User talk:Theleekycauldron
 |
|
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |              | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Inbox
[edit] | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Sometimes messages slip through the cracks. Sorry about that! I keep this list to let me know what I still need to respond to – feel free to add your own name and message here if you're still looking for a response from me.
- 05:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC) fill out your thing at WP:REFLECTIONS – HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)
- 02:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC) ban houseblaster from my talk page for messing with the inbox format theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Follow-up
[edit]Hi Leeky! Following up to your reply here, you can consider me without a strong opinion about whether the best way to deal with less-than-persuasive RfA !votes is to move the !vote rationale to talk as well, or to leave the replies, or hatting or something else. My main objection, as I wrote there, is to the imbalance created by removing the rebuttals but leaving the replies on the !vote.
Moving the rationale as well isn't totally unprecedented — it was done, rather infamously, at my own RfA — but that raises a bunch of thorny questions about what exactly we consider appropriate RfA !voting behavior that are beyond the scope of my objection. My main comment is just that I don't think it helps combat badgering or make RfAs better to use the talk page as an overflow space for all oppose replies, rather than more carefully considering what is or isn't germane to the candidacy in those replies.
Hope that helps clarify! Cheers, Sdkb talk 18:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
- Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.
Technical news
- You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options →
Enable the user info card
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
- Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.
Miscellaneous
- An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Feedback regarding Unblock prep
[edit]Hi @Theleekycauldron, mind giving me some feedback regarding my Unblock Prep? Do you think it will be successful? Would you say that I can edit main space on my own again? The Other Karma (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Agender
[edit]
Hello! Your submission of Agender at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! TarnishedPathtalk 04:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Agender page
[edit]Thanks for improving the agender page! I was meaning to make it an aim of mine to get that page to being a good article, but I got distracted. So thanks! And also thanks for the DYK nomination Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Pencilceaser123: Happy to help :) and thanks for the article, glad to see some representation! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- oh are you agender too? cool! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
May be of interest
[edit]It's been a while, my friend. You may be interested in Draft:Drug tax stamps in the United States. I've had it in my userspace for three years and it's unlikely I'll ever get around to finishing it. AFAIK, your interest seems to be more in court cases, so (really) no pressure for you to edit - but in case you're interested, I thought I'd share. Urve (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)