User talk:Fenix down/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 23

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the protection of Ishan Pandita page

Mr. Fenix down, today Pandita has made his debut for FC Goa in the Indian Super League. So he is now notable to publish as a Wikipedia article. I have made a article on him. This is here in my sandbox: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Debabrata_Sarkar_Mejbill/sandbox Please let me publish the article and please remove the protection from the page. I want to recreate the article today. Thank you Debabrata Sarkar Mejbill (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fenix! Just adding to Debabrata's comment, here is a source for Pandita's debut if you need. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Stalking here! He only played for one minute - I don't think there's any urgency to restore this yet. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Totally right. I personally don't mind waiting till he receives more significant playing time before re-creating. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the protection, he does meet nfooty even if only just and its not for me unilaterally decide how far over that threshold he should be before it should be removed. Editors should be aware that this removal 8snt conformation of notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:3A2C:800:80BF:17C3:C15C:70A6

Can user:2A02:C7F:3A2C:800:80BF:17C3:C15C:70A6 please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. See their filter log and contribs. CLCStudent (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been done. Fenix down (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Steer

So soon? LOL. Hmlarson (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, don't see your point, the AfD was opened at 10.15am UTC on 25th Dec and was closed on 1st Jan at 11.57am UTC, just over seven days later. No keep votes, seems pretty open and shut. Have I missed something? Fenix down (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vadim Zubavlenko

Hello Fenix down. I hope you're doing well. I just missed this AfD, and noticed that an editor made an erroneous remark which resulted in the decision to keep the article. Specifically, the editor claimed that Zubavlenko was currently playing for a Russian FNL club (meaning his professional football career was not yet over). This is incorrect as he was released by FC Irtysh in September 2020. Is it possible to have the debate re-opened for clarification? Or, would it be better if I started a second AfD?

Best wishes. Jogurney (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen this. Granted he is no longer with a club but it seems he passes NFOOTY. I'm not sure what a second AFD would achieve so soon after the first, experience suggests it is unlikely to produce a different outcome. Consensus would probably be that this is a young player who meets nfooty and has an ongoing career. Up to you though, reopening definitely wouldn't be appropriate given that he meets an established SNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I agree that waiting a bit (perhaps if he doesn't sign for another club in a fully-pro league this summer) is best. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for not deleting the 2 Steaua pages. Much appreciated! Dante4786 (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Martin (footballer)

Hi Fenix down. I don't think this sentence makes sense. "It seems pretty obvious given this individual played once for Bradford that the difficulty in finding sources is as much to do with the fact that they probably don't exist at least as much as the time he was playing." What is it you were trying to say here? Thanks, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense, there was a keep suggestion in the discussion that suggested that he should be kept because he played a long time ago and sources are therefore difficult to find. My point was whilst this may be true (and in itself not an argument to keep an article) it is equally probable in my opinion that sources are difficult to find because he only played 1 game at a notable level and as a result they probably simply don't exist. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't clear whether you were saying the player probably didn't exist, or the sources didn't exist. Thanks for the clarification. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Article removal

Deleting Naeem Charles was unnecessary, there's no good reason to get rid of it -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, there was clear consensus to delete at the AfD. Fenix down (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cidade Deportiva de Abegondo

In accordance to the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cidade Deportiva de Abegondo, I kindly ask you to make a redirection from the Cidade Deportiva de Abegondo to Abegondo (in there I've made the Cidade Deportiva de Abegondo subsection). Thanks! 95.160.103.8 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think the AfD was reasonably clear that there was consensus for deletion. However, a redirect would be pretty harmless and the subject is discussed in the proposed article so I am happy for you to create one yourself. Other editors may object but I wouldn't personally take any action. Fenix down (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Articles for deletion/Arild Andersen (footballer)

Hey

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arild Andersen (footballer) that you closed as delete. I understand that it was a deletion per the popular vote, but should it be deleted when he passes a SNG? The claim that the Norwegian league wasn't fully professional at the time is just a claim, and I can't find any sources that backs that up or even any discussion about this, which means this footballer passes WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the problem is that there has been a discussion, there isn't the strongest consensus, but one editor has produced research that indicates the existence of part time clubs in this division until around 2001. No one in the discussion provided sources to contradict this and so WP:FPL was changed. Whilst you have been involved in both that discussion and a number of AfDs but you don't present any sources to back up your claims. In this case particularly the article was very poor in asserting notability in the first place with nothing more than a couple of stat sites and even then it didn't even note the number of times the player had played, let alone any sources that indicated wider coverage to satisfy the presumption of GNG which nfooty makes. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of a page Rajasthan United FC

Hey i saw you deleted a page called about a football club in rajasthan with name Rajasthan United FC. That club really exist but you still deleted the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vplpoonia (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I did towards the end of last year, but since then another admin has deleted it 3 more times. There was consensus here that whilst the club exists it does not have enough significant coverage to be notable per WP:GNG. Since that discussion it has been deleted because recreations have been overly promotional in tone and not in line with what is required for an encyclopedic article. If you think the club is notable please use WP:AFC to prepare a draft for assessment. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trofeo Spagnolo

You're right the Italian language page is referenced only to Genoa, but a quick search also brings up articles like [1]. Should clearly pass GNG in Italian sources, and the discussion is terrible. Would you mind relisting? SportingFlyer T·C 13:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I won't be relisting Trofeo Spagnolo. The 7 days passed and you were the only keep vote. Furthermore, your comment in the AfD that A quick look at the Italian language article shows a number of WP:GNG-qualifying sources is untrue. The Italian wikipedia article has exactly the same primary sources to the Genoa CFC website as the English language article had, so not sure what your point is here? If there are other sources out there you should have brought them up in the AfD. The fact that you are now bringing up other sources is unfortunate. You are however welcome to recreate the article, add in your new source and take it through the proper channels, i.e. AfC. I would not recommend it based on the single source you present above, which is clearly nothing mnore than a routine match report of a single game. Hardly sufficient to indicate that the tournament as a whole is in anyway notable. Your idea that the discussion is terrible is your own opinion, but three editors voted to delete, one voted keep and failed to provide sourcing to support their claim. If there is poor performance in this AfD, I am afraid it is entirely at your own feet.
On the second AfD, again, I'm sorry but you missed your opportunity. You noted that there were sources in the Italian version that indicated GNG, but you neither noted which ones they were nor outlined how they meet GNG. Your argument therefore carried very little weight. I'm not going to officially opine on the sources, but looking at them I would say:
  1. [2] - this appears just to be a picture of the trophy presentation, not significant coverage
  2. [3] - This seems to be much more about specific players and doesn't really discuss the competition itself in any real significance
  3. [4] - this is just a routine match report from one of the games
  4. [5] - this is a very brief match summary, not significant coverage
  5. [6] - this is just a picture
  6. [7] - this is also just a picture
Not really sure where you are seeing GNG here, I see one source which might contain something that could be interpreted as discussing the tournament as an event in itself. Like I said you should have been much more specific in your arguments in the original AfD if you feel there is more there. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Now at DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Regar-TadAZ Tursunzade Logo.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Regar-TadAZ Tursunzade Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Emily Henderson

Per your closure of the AfD as delete, do you think you are really an uninvolved editor in such discussions? I haven't seen you once close an AfD about a female footballer as a keep, nor vote to keep in such an AfD - you often vote delete or don't vote and later close as delete. This hardly seems uninvolved, and seems you have a solid opinion on the issue. --SuperJew (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting that from, I guess you missed this or this or this or this just from the last few months. Took me five minutes going through the archive to find them so not sure what checking you did. At least one of these was mentioned in this very AfD! Frankly I consider this to be a diliberate bad faith accusation to try to bully me into making a change to suit you wishes. If you want to continue this conversation I expect a written retraction of the comment above together with an apology and explanation of your conduct. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
There's also this from today. I'd recommend you have a good look at it. This is what happens when people actually bring sources of potential significance to the table for discussion rather than simply putting forward personal opinions and whatabouttery that has no connection to any guideline. Sure there wasn't a great deal of participation and the consensus was not unanimous, but there was enough there in terms of the weight of the keep arguments that it was a simple decision to close as keep. Once the sources had been put forward we didn't need a massive conversation, simply, as we had, several other editors in good standing coming in and saying thatthey agreed that what was presented was sufficient for GNG. End of story. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
As a final example of something on going, there's this where there is clearly some sources and I have relisted to try to gain a clear consensus and hopefully give editors the chance to bring out some of the paywalled sourcing. Please be in no doubt, you have some explaining to do regarding your initial comment. I am very unimpressed with your conduct. Fenix down (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Adding further - I see that in the original AfD for this article you voted delete - further supporting that you are not uninvolved. I would ask you to please revert your closure and leave it to an uninvolved admin to close. --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Seriously? I'm involved because I voted in a previous AfD four and half years ago? That is ridiculous, I'm not even going to discuss that. I had no idea I had expressed any opinion whatsoever. That is in no way involved, if the previous afd had been 6 months ago or something I'd concede you had a point but nearly 5 years ago, absolutely not. Fenix down (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Closed prematurely before any kind of WP:CONSENSUS. As an editor with administrator privileges, can you point me to where this can be posted for review? Kindly tag me in your response before archiving this. Hmlarson (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing premature about it at all, the afd was open for a week, there were nine participants including the nominator. 6 of them voted delete and 3 keep. The delete votes included a detailed source by source consideration of GNG while the keep votes were not grounded in any consensus nor did they reference any guideline or discuss even a single source. The AfD was closed delete because, as I explained in my closing rationale, they were the stronger arguments both in number but, more importantly, in weight. Fenix down (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
You are involved because you have a clear opinon about this matter in general (deletion of female footballers) and also about this matter specifically (voting delete in the previous AfD for Emily Henderson). Even if to your claim you don't remember this previous AfD, I would expect the closing admin to review any previous AfDs of the subject, and you failing to do so further puts this closure in a questionable light. Anyway, as Hmlarson requested, please could you point to where this closure can be posted for review? Thank you, --SuperJew (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
As noted previously a retraction, explanation and apology for your deliberate bad faith accusation above is required if you wish to continue discussion with me. I am unclear why you have felt the need to repeat it. With this, could you please explain what you mean by your initial comment and the repetition of it that you have just made. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The premature closure, refusal to respond to basic questions, and attempts to obscure yourself from any basic accountability is irresponsible. This is a recurring observation of your recurring behavior. Demanding “requirements” to speak with you demonstrates these points further.

Can you re-open the AFD for an adequate WP:CONSENSUS? Hmlarson (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, per my response above there was a 6 to 3 consensus to delete, with a clear outlining of why the sources in the article didn't meet GNG. Can you explain to me why you do not think this was adequate consensus? I have responded to all questions above providing evidence disproving the multiple bad faith accusations which have been made and I clearly outlined my reason for closing as delete. This thread seeks to bully me into reversing my decision on the premise that I somehow have a problem with articles on female footballers existing. I have shown this to be untrue and have asked for an apology from the editor in question. I don't think this is unreasonable. Fenix down (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not go through all of your edits and closures, nor is that my burden to do. I said I haven't seen you once close an AfD about a female footballer as a keep, nor vote to keep in such an AfD = meaning, in AfD's I have seen and been involved in (mostly articles which I've created), that that has been your behaviour. Further I have pointed out that for this aricle specifically you are involved, having voted delete in the previous AfD, and the claim of I had no idea I had expressed any opinion whatsoever is irresponsible since as the closing admin it is on you to review and consider previous AfDs of the article - if you would've done that, you would've had an idea of the opinion you expressed. How can I say this? I am very unimpressed with your conduct. Now, I don't mean to continue this discussion nor do I expect you anymore to revert your closure (though that is the honourable and responsible thing to do in this case in my opinion), but I would ask you to answer the simple question Hmlarson put to you first can you point me to where this can be posted for review? --SuperJew (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It's disappointing that when obvious errors you have made are pointed out that you are unable to own them and apologise for your mistakes. I would have thought that an editor of your experience would already be well aware of DRV, there is link to it at the bottom of WP:AFD. Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I use my time to create, not to delete, so I am less aware of the different subpages of AfD. Thank you for the link. --SuperJew (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fenix, just for your courtesy since Editor did not ping you, if not already seen: [8] CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dialog Champions League.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dialog Champions League.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Brunei Shell FC.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Brunei Shell FC.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Please, express your opinion about this page move discussion -> Talk:SR Brașov Rhinen 07:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, as an admin whose contributions are now almost wholly reduced to work in the AfD area and specifically football related articles at that, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to opine on any form of administrative discussion in that sphere. Fenix down (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

help

sc east bengal (management), kerala blasters (personnel); both sections locked and correction needed. positions are in small letters after first word. (Head coach etc).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fenix_down/Archive_18&oldid=1036824835"