you were elected! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Bastun! — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the result of the admin elections! By the way, I understand that there was some question in the Discord of what "Pbritti" stands for—it originates in an abbreviation of my name, but my friends do often call me "Peanut Brittle". Looking forward to your work as a much-needed and much-appreciated mop-wielder. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, good to know! Thank you kindly! — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of British supercentenarians

Greetings, Can the new protection be extended forever? Thanks Rklingmann (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rklingmann, thanks for the message. As it seems this is the first time the page is being protected (and the first time this date-changing vandal has targeted the page) I think it's a better idea to try a shorter one first, per our Wikipedia:Protection policy. If this vandalism starts again after the protection expires, please feel free to message me here and I'll look into it. Best, — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you protect this page from anonymous users again? This time much longer. Thanks Rklingmann (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for two months. Let me know again if it continues after this. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One admin baton, as ordered

The admin baton

Per ancient tradition, it is my great pleasure to pass on this baton to you, as KylieTastic did to me. It serves as a reminder that, despite dramas petty and grand, we work together to build an encyclopedia. You, holding this baton, are saluted by all its past holders. Thank you. Enjoy it and then pass it on to the next AELECT admin as soon as you can! Keep up the good work. :-) Kj cheetham (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo, nice, a baton! I've always wanted one of those. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for PJ Judge

On 4 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article PJ Judge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "the Psycho" controlled the drug trade in Finglas, Cabra and Ballymun from the early 1990s until his death in 1996? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/PJ Judge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, PJ Judge), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk)) 00:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 16,560 views (690.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"He who does not keep peace shall lose his hand."

	The axe of responsibility
	Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

o7 ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About your block of 65.128.207.191

Hey, just wanted to let you know about the existence of Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse#Budding COVID misinformation LTA. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Skywatcher, duly noted. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Happy to see you got the mop! You deserve it. Wield it well! Marquardtika (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Marquardtika! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS/KURD and ECR

Given the driveby nature of the recent protection requests from an IP, declining may well have been the right call, but worth noting that WP:GS/KURD puts Kurdish topics on a blanket ECR, so protecting articles like Kurds in Finland is valid even in the absence of recent disruption. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy, thanks for letting me know. I've noticed a weird amount of requests specifically relating to Iraq (on pages with no disruption at all) coming in from IPs on RfPP the last while, so I'll bear in mind if they pop up any time soon. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Estêvão being one of the best young players.

You mentioned the sources suggest “subjectivity” when removing the edit. But where is the subjectivity in mentioning him as “one of the best” when the sources clearly state that? I never called him “THE BEST”. I believe the edit was removed wrongfully. 136.57.214.79 (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confused here. Someone made an edit changing it to “the best young player” and I changed it back to “one of the best young players”, as the sources said. It was another editor who removed the claim altogether, not me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 07:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, my apologies! I’m new to the interface. Thank you! 136.57.214.79 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dameer (singer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dameer (singer) 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/Dameer (singer) 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.

Rht bd (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Benz W124

Good day, Ser!

On the 18th of August an anon, 35.132.249.245 (talk · contribs) requested an article protection of Mercedes-Benz W124, because he did not like the way I styled the infobox. A day later you declined the request and in parallel I began a DR... by explaining the rationale of my edit on the talk page. 24 hrs later I restored the edit, since no one has replied. However, yesterday, the same anon, reverted the edit again without any explanation. I have reverted it, but perhaps it was impulsive on my behalf. Since you made the initial verdict on RFPP, is too much to ask for your involvement in this unpleasant situation? Carfan87 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no response on the talk page but a continued reversion, I'll protect the article for a week. Hopefully this should get the IP to respond on the talk page. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Gunther Fehlinger AfD

Greetings Ser! I have seen your reply on the AfD on the Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn issue. And I disagree with you.

I mean no hostility to you, as you seem like a nice person. But from my research, he seems much more than just some sensationalist.

He has partaken in multiple conferences as a speaker. 2 in 2023, one was the IME, and the other one was on an ECR panel regarding russia.

And one in 2024 where he was again a speaker on IME.

Some of these I have taken on myself to document them on wikipedia, since it was lacking before.

He is also in the Hearts of Iron 4 mod called “The fire rises”. Which he has been very notable and publicly supporting his portrayal in it.

Also the reason why I cant reply on the AfD topic itself, is due to it being semi protected.

Hope I get a response from you, have a great afternoon.

Best regards! JonasJorgensen4 (talk) JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, and don't worry, you aren't coming across as hostile at all. For someone to have a Wikipedia article, they need to meet a general notability guideline, per WP:GNG, to determine that they are indeed notable. As the article stands, I don't think there is enough coverage of Fehlinger to prove that he meets these guidelines. As much as speaking at conferences and being featured in game mods are interesting, they don't contribute to notability. With this deletion discussion, if it's found that there's enough reliable sources covering him, then editors will be able to weigh in and see, but for now it's a delete vote from me. Best wishes, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy reply. I do agree that the first reference shouldn’t be his youtube, and rather his twitter.

But while he may not have an official offical position of importance, he is still very notable.

Now it is subjective on whats notable. But if the deletion of his article goes ahead, people may be mistaken hes an actual nato representative. Like reuters did about his #exbrazil. (And got 250k views on facebook). Gunther himself had to clarify his position, and even nato had to make a statement about it.

It is already listed under the controversies section. But you can say he may be one of the greatest “Ragebaiter” ever.

But, if he isn’t notable enough, i am not sure what is, since I have seen footballers I have never heard of with barely any content during my time on wikipedia.

Again, dont take this as any hostility to you. And I know you are a great person when it comes to preserving history. But digging more into this guy, I am starting to feel kinda bad for him.

again thank you for your time!

Best regards!

JonasJorgensen4 (talk) JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I can supply a few articles which may be deemed even less notable.

Ambrose Mason

heres one for example.

Again have a nice afternoon!

Best regards

JonasJorgensen4 (talk) JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About gunther again.

Hello ser!

Gunther has emailed me on his own accord, all the news articles hes been mentioned in somewhere around before 2023, since from his previous AfD.

He only got my email due to me requesting CC-SA-4 for an image on him for his page.

And there is so to go through, so, if you wanna assist, I can forward the email he sent me to you. Or do you have somewhere I can send it at?

Your experience will definitely help comb through alot of this, so any help will be appreciated.

with best regards JonasJorgensen4 (talk) JonasJorgensen4 (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Glen Ward (criminal)

On 28 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glen Ward (criminal), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mr Flashy's gang used teenagers on electric scooters to deliver crack cocaine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glen Ward (criminal). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Glen Ward (criminal)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References for Paul McGrath (footballer)

Hi Ser,

Keen to get some feedback from you if you have a moment!

I'm trying to improve the page on Paul McGrath (footballer) and I noticed you replaced a few references I added to the article about "one of the greatest centre-backs in modern football": Special:Diff/1313736706. I'm hoping to improve the quality from it's existing rating of Start class so thought I'd check with you where I went wrong with the references I added. Were they not from reliable sources, not in the body, were these references just better, etc.?

Any tips/pointers/feedback is much appreciated! Cheers ElfmanWriter (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I had previously added citations to this to the body (per WP:LEADCITE, though I understand the need to cite a claim like this so I'm fine with references staying up there) so these were mostly the same ones. Here's why I swapped out each one:

The SportsJoe one is Ron Atkinson opining that he's the best in Prem history; while this would almost definitely lend itself to meaning he'd be among the best in modern football, it's not directly backing it up.
The Aston Villa source comes direct from the club he played for, and is not independent of him as a result.
The BoyleSports source is from a gambling site; generally where there's better references available I'd avoid that one.

Generally speaking I've always tried to add references fully backing these claims down to specific wording. On the note of improving the article though, I'd be delighted to help out if I can; I've always been a big fan of Paul, met him at a charity event once and he was a gent. Thanks for the message! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you for the feedback! That's the attention to detail I'm gonna need if we're to succeed in getting this article up to B-class, maybe even A-class.

I've added a request for assessment review to the WikiProject Football/Assessment page and will try to improve it a bit more before looking for a full peer review. If you have any spare time yourself, any help is greatly appreciated! ElfmanWriter (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes at Alexander Isak

Hello, I'm Wikiediter2029! I have removed him being 'the best striker in the world' to make an article more neutral. While the source is reliable, it is generally best to remove the claim. I will revert it, please do not have an edit war about it. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikiediter2029: thanks for your message, but no it’s not generally best to remove the claim. If sources say a player is widely regarded as the best in their position it’s a regular thing to include it; see the pages for Ousmane Dembelé, Achraf Hakimi, Gianluigi Donnarumma, Erling Haaland, Declan Rice etc. This standard is applied wherever it’s a common opinion among reliable sources. Thanks and best regards, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuno Mendes (footballer, born 2002)

Hi there!

I am in the process of cleaning this up, please let me know what you think in an hour or so. But this nuisance that presented the sources should be reverted/blocked on the spot, they are a sock extraordinaire (User:SukunaZenin, User:Pinzunski, etc, etc). "Notably", they are in love with Viktor Gyökeres's article (this new account has already been warned for that) and with overdetail (filling pages with transfer speculation which is forbidden here).

I see the admin that blocked the accounts (not that it will do any good, they'll just get another AND another!!) is retired as of July 2025, if you want/care to file a report...

Attentively, have a nice (new) week RevampedEditor (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, duly noted. I'm just glad for once this claim being added is one that can be backed up by reliable sources. I am completely unfamiliar with the sockmaster you refer to so I might leave any filing to yourself; if you do file a request I'm confident another CU will be able to take a look at it. Will continue to keep an eye on the article. Best wishes, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still working (in 15 minutes i'll be done), have already finished relocating that bit from intro to where it should (style of play!) but am still cleaning their PSG "additions"; in two of the "sources" they used for Mendes' Ballon d'Or contention, they used a web article that mentions ONLY Achraf Hakimi!!! --RevampedEditor (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Really, if you think someone (KNOWINGLY!) adds TWO sources about a person that mention someone different can be taken seriously... Not the first they do that (or similar), i remember two years ago when they added a SPANISH source (La Vanguardia) to say that Mendes had become Sporting's youngest ever Taça de Portugal winner (it will be forever etched in the article's history, so you'll know i'm telling the truth), i open the newspaper article and...voilá! Not a SINGLE mention to that.

And they had the nerve to call me a "biggot" here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Velho&diff=prev&oldid=1256421376), because they inserted transfer speculation to the article, that AND run-of-the-mill matches.

Again, have a nice week --RevampedEditor (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say I have no objection with displaying the plaudits in the lead as long as the references back them up suitably; which per the references at the moment they seem to. I also don't think they necessarily back up the "of his generation" claim added; they just mean he's currently one of the best in the world. This could continue for his whole generation or he could fade... Duly noted in any case. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it means "currently", it means "of his generation" no? Regarding the Ballon d'Or contention, if you notice, i added TWO sources where Mendes and only Mendes is mentioned (not his teammate!!), that and his final ranking. But of course the other chap will come and talk down to me in a day or so! --RevampedEditor (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhhh, not really. The generational assessments in my view will come in about 10-15 years time - we can say it about players who have demonstrated high class over quite a few seasons (your Mohamed Salahs, your Kevin de Bruynes, etc), but there's always the risk that a player has two or three good seasons and then burns out totally; hence why in my view the "in the world" phrasing is better as it's current and can be removed (as was done with Casemiro after he forgot how to play football at United) when it's out of date. Hope this makes sense. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four minutes to end the PSG match, i will update stats because he has scored. Even though i do not agree with it, i will compromise with the "best in the world" stuff and re-add it to intro (but without the "known for his whatever", those are traits for the style of play section).

Cheers RevampedEditor (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good with me. Have a good week, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went back on the decision of reporting the sock, to snitch around (even in the virtual world) is definitely not me, and this is very far from your average lowlife vandal! The free kick addition (albeit with the ref poorly displayed AGAIN!) was indeed a good one, a milestone. But they had no business "ungluing" the paragraphs that pertained to the same season. All in all, I am 100% sure it's the account(s) mentioned above! I only give him "wiki-hell" in this article, João Palhinha and Francisco Trincão, the other articles (operates 99,99999999999% on Portuguese football(ers)) he can fill with 450 refs and transfer speculation galore i will not budge (i used to clean up after him on the likes of Rúben Amorim or Pedro Gonçalves, but longsince gave up because i'm sick of wasting my time, precious or not, on a computer!

P.S. Only noticed the message about A. Isak just above these ones, i could not agree more with what the other user wrote; this "one of the best in the world" stuff has no business being on an encyclopedia! But hey, who is/am he/she/i to argue?

Attentively, keep it up --RevampedEditor (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if you do change your mind and decide to report it you know where WP:SPI is. Re the above message, it's been a done thing (for long before I've been editing in football) that players with similar plaudits have had it added that they're "regarded" as such - but I've repeatedly removed it from pages where there was insufficient backing and will continue to do so. Best regards as ever, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]