User talk:Tamzin

{{ds/aware}}

I don't like the idea of getting pings over someone putting a box on my page that says I did nothing wrong while vaguely insinuating that I did, so I'm just parking these here instead. {{ds/aware|ap|gg|a-i|blp|mos|tt|ipa}} Update 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC): You know what, screw it. Keeping track of which to list is more trouble than it's worth, and I don't need any one-hit immunity. I'm aware of all of them. Even the weird ones like the Shakespeare authorship question or Waldorf education. If anything, I'm more likely to think something is a DS topic when it isn't, than vice versa.

NOTE TO MOBILE EDITORS

Due to some annoying design decisions by the Wikimedia Foundation, you cannot see the notice at the top of this page, which also is supposed to show up when you edit this page. Its contents are:

Please be civil. That's a policy here, but I reserve the right to enforce it more strictly on my talkpage than others may elsewhere. Please indent posts in an accessible manner. I am not a "sir". While I don't take offense to others calling me that honorific, we are all equals here on Wikipedia, and I would much prefer you just call me my name: Tamzin. Please do not post anything containing auto-playing media, including animated gifs. If writing in a language other than English, please provide an English translation if you are able to. Please do not invite the wrath of the evil eye. Apply {{User:Tamzin/kinehore}} liberally.

WikiLove

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar from Joshua Jonathan

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Absolutely deserved for uncovering the Swaminarayan-sockfarm. A lot of work is waiting, but you did great! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you so much, Joshua Jonathan. It's funny, it started just as this weird feeling based on the RfD !votes... We get weird !vote patterns at RfD all the time, usually when a number of non-regulars wander in and don't understand how the forum actually works. The weird thing, though, was that they did seem to get the basic premise of RfD, but were still !voting for a conclusion that made no sense. But still I didn't have that high an index of suspicion, and also I was rather busy, and was this closed to dropping it. But instead, kind of on a whim, I asked Blablubbs to take a look. I was only suspicious about the four who'd !voted consecutively, and I was frankly surprised when Blablubbs turned up evidence tying not just all four of them, but Apollo too. I had no previous exposure to this topic area, and didn't know any of the players, so I really though I'd just be dealing with a few SPAs, not someone with 2,000 edits and PCR. I think it was also Blablubbs who first suggested Moksha as part of it, as we looked at other players in the topic area. Then I found the comment from the Swami sock accusing them, and there went the next few hours of my life, digging through a history that grew more and more horrifying as the behavioral similarities mounted. I've really never seen something that elaborate fly under the radar, except reading early (pre-2010) ArbCom cases. It's a shame we'll likely never know exactly how many people were behind these six accounts. My personal hypothesis is that it was six people who knew each other off-wiki, with one, perhaps Moksha, ghost-writing some talk-page comments for the others. (If true, that would mean they were done in by that one person's micromanagement, which is a funny thought.) But that's just my guess. So thanks again for the barnstar. :) I kind of hope I never get this particular barnstar again, though, at least not for the same kind of thing. Mass gaslighting is a demoralizing thing to work against. I'm happy to go back to just dealing with vandals and spammers. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat from EpicPupper

Thanks for giving me that SPI idea, and for the guidance that came with it!

🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Replies

TIL I can win a goat just by being too lazy to write an SPI myself. ;) Guess I should have been careful what I wished for in the above section when I said I only wanted to deal with normal socks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC) @EpicPupper: Oh, and, I forgot to say: You did great! -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Again, thanks so much :) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 03:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence from L235

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi Tamzin, I'm Kevin. Thank you for your diligence on the Moksha88 SPI; had it been a less thorough report, it may have been overlooked or neglected, especially after the negative CU results. We're lucky to have had you looking into this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply

@L235: Thank you—for this barnstar and for your own diligence. I was worried that someone would look at this and see it as too complicated, and as involving blocks that were too likely to cause drama, and just punt on it and leave the whole topic area still in disarray. As someone who's always favored making lots of small improvements over a small number of big ones, it's rare that I get the chance to look at something and say, "Here's a way that I really, noticeably, made the encyclopedia better through one single effort." Which I hope I'll be able to say here, depending on how the POV cleanup goes. As I said to JJ above, I just hope that I don't run into another case like this for a while—both because I (perhaps naïvely) hope to never see anything so egregious, but also for the sake of my sanity, and the sake of whichever CU is crazy enough to take on that case. :) So again, thanks for all you've done here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar from Sdkb & Writ Keeper

	The Civility Barnstar
	Without getting into the messy question of whether or not the other editor's professed ignorance is plausible, I think it's clear your calm, non-judgmental efforts to explain why their comments were offensive have been helpful and appreciated by all. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I definitely second this. Your essay is excellent, as well. You're doing the (proverbial) Lord's work, and with much more patience than I. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Further kind words

​​Thank you both. <3 While I don't think of myself as an incivil person, I'm not sure this is one I ever expected to get. As someone who both likes to assume good faith and has a low tolerance for bigotry, I always see this kind of thing as a win-win: If the assumption of good faith was correct, then we avert more hurt feelings; and if it doesn't, then people can't plead ignorance the next time. I'm glad that this appears to have been the former. "Lord's work" is a compliment I'll happily (flatteredly) accept, be it meant proverbially or literally. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC) I see great minds think alike. I wasn't aware of the incident that led to the creation of your essay prior to today, and had only created mine in response to seeing "he/she" a lot around here. I must say you articulate it a lot better than I do, though! Patient Zerotalk 04:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC) I'd just like to thank you as well for your well written essay. I hope this essay helps inform future editors and, in doing so, reduce the instances of misgendering. Isabelle 🔔 02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence from Marvelcanon1

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you Tamzin for your diligence in dealing with my issue Marvelcanon1 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"SPU" from Writ Keeper, who forgot that the word "SPY" exists

		..D
		Writ Keeper has given you a potato! Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew!

Context: Previous two threads had been titled "SPA" and "SPI"

A cup of Tea!

	A cup of Noon Chai
	TheAafi invites you to have a cup of Pink Tea with him as he feels you are one of the hardworking Wikipedians; and Pink tea would help you relieve yourself. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If this was possibble! I admire your works on the platform, and mostly those at the RMT. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

@TheAafi: Well pink has always been my color, and I woke up at 2 PM yesterday and am trying to power through till like 6 PM today, so yes, I'll gladly accept. I hope it's strongly caffeinated. :) I enjoy seeing you around as well. sips. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC) @TheAafi: Update: I have drunk a medium Dunkin' "chai" in honor of this gift. I am guessing tastes nothing like the drink in the image, as Dunkin' beverages have a weird ability to all taste the same by the time you're done drinking them, no matter what you ordered. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) I feel honoured imho. The chai (tea) I offered is salty in nature. 😌 ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Ah. This definitely was not salty. More sickly-sweet. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Swiftly cleaning up information in ongoing events and making sure that everything stays factual and also just being a great person -- 𝒥𝒶𝒹𝑒 (Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂] 00:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

mishloach manot for you!

Happy purim, Tamzin! I thought I'd try and throw together a mishloach manot basket to give out :) feel free to pass it around or make your own basket, if that's your thing—if not, cheers and chag Purim sameach! in jewish enby siblinghood, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

תודה רבה, Claudia! A pleasantly synchronistic treat to find immediately after submitting my first foray into your neck of the woods.

Reply
Despite my well-known affinity for Queen Esther (Esther 8:6 tattoo pic forthcoming on Commons once I've got the enby and agender colors touched up), I've never done much for Purim. Don't really know why that is, just how it's sorted out. But I'll never say no to something tasty! Chag sameach to you too, friend. i/j/nb/s -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiHate

Vandalism warning from Nosebagbear and whomever most recently edited this page

Hello, I'm Tails Wx. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk)

​Block me if you must, but you'll never catch my socks!

(They're very cozy slipper-socks with like a stylized dog face on the top and then little fake ears on the side. Very cozy socks. AND YOU'LL NEVER CATCH THEM!) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, people from the future. Confused why your name shows up here? See here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Outrageous abuse of power by Tamzin

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Tamzin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Opposition to human rights, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Outrageous, Tamzin. I demand you resign your patrollership. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinned discussions

Some of these discussions are collapsed because no one's commented in a while. They're still open discussions, though! If you want to reply to something, just remove the {{cot}}/{{cob}} tags around the discussion.

Editing principles (Topic: Neurodivergence)

Initially ran 4 May 2021 to 7 May 2021. Featuring Vaticidalprophet and Elli. Collapsed but still open to new comments.

Just noticed the new one. It's an interesting one, and a matter I've thought about how to phrase. I suspect myself a lot of neurotypes odd in the general population are the default baseline on Wikipedia, but there's only so many ways you can say it without sounding like you're insulting someone (and I freely admit I can be less careful and more flippant with my word choice than you often are, certainly when I'm in the ANI peanut gallery). I've noticed there's an unfortunate correlation between editors who freely disclose neurodivergence and editors with significant competence issues, and I've wondered what consequences it has for the project as a whole in terms of interacting with people who are more clearly not working on neurotypical principles than our already high average -- though, of course, many disclosed neurodivergent editors are substantial and obvious assets. Vaticidalprophet 04:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Yeah, something I'd been thinking about for a while, and felt spurred to put into words after seeing an exchange on your talk page actually. As to correlations, there's a bias there, right? In terms of who wants/needs to disclose. If an editor quietly chugs along writing articles, doing gnomish work, etc., without ever getting into any conflict, then why would they want to disclose something that could subject them to ridicule or at least passive discrimination? (And there's editors who rack up 100k+ edits while barely touching anything metapedian.) Whereas some editors realistically have no choice: If they don't disclose, they may be treated as intentionally disruptive; whereas, if they do, they might at least "downgrade" that perception to CIR. Just like a person who is mild-to-moderately hard of hearing may be able to not disclose this fact in a workplace if they don't want, whereas a deaf person really has no choice in most contexts. I'm active in a number of spaces online that are majority-neurodivergent. (I'll claim the label "neurodivergent" without comment on the label "autistic".) They all have to deal with the issue that, in such spaces, people are more likely to be sensitive, and also more likely to offend by accident. In the context of a collaborative project one can broaden this to a greater likelihood of people stepping on one another's toes. What strikes me is that these spaces' main advantage in contrast to Wikipedia is that they're honest with themselves about what's going on. Conduct decisions are made with the presumption that the participants' motives may not have been what you'd infer of a neurotypical person. Hence my new personal rule. That said, it's not like there's easy answers here. Several years ago an openly autistic admin was desysopped for discussing violence against another editor in a way that was intended, by all accounts, to come off as mean but not as a true threat. It was an unambiguously desysoppable offense (although I'll admit I didn't take that view at the time). And yet, I think a lot of neurodivergent people can relate to making a joke that made perfect sense in their own head but came off very differently to their audience. (To be clear, I don't think that they raised autism as a defense, and I don't want to imply that their misconduct was "because autism", but at least the general circumstance is one that neurodivergent people tend to find ourselves in.) What's the solution there? I don't know. There's an overlap between statements that are reasonably insta-indeffable or desysoppable, and ones that a neurodivergent person can make without intending it to read that way. And if that's where we're starting from, how do we handle all the more minor cases? So that's why I added this personal rule. Feel free to make any wording changes that preserve the meaning, if you think they'll make it less prone to misinterpretation, since it's just such a difficult thing to discuss, walking a tightrope between what could be perceived as being anti-accountability and what could be perceived as ableism. But regarding what you said about ANI: I think the best thing we can do about these topics is discuss them when there's no immediate reason to discuss them. If everyone's thinking about a specific editor when they discuss the topic, that will color their opinions. P.S., not to come across as talking down to someone only a few years my junior, but a lesson I learned in my first wiki-life, reflected in the second paragraph in my userpage: The best thing you can do for your wiki-mental-health is avoid any page where the word "indef" gets thrown around. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 05:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC) To open in response to your last comment: well, a lot of people are scared of ANI, but I'm scared of political articles, and I'm sure I've seen you edit those. 😛 We all see different hotspots. I'm definitely familiar with what you say about knowing it, or how different it is to be in an environment where people openly discuss that moderation and norms are shaped by neurodivergence, as opposed to the weirdly "everyone knows but no one knows" Wikipedia environment. I'm unsure if it's possible at all on Wikipedia to change the latter to the former, simply because we (in the societal sense) currently conceptualise neurodivergence as a product of diagnosis. Even for things like autism (and I concur, with hangups and caveats that are all frankly well outside the scope of what I aspire to discuss onwiki, with the "will claim neurodivergent, will pass without comment on autistic" identification here) where there's a relatively robust self-advocacy community, it's still in some ways reasonably and in some ways not treated as offensive to tag someone as autistic who hasn't been tagged as such in a medical context, and plenty of things I'd very much like to have robust self-advocacy communities outside of medicalization do not. There's an age factor here, in that a lot of the core editor (and especially content-writer) base is from age cohorts where a lot of what's diagnosed now wasn't, for better or worse. As for Ironholds, well. I'm familiar from the "read about it after the fact" perspective with that case, for whatever that counts as familiarity. I don't think the behaviour I read was at all appropriate, and I think it's reasonable to expect an admin of any neurotype to know that. Simultaneously, the thing that really interests me about that case (using 'case' here in the broader sense rather than the ArbCom term of art) is the "seven RfAs" bit, and seven RfAs is characteristically autistic to me, for both good and ill. It shines through as both the way one can ascend past a lot of the mental limitations allistic people self-ascribe, and work tirelessly towards the pursuit of a goal, and simultaneously the way one can just not know when to quit. To circle back around to ANI, I've been thinking about it because it actually did come up there lately, and in part due to a thread I'd created; the subject of that thread was...outed? as autistic by linking to a diff he'd written at a much smaller venue by a well-meaning party partway through, and he clearly wasn't happy at all about it. At the same time, in a different thread, another disclosed autistic editor suggested the reason a third party might have been acting in the problematic way that got him brought there was that he could be autistic, and the readers of that thread interpreted it as a personal attack on the subject. The discussion is worthwhile reading (and my comments in it reference a third, related case where an editor was clearly in severe distress over being a thread subject in a way that nearly went very poorly indeed, and where some of the reopening comments trying to address it were imo atrociously worded). Vaticidalprophet 05:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Yeah, it's actually those ANI threads—including a remark you made about how many/most editors at least have subclinical "symptoms" of autism (scare quotes mine)—that first got me thinking about this topic. Just because I never comment there doesn't mean I don't stay up to date on the latest drama. I agree that there's a cultural/generational issue here, and such things will always be a challenge for an international, intergenerational project. A norm like tone-tagging (beyond the common "/s") could do a world of good, but I think it'll be at least a decade till you could get a majority of editors on board with something like that. (Not like, making it mandatory by any means; just instilling it as a norm.) The other day, in the course of saying something about Wikipedia, I explained to my partner what deletionism and inclusionism are, and she'd said something like, "I hate to tell you, but I think I'm an inclusionist." Today, shortly after sending my last message here, something suddenly hit me, and I said to her, "Wait, what makes you think I'm a deletionist?" To which she said, "Because you need everything to be just a certain way." I'm guessing you know the kind of "certain way" she meant. And it occurred to me that you can pretty easily predict how drama-heavy a particular area of the wiki is going to be by just how strongly people need it to be a certain way. There's a reason I refuse to touch any edit that has anything to do with categories. There's a reason that the major topic area with the worst-written articles is, by far, math. And you can call the tendencies that beget this "neurodivergent", or just... "particular"... And those particularities carry over to administration too. Ironically, I would argue that the very resistance to change things in a more overtly neurodivergent-embracing direction is itself of tendencies that, in many cases, fall into what I'll again call "either neurodivergent or just very particular." ANI being a mess of massive walls of text is the way that Makes Sense, so that must never change, no matter how flawed it is. For Wikipedia to stop being hostile to newcomers, we'd have to restructure some things that are The Way They Should Be, so I guess it'll keep being hostile. And so on and so forth. As to Ironholds, to be clear, I didn't mean to make it seem like a "wink wink nudge nudge" thing which case I was referring to; rather, I was trying to use it as a general example since, as I said, once you get into any one specific case that complicates the analysis. (Mx. Ironholds is, incidentally, a researcher and commentator on autism issues these days, though they're no longer active here. And yes, that's an off-wiki identity still linked on their userpage, before anyone says anything.) Back to your point about the ANI threads: It'd be nice to have an essay as a companion to WP:CIR (maybe WP:Idiosyncratic editors) that discussed how best to handle competency issues in ENDOJVP editors but stopped short of saying "All of these editors are probably autistic." I know you followed the somewhat tragic tale of the now-3X'd SoyokoAnis (talk · contribs). I'm certainly not going to try to diagnose her with anything, but in the threads about her there was clearly a lot of dog-whistling and subtext, as there is basically anytime CIR comes up with an adult native English speaker, because, yeah, CIR is usually about language/culture, age, or neurodivergence. Perhaps it would be nice in such contexts to have a diplomatically-worded essay to point to that nutshells to: "Some editors interact with the world in very different ways than others. Maybe this is for neurological reasons, or maybe it's just how they are." and then... And then what? Then a conclusion drawn from that, but I'm not yet sure what that conclusion should be. (And not that in her particular case there would have been a different outcome necessarily; just that it allows for more honest discussion.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Ah, Soyoko. I admit to less sympathy to her than you or Elli (who was my main point of contact with her saga), but that's not to say a lack of it. She didn't scan to me as adult (and, as someone who first edited as a young child, I suspect some of our current policies about not disclosing the ages of young editors might actually be counterproductive -- but that's another issue...), with the consequence I was mostly viewing her CIR issues through the lens of youth rather than neurodivergence, but I can't exactly say the latter was never a consideration. It did stand out to me that the RfA candidate she insisted on nominating was a disclosed autistic editor. I know of two essays currently about specific neurodivergences. I can't pretend to like either of them. I'd happily MfD WP:AUTIST, where its every word strikes me as Making Things Worse, if I thought that proposal had a chance in hell (I've already spent my nominating-bad-essays-and-failing points for the month). There might be something useful in its bones, though; it apparently hit someone's sense of "this is me" enough for WP:OCD to be based on it. Vaticidalprophet 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Ah yes, thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion (hope I'm not barging in too much). Wikipedia is... an interesting environment, I guess, for neurodivergent people. Given, well, the way the site works, I think it's likely to attract them (what normal person spends their free time writing an encyclopedia for free?) Most people find the whole concept entirely foreign. As for Soyoko, yeah, I think it's likely a combination of some type of neurodivergence and youth - neither of which are incompatible with Wikipedia, but if someone with them makes wrong assumptions about how the site works... it's not gonna be fun. Hell, looking at my first edits, I'm surprised I didn't get many warnings, given how terrible they were. I dunno. This is kinda a ramble because I'm not sure exactly what I should say here? I guess, "be kind" has mostly worked for me - and is what, I think, worked for getting me on the right track. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC) @Elli: I do think that Wikipedia's generally moving in the right direction on all of this. As I said to SoyokoAnis, I really doubt she would have been extended as much AGF back when I made this account (2012), which is one thing that made her situation extra frustrating. Then again, one still sees cases where if CIR issues aren't resolved after the first or second attempt at intervention, someone just hits the block button. I recently saw one of my least favorite things, a "Sock of someone or other" block. They're used as an excuse to say "We can label this intentional disruption rather than CIR because they're probably socking." Somewhere between begging the question and a thought-terminating cliché. But still, overall, progress, yeah. (Also thanks for dropping in to this chat. ) @Vaticidalprophet (but also still @Elli): I don't know if I'd agree with deleting WP:AUTIST, but I do think it misses the point. Partly because it's hard to describe the "honeypot" effect without resorting to stereotype. Partly because it's hard to describe autism itself without resorting to stereotype. But the essay manages to cut too much slack to neurodivergent editors while still not giving neurotypical editors particularly good advice about how to deal with us; and the advice it does give isn't very helpful when most neurodivergent editors are not open about it (if they even know themselves), and applying the label speculatively is, as you've said, a thorny issue. So, seriously, if you (either of you) would be interested in working on an essay with me, I think there's room for improvement in the neurodivergence essay category. I'm interested in the idea of something that isn't explicitly about autism, but rather, without outright saying so, says "We're all at least kinda autistic here". I'm thinking of a title like WP:Needing things to be a certain way. In my mind, the essay would start out with something like, If you edit Wikipedia, that means you see a need for things to be a certain way. Quite likely, your first edit was noticing that something was incomplete or incorrect and fixing it. But why does it matter that the world know that the Third Amendment has been incorporated against the states in the Second Circuit but nowhere else? Why does it matter whether "Ljubljana" is spelled correctly in an article about baseball? Because things need to be right. All of us, to some extent, see things this way. And then go on to discuss how this applies to things like WP:CIR, WP:CIV, WP:TE, WP:POINT, and WP:RGW. And then give actual useful tips that can be applied to all editors, not just ones with autism userboxen. Stuff like: Accept that Wikipedians are more likely than most people to have strong opinions on "little things" like punctuation or reference style. To you, they might be small, but if those things are important to the way things need to be for someone, they can become very personal. Someone's view of how a conversation should work may not be the same as your view, or indeed, as the view of society at large. In particular, certain editors may value straightforwardness as a virtue significantly more than others, often based on a feeling that conversations are simply meant to work that way. This should not excuse incivility, but understanding this may help to reach constructive solutions in conflicts. It can be very hard for Wikipedians to let go of something they are passionate about, even when consensus is against them. If this leads to someone becoming disruptive on a topic, then even as you nudge their focus elsewhere you should be respectful of their passion. And whoever comes up with a way to gently keep editors from returning to these passion topics will have averted the indefblocks of countless mostly-constructive contributors. Wouldn't be the whole list, just the first three things that come to mind. In neurodivergent terms these are "sameness"/general particularities, communication issues, and special interests, but framed generally it's just a lot of the stuff we see all the time on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 06:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Awful joke (Topic: Adminship)

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

---

You're not funny, but here's something that's definitely not a laughing matter - why aren't you an admin yet? Once you're back, I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd nominate you ~TNT ^(talk) 19:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I agree entirely with TNT. Definitely something you should be considering :) firefly ( t · c ) 19:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No doubt about that. When I've seen your talk page comments I have always been really impressed and feel like someone with those skills would fit perfectly in the role of an admin. --Trialpears (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

​I already am an admin, on the very prestigious testwiki and testwikidatawiki, thank you very much! No, but in seriousness, thanks for the kind words, y'all. I had this conversation with Tavix and Ritchie333 a few years ago, and think I was right to not take either up on his offer then; I don't think I was quite ready. Despite having been around a while, I feel like I only came to really understand Wikipedia in the past year. And, to paraphrase John Wick, people keep asking if I'm ready to be an admin, and yeah, I'm starting to think I'm ready.

As I've said before, I consider my account's rename last October to be a soft clean start (redlinking to remind myself to write that wrote it!), not because I necessarily had anything to be ashamed of, but just because I didn't really like the person I'd been. My philosophy with this has been that I wouldn't speak much of past accomplishments, and in return would ask people not hold past failings against me. (The failings may well be more numerous in my mind than in reality, but either way.) I couldn't really ask the latter of RfA voters, so I'd be willing to run at least partly on my pre-User:Tamzin record, but primarily I'd want to run on my work in this incarnation. Work I'm very proud of, but which I feel is a bit incomplete, and a bit short-lived.

Excluding this mental health leave, which is thankfully coming to a close (which is good because I've been itching to fire up AWB and fix the 170ish articles that mislabel a Swedish source (ISO 639:sv) as being in Northern Sami (ISO 639:se)), I've been continuously active since January, so I think I'd want till at least this coming January to build up a bit more of a recent track record, as well as show my commitment to maintaining a reasonable activity level, especially given that I was almost completely inactive from March of 2018 through September of 2020. I'd also want to wait till I've done a bit more quality content work and gotten 'zinbot approved at least for the task I've already coded for it and hopefully for a few others. But I'm reasonably confident that I can get all that done by January.

On that note:

1. In general, yes. I'd like to run, shooting for January.
2. To the person who recently emailed me offering a nomination, if you're reading this: I'll get back to you presently about what that might look like (a.k.a. try to talk you out of it ;) ).
3. @Firefly: We all know you're overdue for adminship yourself, and you've been active again about as long as I have. Wanna flight it up? Can flip a coin on who goes first, or run at the same time.
4. I'm always very worried about echo chambers and groupthink, so if anyone's reading this and thinks they'd be landing on the oppose side of things or would be on the fence, please feel free to let me know your concerns, here or by email, so I can either adjust my parameters of what I should do before running, or at least draft a good response to a potential tough question.
5. @TheresNoTime: I'm the funniest person you've ever met, and you know it. :P

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m immensely flattered that you think I’m qualified to run! I would definitely be up for an ‘RfA flight’ as and when the time came - assuming I could find anyone silly enough to nominate me and they thought I was ready around the same time. :) I absolutely echo point 4 of your post and invite anyone with concerns about my eventual suitability to let me know. Mostly though I’m just glad you’re up for running! firefly ( t · c ) 18:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You already know you could get a nom today =) --Trialpears (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears, I do, and for that I am greatly appreciative :) firefly ( t · c ) 20:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a buzzkill but I'm still bearing the scars of my own RfA and that was six years ago this week. It was brutal. My advice is

• a) make sure that those people who believe in you are aware that you are having an RfA...some people don't look at their Watchlists and may not even know that an RfA is happening;
• b) start an RfA at a time when you feel strong and can be present 100%. You shouldn't respond to every criticism but you'd be surprised how often an editor starts an RfA and suddenly becomes busy and disappears from Wikipedia for a few days. Those are never successful. You have to be present;
• c) Stick with it through the entire week. There is generally a burst of support at the beginning and then the opposers show up after a few days. I think there are some editors who would be admins right now but they withdrew their nomination after the critics began speaking up. But unless it's an unexpected tidalwave of "No"s, the close votes can go back and forth and it could turn in your favor if you hang in there and don't throw in the towel.

Just a few ideas for anyone considering an RfA. Right now, it looks like you have a lot of support! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I can see that that sweet-talking hasn't done any good, so let me try a different approach. I'm getting tired of having to do stuff for you. If I nominated you, would you actually refuse the nomination? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

* ears perk up at RoySmith's idea * Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a fairly non-trivial COI here, but can you please hurry the heck up and run before the end of 2021 Tamzin? This has been a slow year, Eostrix notwithstanding, and we could do with another Blablubbs-esque RfA.... ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 01:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

EFM

Template:Known issue Thanks for your work at EFFP. You might want to consider making a request for EFM access at WP:EFN so you can edit the filters directly to implement fixes yourself (if you're comfortable implementing them). Or just run for adminship, which would include EFM access. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

+1 Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader—EFM is not included in adminship, but administrators can self-assign this right. (WP:EFM) — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Not really related, so taking it to your talk page (Topic: Gendered pronouns)

Initially ran 26 October 2021 to 30 October 2021. Featuring Hijiri88, Ezlev, Aerin17, and BDD. Collapsed but still open to new comments.

Arrgh... it's been a while since I thought about gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources (ref) in relation to contemporary Japanese popular media personalities. English-language "reliable sources" focusing on Japanese popular culture tend to be sub-par (one of the sources initially cited in relation to Utada's gender identity proactively used singular they without any request from Utada to do as much, and also seemed to be conflating non-binary gender identity with same-sex sexual orientation...), and Japanese-language sources are extremely unlikely to make as big a deal out of it as English ones because of how the Japanese language works. Japanese doesn't use pronouns anywhere nearly as much English, because content that is implied from context (as the referents of pronouns almost always are) is usually omitted: the Japanese for "I ate it" isn't "Watashi-wa sore-o tabeta" (literally "I it ate") but rather "Tabeta yo" ("Ate sentence-terminal-particle") and "I met her" isn't "Watashi-wa kanojo-ni atta" but rather "Atta yo"; "I ate it" or "She ate it" in Japanese would only specify the subject if it were in response to the question "Who ate it?", and even then "she" would necessitate a separate indication of who the girl/woman in question is, such as pointing, which is rude. (Needless to say, the Japanese version of Utada's website doesn't use any pronouns where the English version uses "she" and "her".) I actually recently found out that both the "Japanese words for he and she" that I learned in my beginner Japanese class were recent coinages based on English/French, the "word for he" being a redefined word classical Japanese pronoun that originally referred a person or thing that is far away from both the speaker and the listener, and the "word for she" being the same word, in the classical Japanese equivalent of the genitive case, with the noun "woman" attached after it. This kind of development would not be possible, needless to say, if personal pronouns were as entrenched in the actual Japanese language that people spoke every day as they are in English or French. I suspect this is why "pronouns" aren't really a thing on Japanese Twitter (etc.) like they are in America and Europe: it's my impression that a not-insignificant percentage of American pop-stars have their pronouns listed in their Twitter profile, and this percentage probably skyrockets when one only counts those pop-stars who have stated a gender identity other than cisgender male or female, but with Japanese pop-stars (even those who also hold American citizenship and live in Europe, and "occasionally tweet in English"), the former percentage is probably close to zero and the latter may be higher, but as far as I'm aware Utada is the most prominent case at the moment, and... So yeah, it looks like the Utada case is going to be solved by a consensus of editors based on the fact that sources affiliated with the subject use a particular pronoun pattern, but if more Japanese (etc.) pop stars, voice actors/actresses, live action actors/actresses, video game producers, etc. with anglophone fan-bases and extensive coverage in English-language blogs and "reliable sources" that are little more reliable than blogs, start coming out as non-binary, gender-fluid, etc., a discussion might need to be had about how the MOS passage you quoted applies to such cases. A huge hullabaloo was made about a decade back about whether personal websites (or websites maintained by publicists) should take precedence over academic publications with regard to MOS:JAPAN#Modern names (with reference to whether long vowels should be marked), which I think kinda missed the point there (if we take URLs or copyright information on Japanese-language websites into account, we get people named "Sakaguchi Jun'ichirō" being identified as "Sakaguti Junitiro" just because the webmaster created the URL based primarily on how Japanese text is input on a keyboard). But I suspect that, when it comes to gender identity, personal/official websites should definitely take precedence over third-party sources that often pass for "reliable" in pop culture articles, no matter how many such sources there are or how recent they are compared to what we assume to be the latest update on the personal/official website. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC) BTW, I should thank you for your positive input on the Utada page! :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC) @Hijiri88: I think we often run into a problem of overly generalizing Anglosphere gender norms to other cultures. What you're saying about Japanese language and culture is very interesting; I don't speak any Japanese, but I speak French, and even in that language relatively close to English, many English-centric assumptions prove false. The whole relationship between social gender and grammatical gender is different when applying any noun to yourself contains an implicit statement of your gender. (It's also, incidentally, the most frustrating part of transitioning when you don't speak the language often enough to form new habits. I've gotten weird looks once or twice for calling myself américain rather than américaine.) One can see a bit of that disconnect going on at Talk:Claude Cahun, where people are struggling with how to apply the subject's gender expression in French in the 1950s to an English-language article in 2021. I'm not sure there's an easy solution to it, though, because this problem runs deeper than just Wikipedia. For instance, without taking a side on the issue of the term Latinx, I'll observe that a lot of the debate in the U.S. about it seems to come from people who are not familiar without how gender works in Spanish. A lot of English-speakers tend to expect our concept of "my pronouns are ______" to extend to languages where gender is more complex than just third-person pronouns and the occasional "son"/"daughter" situation. And that includes RS—many of which, as you allude to, barely even understand the concept of non-binary gender to begin with. So we get screwed over by the RS, and then by people who read them and then make good-faith changes based on their bad takes. The complicated pronoun situation I've been most involved in has been that of James Barry (surgeon). There's no language angle there, but nonetheless his article's been done a great disservice by the surfeit of articles in somewhat reliable sources saying "You'll never believe what this empowering lesbian, forced to crossdress, accomplished" or "You'll never believe what this pioneering trans man accomplished". Which gets us to the awkward sourcing question: Generally, someone's gender identity is the sort of thing we'd want very high-quality sources for. At the same time, we don't want to misgender someone just because major RS have been slow to pick up on something. Ellar Coltrane started taking they/them pronouns long after leaving the spotlight, and for over a month our article on them sourced their pronouns to their Instagram bio, till they got a brief write-up in a newspaper we could use instead. Given how many long-dormant BLP stubs we have (another rant for another time), there are plausible scenarios where a self-published source or suboptimal-quality source could be our only reference on someone's pronouns for decades. Not to mention people who are only mentioned in passing in articles. I've been in the news a few times in my life, mostly when I was very young. In the past I've been mentioned in mainspace, although I currently am not; but if someone were to re-add a mention of me, to get my name and pronouns right they'd have to cite like... a blog post I wrote when I came out, I guess? That's not exactly ideal, and would be weird to see alongside a cite to a major RS, but it's preferable to just getting people's pronouns wrong. At some point we're probably due for an RfC on when, if at all, it's acceptable to use they/them pronouns in cases of ambiguous gender. I don't really want to be the one to start that, though. :D Anyways, this is turning into a ramble, but thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts. (I designate this a talkpage-watcher-friendly thread, by the way; interested to know what others think.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Arrgh. Your James Barry example made me think of George Eliot and even more contemporary women writers who used male or "ambiguous" pseudonyms (or variations on their real names), such as D. C. Fontana. By the standards of some modern popular media, we should be calling them all transgender men or at least gender-fluid, except that we're lucky enough to have good documentation of the actual reasons for their hiding the fact that they were women. Ironically, the same is essentially true of a certain living author (who I won't name, but I think you can probably guess who she is), whose views on non-cisgender rights have turned out to be somewhat questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC) @Hijiri88: This is as much me thinking aloud as anything else, but I'm going to ping you so I don't feel like I'm talking to myself. :) (Not to say a response is unwelcome, by any means, just that this may not really be written like a response to your own points, and you could be forgiven for not having much to say in response.) Oh I'll also ping BDD—with the same caveat—since he expressed some interest in this topic at Talk:Claude Cahun. The way I see it, we have four categories of cases where pronouns aren't as simple as "just say what they want": Unknown identity, where the person's story does not involve participating in any gender-segregated activities. It was surprisingly hard to find a good example of this (since for most historical figures we can infer gender based on segregation), but after looking around in Category:Unidentified people I did find Italian Unabomber as an example—someone we have no interviews with, no profile of, etc. Known identity but unknown gender identity. For many articles we don't explicitly know someone's gender identity, but there's a general precedent that we take fem-presenting AFAB as presumptive evidence for she/her and masc-presenting AMAB as presumptive evidence for he/him. This is imperfect, but it's probably the least bad approach. Issues arise in three cases: Subject has indicated no gender presentation at all. E.g., picking another at random from that category, Neuroskeptic. Subject has presented in a way too inconsistent to draw any non-SYNTH inference from. E.g. my favorite example, Thomas(ine) Hall... I swear not just my favorite because Thomasine and Tamzin are variants of the same name. Subject's gender presentation differs from that associated with their gender assigned at birth, but they have made no statement regarding gender identity. There's tons of living people like this, but BLP forbids us from documenting it in most cases. It thus comes up more often with long-dead figures like James Barry. Known identity, but ambiguous or inconsistent gender identity. Ruby Rose, Sophie Xeon, Vi Hart, and Alexis Arquette all come to mind, as does Utada Hikaru—in each case a different kind of ambiguity or inconsistency. (Often, as in the cases of Rose and Arquette, this may be someone who is genderfluid, and it may well be that they see no ambiguity or inconsistency but the sources reporting on them did.) Known identity and gender identity, but it is unclear what pronouns should follow from that. Especially common in non-binary Westerners from before Stonewall who went on the record about their gender, like Claude Cahun or the Public Universal Friend. In #1, #2.1, and #2.2, I think it's really author's preference (à l'EngVar) whether to do they/them or avoid pronouns. I think readers understand the concept of the gender-ambiguous they, given that it predates the singular-personal-pronoun they by several centuries. The important thing is not defaulting to he/him or she/her based on stereotypes. On #2.3, I've made clear my view at the Barry RfC that MOS:GENDERID should apply there the same as anywhere else: Binary presentation should be met with the corresponding binary pronouns unless there's clear evidence that the person did not identify with that gender (or, for more modern subjects, that they did not want those pronouns). On #3, I think we should default to not changing pronouns unless the subject requests it, because anything else would be presumptive, and shouldn't "compromise" on they/them. Avoiding pronouns sometimes might be the least bad option; sometimes we also just have to figure, if this person really cared that much, they'd probably reach out and ask us to change it. For deceased subjects like Xeon and Arquette, all there really is to do is follow the final statement, at least as best we can manage (bit complicated in both cases). And on #4, I dunno, I'm not opposed to they/them pronouns for someone who explicitly eschewed gendered pronouns in their lifetime like the Public Universal Friend. But they're almost the exception that defines the rule. The vast majority of people covered under #4 did refer to themselves with gendered pronouns, and I think we need to follow people's final wishes even when we suspect they might have preferred some modern option. K, that was a lot. Respect to anyone who's read to the end of this. Responses welcome, but, as noted before, this was as much thinking aloud as anything else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Wow, Tamzin, if this is what comes out when you think aloud then you should think aloud as often as you feel the urge to. (When I do it, it doesn't end up nearly as... coherent.) I think the categories you've laid out here and your explanations of how you think they should be handled make a lot of sense – this is definitely something I want to come back to and read more closely when I have more time. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) I see your 2. and I immediately think of ancients of whom we know some details but nothing that makes their gender (or at least biological sex) clear. Hieda no Are and Junia (both long assumed male but now widely considered by specialists to be women who were misidentified as a result of linguistic ambiguity) are interesting cases, but there are others who don't even have names, such as "the X poet", where X is the name of some work of literature written, or likely written, anonymously. A number of authors of Japanese literary works are assumed, based on their content or style, to have been written by male authors (court nobles proficient in literary Chinese, Buddhist monks, etc.) or women (members of the literary salons serving this or that empress, or more often than not just Takasue's daughter), so I guess in English they can be referred to as "he" or "she" once these authorship theories have been elaborated upon. (Needless to say, this is quite unrelated to the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, which I believe was not widely recognized until recently. I'm pretty sure throughout most of human history biological sex was of interest for the purpose of carrying on family lineages and gender identity -- or, indeed, sexual orientation -- didn't enter into the equation.) As for 2.3, it'll be interesting to see, if Wikipedia lasts as long, how our little encyclopedia will deal with such cases once such subjects have passed on and BLP no longer applies. Probably have to have an RFC in each article. 😅 As for 3., I think that, as a general rule, the "traditional" pronouns/determiners may be best, unless and until they specifically state that they don't like it, since it can probably be safely assumed that in such cases no one will find this usage either awkward or hurtful. (There do seem to be people who, for their own reasons, think anyone with any of these gender identities "should" use specific pronouns, but I don't think they can be assumed to find it personally hurtful, I'm pretty sure such people are a negligible minority even within the LGBTQ+ rights community, and I suppose they will probably eventually be outright rejected by said community for advocating a position that runs completely counter to said community's goals, similar to those who believe anyone with a particular sexual orientation should disclose said orientation publicly to "create awareness", as though public awareness were anywhere near as important as the feelings of the individual[s] in question.) 4. strikes me as particularly ... well, outside my area of interest and expertise. Japanese poets before c.1880 referred to people as kore if they were "near" and kare if they were "far away", so the idea of pronoun preferences based on sex or gender would have been completely alien to them. Modern Japanese is a bit iffier since late 19th-century literati, in translating European literature (into what essentially amounted to a new, artificial literary language) took that word kore and used it to translate "this" (or "it"), kare to mean "he", "him", or "his" (Japanese uses postpositions to mark the subject, object, and possessive/genitive), and kano-onna (the genitive form of kare and the word for "woman", literally meaning "that woman") to mean "she", "her" or "hers". Since Japanese doesn't actually use pronouns very often, especially when speaking of people (it's quite rude... I think the same is true of English, at least because it implies you have not taken the effort to learn a person's name), this new Europeanized style was comfortably adopted into the standard Japanese written language, and consequently the spoken language, and now scarcely a century later Japanese gender-minorities are being told by non-Japanese-speaking netizens that they "should" use gender-neutral pronouns in English... "Ironic" might not be the word for it, but... Anyway, kochira-koso sorry for the long rant! ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Hello! You probably don't know me, but I watch your talk page and saw this interesting discussion, so I thought I might share my thoughts if you don't mind :) It seems to me that the hardest cases are the ones where the subjects are long deceased, and the issue is trying to translate their gender expression at the time they lived to how we might classify them today. The discussion goes something like, if this person were alive today, they might be considered a [something, e.g. trans man], so one the one hand that means we should refer to them with [e.g. he/him pronouns], but on the other hand, we shouldn't press terms upon them that they didn't use to refer to themself. Of the ones mentioned above, the ones that stand out to me are James Barry, Thomas(ine) Hall, and Claude Cahun. (The same problem applies to historical people whose sexual/romantic orientation was unclear, but it's easier to avoid making a statement one way or the other when you don't have to deal with pronouns.) Modern people, on the other hand, tend to declare what their preferences are for pronouns, and the question is just how to interpret that. For example, Vi Hart indicated that they have no preference and do not care which pronouns they are called by, and Rebecca Sugar stated clearly that she uses both she/her and they/them. It seems like these kinds of cases ought to be more straightforward, though evidently nothing is straightforward. Aerin17 (t • c) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Shoot, I forgot one! (This is an addendum to my own rant, not a reply to Aerin17, whose post I appreciated but don't think requires a reply; indentation is to visually distinguish my own comments from Aerin's.) Sometimes an author will self-identify as "a man", or "a woman", or "the mother/daughter/wife of Such-and-such". (I won't pretend there isn't a gender disparity in the examples selected here; there is, but that's just because unfortunately most of the relevant examples are women whose identities are only known in connection to their male relatives.) So we know their gender (insofar as, with the ancients, we usually have no choice but to assume gender aligned with biological sex) but practically nothing else. Given that, as far as I am aware, none of the languages Japanese between around 800 CE and around 1400 CE could have been familiar with had gender-based third-person pronouns (Chinese, like Japanese, nowadays has a fairly arbitrary distinction in the written language between "he", "she" and "it", but this seems to be recent, and Sanskrit -- which some of the Japanese Buddhist clergy may have had some limited awareness of... -- ... might distinguish the three?), I don't know if any of them would care if they knew that centuries after their death people were talking about them in a language distantly related to Sanskrit and using strange pronouns that classified them by their gender, but I think such questions, regardless of how interesting they might be for some folks with unusual hobbies might be, are probably not all that important as far as we are concerned, since all of them are also very much dead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the ping. I started writing a few comments, but ended up like a writer in a cartoon, constantly tossing drafts into the trash. I largely endorse your four-part division above. Surprisingly, I am more inclined to accept they/them for #4. It is possible, but unlikely IMO, that such people would reject they/them pronouns today. And ultimately, we have to make some assumptions about such people—the use of he/him and she/her very much included. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

toki! (Topic: Toki Pona)

mi lukin toki pona. epiku! QoopyQoopy (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@QoopyQoopy: pona a! sina sona ala sona e ma pona pi toki pona lon lipu Siko?

kin o sona e ni: tan lawa WP:ENGLISHPLEASE mi pana e sama toki Inli lon toki sina kepeken kipisi {{tooltip}}. sina ken ante a sama toki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant that I saw toki pona on your old signature and I thought it was cool :)

I am, by the way! Nice to see another toki pona speaker on Wikipedia. QoopyQoopy (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@QoopyQoopy: Ah. You dropped an "e", then. ;) Well cool, say hi on the server sometime. I'm wan Tansin—ken tonsi li ken jan there. Also, if you aren't aware of https://wikipesija.org, check that out! I'm not too active there atm, but it's a fun project, with a long-term goal of getting WMF backing. Which is a long shot, but would be really cool. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

RE: Would there be interest in a bot that makes a "watchlist" just for recently-edited pages?

OMG YES! El_C 14:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Watching my watchlist gets boring at some hours of the night. wizzito | say hello! 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@El C, TheresNoTime, and Wizzito: Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = <!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->
|source_user = <!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->
|user_days_back = <!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->
|user_edits_back = <!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. -->
<!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->
|namespace = <!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" -->
<!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->
|always_watch = <!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|never_watch = <!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|update_frequency = <!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->
}}

Thus mine might look like

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log
               User:Tamzin/XfD log
               User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable <!-- Open TPERs -->
               Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/ <!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. -->
               User:Mz7/SPI case list <!-- Active SPIs -->
|source_user = Tamzin
               'zin is short for Tamzin
|user_days_back = 2
|user_edits_back = None
|namespace = -Category, File <!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->
|always_watch = User:Tamzin
|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
|update_frequency = auto
}}

That would render as {{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{{update_frequency}}} value.

Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"hint, TNT"—thank you but no -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what do I do? You're not my mom/s! El_C 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

How to best use WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE arguments?

Howdy! Sorry if this is not the right place to go; however, I've come across your work in RfD before and I ended up stumbling upon your user page and saw your opinion about BLPs and I also fundamentally agree. There was a recently closed AfD that closed at keep where WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE was part of the discussion. I came across it not long after it closed and I was seeing some argue that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should generally go through WP:VRT, which makes sense; however in this instance, there was an edit, removed from the page, from who I credibly believed to be the subject of the page. I had some evidence for this, but the AfD had already closed by the time I had gathered the information as to why I think the person was legitimately the subject. I guess my question is, is there a good way to invoke a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE argument at AfD without having to go through WP:VRT. I think that lots and lots of people to whom WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE apply likely don't understand the procedures of wikipedia and an edit that can very likely be attributed to the subject specifically requesting deletion should probably be taken as a valid. I apologize if this has turned into a bit of a rant; I just was not entirely sure where to go and seeing your opinion on BLPs, I thought your talk page would be a good place to go. I do not plan on taking the AfD to WP:DRV, so I am hoping this does not count as WP:Canvassing. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 23:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@TartarTorte: Sorry for the very belated reply. In general, a BLPREQUESTDELETE argument should come alongside some sort of verification of the subject's identity—whether that's through VRT, through some sort of clear demonstration (I believe we have accepted a Reddit-style selfie with note for establishing a notable Wikipedian's identity at least once), or, perhaps most efficiently, through an off-wiki post on verified social media. I've run into this twice with RMs that fell ambiguously under WP:DEADNAME: C. Quintana tweeted to clarify her gender identity for one RM, and prior to that Angela Zimmerman had been prepared to, but didn't since the RM wound up going that direction anyways. Tillie Kottmann did a similar thing about faer pronouns and DOB. So I would say that a similar approach is probably the most straightforward with BLPREQUESTDELETE.

Of course, we should be doing it the opposite way, presumed nonconsent to being the subject of a BLP, with people having to verify their identities in order to consent (for all but the most notable people). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Tamzin, sincere thanks for your contributions to Draft:Casa Ruby. I had lost some steam after trying to clean up at Ruby Corado (which still has quite a lot of unsourced BLP, promotional language, and general style issues). I think the Casa Ruby draft now meets WP:NORG and could be moved to mainspace as a stub, but I'll take a pass at it sometime this week to make it a bit more substantial. And of course, any further help at these articles is greatly appreciated. Thank you again, Politanvm ^talk 18:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Politanvm: Well, like I said, I was glad to see someone's working on it. Casa Ruby strikes me as the kind of organization that, were an article on it to land at AfD, at least one person would !vote delete simply because people are bad at understanding the significance of local organizations in cities they're not from, but which would be kept in the end. They're probably the second-best-known LGBTQ-oriented nonprofit in one of the largest cities (with one of the most notable LGBTQ communities) in the country, and I think the sources bear that out. Another paragraph or two and I think it should be good to go as stub-bordering-on-start. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Subtropical Highland Climate

I just wanted to thank you for your review on the Subtropical Highland Climate section of the Oceanic Climate page. It's certainly appreciated! G. Capo (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sean J 2007 block issue

I know he totally knows his mistakes, but what's wrong is he can't explain them exactly, that's the problem with blocked users, especially some Filipinos, who has difficulty speaking English, well Sean doesn't have difficulty speaking it, he just can't really explain it well. —Ctrlwìkí (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: I think you're making the opposite case here, though. He speaks decent English and yet can't put the words in the right order to say he messed up, which makes me think the issue is one of competence, not of English skills. He still says things that would make no sense in any language, like But in the base that Deepfiedokra that has been told me, 6 months first before considering unblock here, sorry I cannot do that because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and I am studying. I'd really like for Sean to be able to return to editing (and hey, I'm just one non-admin; I can't prevent someone from unblocking him), but I'm still not convinced he understands how Wikipedia owrks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for moving several of the surname articles that I started from xxxxxx (surname) to xxxxxx, thus making them the primary article. Much appreciated. Edwardx (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Edwardx: Thank you! This is going to be one of my go-to gnomish tasks for a while—not surname articles specifically, but more generally pages in Quarry 63493, "Possible non-CONCISE titles on enwiki", which looks for cases where the primary landing page for a term is a redirect to something other than a DAB page or list containing the page title as a substring. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, many such pages are valid, and with name articles I'm skipping past any that redirect to a specific person (even if—between you, me, and 132 talkpage watchers—I think that some editors are a bit overzealous in declaring people the primary topic for a mononymous forename or surname). You're welcome to help out with the query if you'd like, as is anyone else; maybe work from the back, or skip a few thousand rows, to avoid collisions. (N.B.: I may revise and re-run the query later if I run into a streak where I'm getting a lot of false positives for a specific scenario, like I did with DAB pages and lists.) Either way, again, thanks for the acknowledgment. Been doing other stuff the past few weeks, but when I get back to this query you'll probably see me lighting up your watchlist again. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit Filter for the word 'Sus'

Hey Tamzin - I may be wrong (please tell me if so) but while looking through the list of abuse filters there isn't one that has any way to stop the word 'sus' being used in articles to vandalise. If there is one but it is private then it doesn't seem to work or isn't set to disallow, otherwise, would there be an easy way to create a filter or add it to an existing one as I see it used a lot more than usual recently. Thanks, Zippybonzo | talk 19:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: 1124 catches some variants of "sus", but not \bsus\b itself. I think the issue is that there's just too many valid usages of that. See SUS, Special:Search/~sus, or this narrower search that attempts to roughly approximate word boundaries since I gather Special:Search can't do those. What the filter does do instead is search for patterns where other context makes Among Us sus-ing, well, sus. Even then, we recently ran into an FP on "The Story of Susanna" among the books at Susanna (Book of Daniel). Sadly, if a phrase used in vandalism happens to also be a phrase with lots of valid use cases (see also Owo and Harambe, both recently removed from filters), there's only so much we can do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - one day, the trend will die off and we can have a break from people putting sus on all the pages. Thanks for the help, Zippybonzo | talk 16:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: Unrelatedly, thanks for tagging that page on testwiki from a completed bot test. One thing led to another and I wound up deleting about 9% of testwiki's mainspace. :P -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well - thank you for taking the time to delete said 9% of testwiki’s main space. Zippybonzo | talk 08:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful

A Wikimedia t-shirt!

Hey Tamzin,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

For clarity

Hello, I think I need to clarify that this right here is what I get when I cite absolutely everything I've learned in Toki Pona to the Swadesh list at wiktionary:Appendix:Toki Pona Swadesh list, the general list at wiktionary:Appendix:Toki Pona, or the contributor-generated dictionary at glosbe.com. The whole thing really was meant as a joke, and for clarity I need to apologize for the absurdity. Believe me, this is not the first time that being an absolute n00b/not very good at languages has caught me doing some really strange things. With regrets, — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@3PPYB6: sina pakala ala e mi. tenpo musi la jan o musi. musi la sina ike e toki pona. musi la mi pona e toki sina. ni li pakala ala. taso toki ale la sona ni li suli: toki ante la sina ken ala linja e nimi sama nasin pi toki Inli. sina o sona e nasin toki. sina wile sitelen lon lipu Wikipedia pi toki ante la, sina o sona e ni. ante la sina pakala a! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin—I'm really close to es-2 at this point; maybe I can edit eswiki without messing up. 😛 — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 04:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

may memories be for a blessing

Thank you for articles such List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, for your bot and SPI work, for "find me removing things more often than adding them", for paying tribute on your user page in channeled anger, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2728 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda. This means a lot to me, especially given the circumstances and given the date (see userpage footnote 2). After years of, as you allude to, mostly working on improving articles by trimming them down, it's been a very eye-opening experience to build a full-length article from the ground up. I'm glad I got to have this experience with a list that's meaningful to me, although the downside of that is being very aware of how quickly this list grows. A small fraction of those killed overall, but as Masaq' Hub says in Look to Windward, "It's always one hundred percent for the individual concerned". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this means a lot to me, - see my talk today and 23 March. We have one name in common even, and named victims stand for all the unnamed. - "Stand and sing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Oksana Shvets was on my mind when I suggested at Talk:List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War that perhaps a List of artists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War is in order—also to list Artem Datsyshyn, Brent Renaud, Mantas Kvedaravičius, and perhaps Maks Levin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

yes - just working on Maks Levin --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:CS1 maint: url-status

Hi Tamzin! Your page User:Tamzin/common.css is accidentally included in Category:CS1 maint: url-status. To fix this, could you please change the text /* from [[Category:CS1 maint: url-status]] */ to /* from [[:Category:CS1 maint: url-status]] */ (i.e. add a colon to change the category to a category link)? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty:  Fixed. Thanks! Sorry about that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Position to place the old RfD

If you add the previous RfD template above the nomination, the XFDCloser buttons will stop appearing. I have moved it below. Jay (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jay: Thanks for letting me know. Sorry about that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Clerk help needed

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrBoldBald has been sitting for days; it needs a merge, can you help as a clerk? wizzito | say hello! 23:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito:

1. It will be dealt with when it's dealt with. We're all volunteers here.
2. Generally, when asking a favor of someone on-wiki, you're better off asking someone you haven't cast aspersions against off-wiki to an audience known to engage in harassment. There are 15 other clerks, as well as several ex-clerk CUs who sometimes do clerk tasks, hopefully none of whom share my reason to be disinclined to help you. It's not a spite thing. I'm sure it sounds that way, but it isn't. I don't dislike you, and even if I did, I don't have a problem working with people I dislike. But I don't work with people whom I don't trust to speak honestly about me, purely as a matter of self-preservation.

I'm not trying to create drama here, just to explain why I can't help you. If you'd like to archive or blank this thread, feel free. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why this is worth the argument

But l definitely get a paywall. It would be better to use a Central or South American text anyway, since the topic is Central and South American reaction. Also, I have been tasked with summarizing/moving this section, so although I understand why you're guarding the article, I don't think that revert was constructive and I am going to refer you to the talk page and/or ErnestKrause, who just asked me why I am not doing this faster Elinruby (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I'm not guarding the article. I just have it watchlisted; that was my first edit to it in a while. I saw that you added a template outside the reference tags that normally wouldn't go there, and went to switch to the more concise and metadata-friendly |url-access=subscription. Before submitting the edit, I thought to check whether it actually was paywalled, and found that it wasn't, at least for me. It occurred to me that perhaps you'd put the template on the wrong reference, so I thought it better to revert and prompt eiher correction or discussion. If you're saying that it's paywalled for you, then my apologies. I have no objection to you re-inserting a paywall note, although again I'd encourage the |url-access=subscription approach over {{paywall}}. Thanks for reaching out. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. Just to be sure, Straits Times? That's the one we are talking about? Elinruby (talk)

@Elinruby: Yep. With adblock off I get a an ad covering the entire page, but it's dismissable. If it matters, I'm in the U.S. and am using a Chromebook. Whatever the cause, per H:CS1 it looks like the proper course of action is to set |url-access=limited: there are other constraints (such as a cap on daily views, a restriction to certain day or night times, or providing the contents only to certain IP ranges/locales on behalf of the provider of the source) to freely access this source as a whole. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I will take another look before setting anything again, but am inclined to use a different source anyway. However it is possible that I looked at the same ad you did, but too fast to see that it could be dismissed. But my geek curiosity is aroused so thank you for the geolocation information as it is useful. I recognized the name as Tibetan (among other uses perhaps?) and was wondering if you might perhaps be in northern India or something. The devices I am using would ping to different parts of North America, so it will be interesting to see if switching makes a difference. By the way, “guarding the article” was intended in a good sense. This article *should* be watched, as the potential for hijinks is extremely high. Elinruby (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Well, glad we're sorting it out. :) Far from a big deal in the grand picture of things. Glad you're working to keep that article manageable. This inspired me to go make publishable a draft I'd earlier translated from frwiki, and thus now we have Bombing of Borodianka, which was the last redlink on {{2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine}}. Always more battles and attacks to write about, though. Sigh.

On a lighter note, I assume you're thinking of the Tibetan name Tenzin. Tamzin actually has a totally different etymology, a variant of Thomasina, which is the feminine form of my birth name. There's also a Persian name, Tasnim, and an Arabic name, Tasmin (which also exists in English, sometimes as Tazmin, as a variant of "Jasmine"), and both of those are also totally unrelated to Tamzin. So it seems a lot of cultures like putting those consonants in similar orders. I get called "Tazmin" a lot (including in a lot of ping attempts), but you're only the second person to connect it to Tenzin. This puts you in good company, as the one other person is someone I deeply admire. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the etymology; the one I was thinking of seemed a bit...ferocious? I note that a lot of people do seem to have the name, which I had not encountered before, and I had to add Tibet to get the entity I was thinking of. Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I packed all the ferocity into my middle name. My Esther 8:6 tattoo is almost done healing, and when it is I think I'll make it the "profile picture" on my userpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Français

"Le point de la nuit": essentiellement, c'est une combinaison de "faire le point" et, bien sûr, "nuit". Hope that helps. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Ah okay. Thanks! So would a good translation there be "Taking stock of the night"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A translation: yes? But I guess a more idiomatic expression would be something like "Nightly [news] report" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Ah okay, thanks.  Fixed in the article. Something about the mix of the idiomatic "point" and the prepositions there was really tripping me up. I really need to brush up on my French, but haven't had occasion to spend much time in France the past few years, and that's the only way I've ever really managed to stay fluent. Summertime soon, though, and we get plenty of Québecois tourists here, so maybe I'll find someone to chat with. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

My last change regarding the garden of eden page

My change was to correct the name of the area is neutral and if you look from a historical point of view and not bring politics into this subject you will see, I'm asking you to be neutral and read about the names of this place it was never been called the Persian Gulf and it is wrong to claim that name without evidence of nations calling it that from the now time and historically even in western media and literature it is called Arabian Gulf please fix this error 151.254.242.101 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Our article calls it the Persian Gulf. See also Persian Gulf naming dispute. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War

On 17 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Russian airstrike on Kyiv TV Tower (video featured) killed Yevhenii Sakun, one of at least 14 civilian journalists killed in the line of duty during the Russo-Ukrainian War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

RickRoll Land draft

Hey! So I noticed that there have been 2 (That I noticed) reports relating to something involving the RickRoll Land draft at EFFP. I don't have any problems with the reports specifically, but I do have a problem with the draft. Based on what I see on the draft, it seems like a clear violation of WP:NOT based on WP:MADEUP. However I'm not sure if it would actually qualify as a WP:NOT violation since technically, a YouTuber (Who doesn't even have their own article yet) created it and not someone on Wikipedia. I'm asking you since I think you dealt with both reports and I'd like your opinion on what should be done with the draft. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Well, it's a draft. The only speedy deletion criteria they're covered by are the G-series ones, none of which apply here. Particularly problematic drafts can be taken to MfD, but drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. There's lots of stuff incubating in draftspace that is not notable and never will be. Eventually people get bored enough that six months go without an edit, and then the draft is deleted. Assuming that it doesn't become notable... With online trends, you can never really tell. Every meme article was MADEUP at first. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. I would've immediately assumed it was just a joke article, however it was (apparently) created by a YouTuber even though it has no sources whatsoever which means that it wouldn't qualify for G3 (Unless for whatever reason that info was completely fabricated). Thanks for giving me your opinion on it. I'll probably keep an eye on it for a while to see if it ever becomes problematic enough to go to MfD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Rashism

What was the reason for the move? It's a neologism that appeared back in 2016 and is only mentioned in Ukrainian media. Couldn't find it in the academic sources. This term cannot be used as a name for a Wikipedia article. It basically doesn't exist (there are no quality RS that mention it). Please move it back to Russian fascism.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gaura79: Thanks for reaching out. My move of the page was procedural in nature, based on an informal consensus (permalink) on the talk page. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter myself. As I noted when moving the page, if there is any further disagreement as to the page's title, the next discussion should be a formal RM [requested move]. For instructions on starting that process, please see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please let me know if you have any further questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You are the one, perhaps!

Hi, Tamzin, I hope you are well. I was just noticing that I have created over 110 articles on this Wikipedia, and also improved about 11 articles, among which I helped to make two good articles. So what I did moments ago is that, I made Template:User improved to indicate on my userpage, the number of articles that I have improved, because one can't include those in the articles created, even if the whole of the content, is ones own work. I would like you to fix the template stuff for me, because I have no knowledge of "template-editing". I just happened to make few little templates. I don't also feel the name is a nice one. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 23:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi: It looks good to me! The only technical issue is that you should get rid of the <includeonly>...</includeonly>, so it shows up when viewing the template page. Personally I'd change the wording of the text a bit, but that's not really a technical question. And the name seems fine to me! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Pakistanpedia and Lillyput

Do you have a question? When I filed the two recent reports, I was concluding that the sockpuppeteer was trying to create a walled garden of articles on some films and actors. I didn't think that there was current log data. That's about all. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: My question is just if you have any thoughts on the IP's allegations there. The filing doesn't present enough evidence, and the filer is unavailable to expand it, so I thought I'd reach out as a Hail Mary, in case you had anything to add based on your experience with the case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No. My own opinion is that the IP is probably a different sockpuppetmaster who is an enemy of Pakistanpedia, but I am cynical about IP editors reporting conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsuppress the revisions on User:Raymond Spencer

You are making it look like Wikipedia is hiding something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.82.114 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IP 24. All I did was remove the content on the page as a proactive measure. Some time after that, a steward suppressed the whole account, taking those edits with it. If you want to get that reversed, you would have to talk to the steward team. (To be honest, as it stands, that page should just be deleted, seeing as the only public revision is the blank one.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think deleting the page would just make it look even worse. If you can take the heat for being the last editor to the page, I'm minded to let it stand. Otherwise I could remove your username from it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind being the last one in the history, no. But to avoid confusion I've left a note in the page history directing concerned parties to the steward team. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. There's a small chance it might get restored one day, btw, but that's above even my pay grade. The peanut gallery may wish to know that having both seen the contents, I think we'd agree there wasn't anything very exciting there .. no rants or manifestos or anything, basically just a few userboxes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm L3X1. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Raymond Spencer, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

this was a mistake I apologize for the notification here. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Happens. And you're much nicer about it than the last person who unpatrolled me. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I may have copied your userpage...

Just saw your request for adminship. I would possibly accept... But I doubt that I made sufficient amount of recent edits on Wikipedia. I like your userpage style, more than 0 edits. I used more than 1 edit, but please believe me when I say I was not copying your idea. I didn't even know you until now. And about the notice on your talkpage not appearing on mobile, my talkpage on my home wiki has one I made from scratch. It appears to show on mobile. Just thought that might help. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 08:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@L10nM4st3r: I don't claim any monopoly over silly userboxen. :D As to the mobile notice thing, yeah. I'm still thinking about the best way to do that. Thanks for the suggestion. Will consider it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Good luck

Hey - I was very pleased when I clicked on the link at the top of my watchlist that appeared this morning. Off to a strong start - good luck! Girth Summit _(blether) 08:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Girth. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on the nomination!

Congrats on the adminship nomination and thanks! (Maybe good luck would've been better, whatever.) SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 14:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I was totally pleased to see your RfA. Great news. JBW (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this. I can't remember when it was that I asked you (as PinkAmpersand) about RfA and you declined. Must have been quite a few years ago now. Anyway, looks like a slam-dunk pass from where I'm sitting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Heh, Tavix linked it in his vote. I did plan on taking y'all up on that at some point, but then wound up dropping off activity-wise for a bit (see Special:Diff/1084656730). But I do appreciate both of you for having suggested it back then. :) I'd actually forgotten about it until someone looking through my talk archives found it in June or July, and it's what got me to start thinking about going for it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Anis. :) And I don't mind the lack of "good luck"; if anything I feel like "break a leg" would be more apt. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh and thank you, JBW. :) Sorry, got mixed up by the indentation here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Congrats on the RFA nomination, good news coming from there!

(And to be the 1,050th administrator.) Severestorm28 01:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Usurper

I'm becoming concerned that the number of supports is increasing fast enough that it might endanger my record if this goes on for 7 days. Please consider either withdrawing the request, or loudly and publicly saying something boneheaded as soon as possible to slow the support, or violating some bedrock WMF policies and at least earning it. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: loudly and publicly saying something boneheaded as soon as possible to slow the support Well if you insist...

Floquenbeam is a great admin!

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)