User talk:Toadspike/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Kinehore

passing leek's gift to me and now to you. Starting at 50px and upping it as needed (1x so far). Whatever happens at RFA will never detract from the positive impact you have on others or will have in the future. Don't forget that's the whole point :) kinehore, friend. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah okay another 10px i guess Sennecaster (Chat) 16:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Bluedino140 (16:43, 6 October 2025)

Hello Toadspike I have a question about Copyediting. so when Copyediting how should I go about problems from a long time ago like (2012) and I can't find the mistake, as well as not being able to find a mistake in general. thank you for your time --Bluedino140 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bluedino140 This is a good question. If a page has been tagged for copyediting for a very long time, it is possible someone else has already fixed the issue. If you see no issues, you can remove the tag. However, if you are not especially confident in your English or copyediting skills, you can also leave a message at WT:GOCE or on my talk page (here, User talk:Toadspike) to ask for a second opinion. Toadspike [Talk] 19:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Bluedino140 (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

September 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	This award is given in recognition to Toadspike for accumulating at least 10 points the September 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Utopes (talk / cont) 03:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats on becoming our newest administrator; I'm sure you'll do great with the tools. :) ^EF⁵ 16:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are an administrator!

Hello Toadspike, I am pleased to report that I have closed your RfA as successful. Welcome to the administrator corps! If you have any questions about your new set of tools, feel free to ask! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

pssst @28bytes you forgot the t-shirt asilvering (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

obligatory T-shirt, wear it with pride

also available in the alternate color option of blue, if you prefer

@Asilvering: I've awarded the T-shirts as attached. Left guide (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Congrats, @Toadspike! Very happy to see this! (Once you've had a well-deserved chance to recuperate, you're invited to contribute a debrief if you'd like.) Sdkb ^talk 16:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

CONGRATS!! Sennecaster (Chat) 16:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike, really well done! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

congrats!!! dbeef [talk] 17:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Toadspike! Although your RFA was not as rocky as many we have had (I'm talking from experience), it still can be a very long week of waiting for the candidate. Don't forget, if you ever have a question about taking an action, you can come to another administrator to offer you a second opinion. We need more collaborative administrators and no more cowboy ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm glad you finally got the bit. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! Glad you got through this so well. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Hurrah! Great work! The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Finally! Well done :) Icepinner 04:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your well-deserved adminship! Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Nicely done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm happy or sad for you

But we're glad to have you serving! Congrats on your demonstrating you hold the community's trust. BusterD (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Massively congrats. You've got this :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

yayyyyyyyy congrats also here's the manual that everyone forgets to hand out: WP:ADMINGUIDE -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Many many congratulations to you @Toadspike:. Fade258 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Congrats from me, too! It sure was a nail-biter, but luckily no one has demanded a manual recount, so I think you're safe. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

"But he had to have lost! It wasn't unanimous, therefore no consensus! Overturn the vote!!!!!" CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 17:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! Perfect4th (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Congrats! Delighted to see you join the admin corps. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

A bit late, but still. Congrats!!! Squawk7700 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on becoming an admin!! I am fully confident you will do an amazing job. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

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

	The axe of responsibility
	Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Samson Karnga-Davis (08:36, 14 October 2025)

Hello, How can I ask a headline? --Samson Karnga-Davis (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Samson Karnga-Davis Sorry, I don't understand your question. Could you please be more specific? Toadspike [Talk] 08:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your RfA

Would've been an easy support. Congrats! Enjoy your brand new buttons. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 04:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

FYI about unblock

As an FYI when you lifted this block, you also inadvertently lifted this partial block: . Which normally wouldn't be an issue, but that partial block specifically was to enforce a CBAN from that one namespace specifically, and should probably only be lifted with a)community consensus or b)a clear promise not to edit said namespace, said with the understanding that if they violate that then they shall be blocked. (And even then... that decision should probably be made with community consensus?) I think that the editor is, overall, a netpositive (they helped me clean up some old copyvios they'd introduced a while back, which is more than I can say for most people I warn for copyvios!!) and I'd really like them to not inadvertently violate the cban and get blocked again, thanks! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, hope you're enjoying the new tools! If you go mad with power, please do something really funny before you get desyopped! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding on here. From my understanding from this discussion (permalink) by the other editor (D.18th) whom was blocked together with Aidillia, D.18th was requested to go to ANI to get their CBAN lifted hence if Aidillia CBAN was lifted without community consensus, assuming this wasn't a mistake, then I believe that the same should be awarded to the other editor as well. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian@Paper9oll Dangit, I saw Paper9oll's message here last night and thought I reinstated the Filespace block, but it seems I got distracted.

GLL, if I ever go mad with power, please do your thing and put an end to it. I'm counting on you... Toadspike [Talk] 07:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I figured it was probably going to be something like that! And lol, dw, I fully intend to do my best to keep this link red as long as possible, as long as you promise to, if I ever start it, to do the most INVOLVED block ever on me with a log summary that needs to be revdelled, bonus points for OS. It would do wonders for my street cred, haha. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I definitely raised my street cred when I posted the entire lyrics of Blue (Da Ba Dee) on April Fools' Day several years ago, forcing some hapless admin to revdel it. That's the kind of thing you only get away with once, though. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

On Draft:Nail puller

I saw that the author of this draft was recently blocked for using AI to edit, and this article has multiple signs that it was AI-generated, but not enough to explicitly call it as G15 alone. Should it still be speedy deleted? 64.251.58.116 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, a true LLM abomination. While I don't think I could stretch "In this blog, we’ll ..." to claim G15 applies, the rest has such a promotional tone ("As a long-standing, hands-on supplier, I’ve come across countless scenarios where nail pullers truly shine") that G11 should be no issue. Toadspike [Talk] 16:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Editor with admitted COI linkspamming

Howdy, and congratulations on your "promotion"! :) I got here via the "recently active admins" tool; User:Dm07891p has declared a COI with a personal injury law firm, has repeatedly tried to create an article about it, and is now adding the firm's blog as a reference to everything from Nursing home residents' rights to Surgery (with respect to issues requiring WP:MEDRS) and Tracy Learning Center. In my view this isn't "vandalism", but it's a big WP:PROMO and WP:COI issue on top of WP:RS. Could you take a look? Thanks! Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima Thanks for the report. I was about to head offline, but I have just taken a look and blocked them for 31 hours. If this continues, you should probably find another admin to take action, preferably by reporting to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Toadspike [Talk] 21:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike Duly noted. Thanks for the help and the update! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

IP 174.91.82.78

This IP you just blocked needs TPA revoked for making personal attacks at User talk:174.91.82.78. Ultraodan (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dafootballguy2 on 2025 Arizona Cardinals season (20:08, 17 October 2025)

Hello, how do I add a section to this page. I would like to add a notable injuries section. Dafootballguy2 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy2 If you want it to be a regular section, simply type == Notable injuries == into the source editor. If you are using the Visual Editor (the one that looks like Google Docs or Microsoft Word), then select the text, click on the word "Paragraph" at the top of your screen, and change it to "Heading".

If you want it to be a subsection, then simply add a pair of equals signs to make it one level smaller (=== Notable injuries ===) or select one of the Sub-heading options. Toadspike [Talk] 20:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

IP 2402:800:62D0:8876:ACF8:DDC2:7295:375B

The IP ranged you blocked for disruptive editing on Wicked: For Good – The Soundtrack is back making the same unsourced edit again. Perhaps a longer block or page protection would be appropriate. Tman8667 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've blocked the /48 for 6 months. -- asilvering (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, knew it was familiar. @Tman8667, if you're reporting this one again, the magic word is "WP:LTA/HANOI". Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Tman8667 (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The admin baton

	The admin baton
	Per ancient tradition, it is my pleasure to pass on this baton to you, as CoconutOctopus did to me. Once you're done admiring it, be sure to pass it to the next admin. hinnk (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, hinnk. Though it is an honor to receive the baton, I hope its stay with me is brief. Toadspike [Talk] 09:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Being the baton wielder gives you the magic power of seeing the pedia afresh. Don't underestimate that insight. See something, say something. Doesn't need to be misbehavior. If you need someone to rant at, aim that firehose at me. I invite your feedback on any subject. Stay BOLD. BusterD (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

2406:8800:81:CCF1:3083:A050:474D:30AE

This ip address has been disruptively editing pages. LordStalin (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2406:8800:81:CCF1:3083:A050:474D:30AE LordStalin (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordStalin That user has not been warned about their edits, which you should do on their talk page. Most of their edits have not even been reverted. More generally, these reports should be made at WP:AIV, not on my user talk page. Toadspike [Talk] 19:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Tnt0279 (20:08, 19 October 2025)

Hello,

I created the following pages and believe I did everything correct; however, when I search for these individuals names on the internet, their Wiki articles do not come up. Can you tell me if I did something wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayrton_Cahan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Cahan

Thank you for your help. --Tnt0279 (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tnt0279 Before the articles show up on the internet, they must be indexed by search engines. This only happens once an article has been reviewed by a new page patroller, which could take a while, as there is a long backlog. Please be patient. If you want to share the articles with others in the meantime, you can send them the link, just like you did here, and anyone will be able to see them. Toadspike [Talk] 20:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the information. I realize it might take time. I just wanted to make sure I did everything correctly. Thanks again! Tnt0279 (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tnt0279 I've now taken a longer look at the articles you created. They don't cite any independent sources and are likely to be moved to become drafts by a patroller. I suggest finding and adding better sources to show that Ayrton and Gabriel meet our notability guidelines. If none exist, it may simply be too soon for them to have articles. Toadspike [Talk] 22:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your reply. Can you give me an example, or a page to look at, that shows me what an indepdent source looks like? 2601:8C3:8700:34D0:F923:B570:BB1C:8C (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

On unilateral unblocking

Hi, Toadspike. I wanted to have a quick discussion regarding the unblock of Aikee Moral. I was a little surprised that you accepted the unblock request without first giving me a ping, since I was the blocking admin. In general, our policies encourage engaging the blocking admin before acting except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking (see WP:BLOCK#Unblock requests).

Of course, this is not a firm rule, and policy does not dictate best practice. I want to be clear I’m not trying to discourage you from accepting unblocks where you feel it appropriate. I am aware that in the past, there have been administrators that have arguably used this policy to create chilling effects against admins who question bad blocks, and there have been recent efforts to loosen the policy wording because of that (see Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 24#Bringing RAAA in line with actual practice).

In light of all this, I was wondering if you had thoughts on whether a ping to the blocking admin should be necessary, e.g. for the Aikee Moral unblock, even when you think the facts are clear to you. (And to be clear, I personally am in the process of rethinking my own views on this topic in light of the discussions from this year, so I have no strong views myself. Additionally, I think I would not have objected to the unblock if I had been pinged first, so this is purely an academic question.) Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Mz7, nice to see you! In this case, I simply forgot to ask. It was neither willful disregard for nor moral disagreement with that line in the blocking policy. I've been responding to unblock for a few days now and somehow never remembered the consulting requirement (except for CUblocks, of course). I'll try to remember going forward.

On the broader question: I do believe that block reasons and block notices should be very clear on why the block was placed, both for the benefit of reviewing admins, and far more importantly, for the benefit of the blocked user. Interestingly, the words "provide further information" right under "Unblock requests" are linked to § Other important information, which says exactly that. If block notices are clear, ideally, we rarely need to consult the blocking admin. There are obvious exceptions to all of this: CUblocks, OSblocks, copyright blocks, and blocks for behavior that is not easily identified. This is why I always check the block reason before reviewing an unblock request.

There are some parts of this process that seem a little absurd: aside from the four obvious exceptions I listed above, I think taking the median unblock request to AN would be a waste of everybody's time (If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended.)

If I were really trying to wikilawyer this, I would argue that the user acknowledging their mistakes, committing to not repeat them, and accepting a partial block from a portion of the site constitutes a "significant change in circumstances". Those are standard parts of the unblock process and would mean that in most unblocks, the blocking admin doesn't have to be consulted. I'm pretty sure that's not what that phrase was intended to mean, though.

I hope all this doesn't make me seem like a radical unblocker, but I do wonder whether that rule is still appropriate. Perhaps it could be narrowed to my four "obvious exceptions"? Toadspike [Talk] 08:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and detailed response! Yeah, I think you raise important observations. In years past, there have been some editors that were considered "unblockable": even though they were highly prolific content creators, they sometimes violated conduct policies like civility or 3RR, and whenever an administrator might block them, another administrator who liked that editor might unilaterally undo the block with a rationale like "time served" or something, and the incident would often light up the dramaboards. I think this was a key part of why the blocking policy and administrator policy are worded to discourage unilateral unblocks. Nowadays, I feel like maybe the community has gotten more mature on the whole—it has been a while since I've seen this kind of "cowboy unblock", and I feel like the factionalism between content creators versus maintenance editors (which I suspect fueled a lot of those kinds of blocks and unblocks) has largely died down in the 2020s. Maybe it's time to reconsider how the policy wording approaches unblock requests. I will ruminate on this... Thanks again, Mz7 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine as written, honestly. Perhaps we could soften it a little, but I really do think it's a good idea to get input from the blocking admin in most kinds of cases. That does, though, mean that in most cases (numerically speaking) I don't actually ask the blocking admin - but that's because most cases are simple promo-hardblocks, where all we need to do is rename the editor, ensure they know how to follow the COI policy, and unblock (or convert to pblock). I've been slowly tinkering away in my userspace on an unblocks guide, where (I hope) I make it clear that while you ought to ask the blocking admin, you certainly don't have to agree with them. Front of mind to me, being a newer admin and not from the Cowboy Days, is not the "other admin lifts righteous block" problem, but the "blocking admin shows up, insults the editor, and tells you that you can't unblock" problem. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Aurnaurr (04:33, 20 October 2025)

Hi! If I'm editing an article in a different way but would still like to add other article links, is there a way to get the linking bot or do I have to just link them manually? --Aurnaurr (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aurnaurr Unfortunately I don't think the link suggestion AI can be activated outside of the newcomer task. However, if you select a term and click the link icon in the Visual Editor (which you're probably using), the pop-up should show some suggestions and let you easily search for articles to link to. Toadspike [Talk] 08:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Kkma505auk (12:35, 20 October 2025)

Note: Kkma505auk's mentor Pyrrhic victor is away.

Hi Mentor,

I am new to Wikipedia editing. I produced my first piece in my sandbox. I was careful to do proper research online to build the material. But I am not sure how to publish it online, (i.e. move it from my account to the public domain). I have looked at the relevant help pages and searched online - but the option to doing so doesn't appear on my account, or I missed something.

I also made an Arabic version of the same text. How can I link the two so that people can refer to the material in Arabic or English as needed.

Many thanks, --Kkma505auk (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kkma505auk I have added a banner to your draft. If you feel it is ready, you may click the large blue button that says "Submit the draft for review!" However, your draft will likely not be accepted in its current form, as it reads promotionally and was written by AI. I suggest rewriting it from a neutral point of view. Toadspike [Talk] 13:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll do so. Many thanks for your input. Kkma505auk (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi @Toadspike, I checked this SPI and I beleive @Carlos Hernández Cabrera is definately another sock of this account. They display the very same behaviour as the previous socks. (New sock becomes active after few months, starts edit warring and personnal attacks while ragebait about "sources" over and over again, as shown the Almohad Caliphate and Abd Al-mu'min articles. Curiously enough these are also the same articles which the socks were active in) He even brought out "Algerian nationality" the same way a previous sock did towards me here. Another accounttook sidesin the engoing conversation in Almohad article TP less than an hour after its creation. Even more so that Carlos' reply to me was strikingliy similiar to the new account's reply. Best Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane I haven't had time to take a look yet. You are welcome to file an SPI in the meantime. Toadspike [Talk] 13:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane I've filed the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kozioğlu. Toadspike [Talk] 14:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Wan Runnan

On 21 October 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Wan Runnan, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

On your rejection of speedy deletion at User:JTH5654/sandbox/Extradition Treaty Judge for the United States, I.C.C.

If it helps clarify anything, I was trying to say that, from my POV, the sentence structure was suspiciously similar to AI

Thanks, Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused Yes, I know, and that is exactly the problem. G15 only applies to three very specific issues that indicate unreviewed AI content with near-absolute certainty. It is not for text that merely seems to be AI. I strongly recommend reviewing the wording of the criterion before tagging any more pages, especially the last paragraph. Toadspike [Talk] 09:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Mufti Raza Ali Khan

Hello Toadspike, I have submitted Draft:Mufti Raza Ali Khan for review and i have also added some more reliable references. Could you please review it. Thank you. BrownCanary61 (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@BrownCanary61 Please be patient, you just submitted your draft today. A reviewer will get around to it soon. Toadspike [Talk] 11:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Change of User Rights

Hello Toadspike. I received a message that you changed my user rights following use of AI, etc. Can you explain to me what needs to be done on this subject going forward? Thanks Sablc4747 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I have already told you what do: You need to respond at ANI. In future, you could request that extended confirmed user right be restored at WP:PERM/EC, but that is currently the least of your worries. Toadspike [Talk] 17:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Notice of new RfC on aligning community CTOPs with ArbCom CTOPs

Hi Toadspike: You previously participated in this April 2024 RfC on community contentious topics and their relationship with ArbCom's contentious topics. There is now a new RfC on this topic that you may be interested in. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Richard Roxy deleted

why did you delete my page which is no longer available in my scratch please move it back at your earlist I was seeking assistance - which your actions are not Richard Roxy (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

You abused Wikipedia as a web host. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Roxy In addition to the reply above, Wikipedia articles must be cited to reliable sources, not personal opinion or recollection. The page you had written was not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 05:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

with all due respect I created the Roxy there is none other than me to tell the story of how it came about - the NY Times article has a picture of me listed as a partner

there is no where that the work in process would have been documented as it was not yet news or noteworthy

if this is beyond your paygrade please tell me how to elevate my request as the Roxy Roller Rink is certainly culturally significant Richard Roxy (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict of interest here, which you have been warned about. Wikipedia is not for promotion, nor is it for hosting personal content. If you disagree with the deletion, you are welcome to raise it at WP:AARV. Toadspike [Talk] 18:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's WP:DRV for contested deletions. Left guide (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Dargah Allama Hasan Raza

Hello Toadspike, I've created an article Draft:Dargah Allama Hasan Raza with reliable sources and submitted it for review. Would you please take a look at it, as I'm still learning and don't want to violate Wikipedia rules. If there are any shortcomings, please let me know and I'll try to correct them. Thank you. BrownCanary61 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@BrownCanary61 Hello! Your draft looks pretty good. If you can, I suggest adding more sources with significant coverage of the shrine itself, rather than just reporting on events there. This will make it easier for Articles for Creation reviewers to tell if the shrine is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 10:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to include more sources with significant coverage of the shrine itself. Thank you for your kind support. BrownCanary61 (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You work around Wikipedia, helping out wherever you go. Thank you. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dafootballguy2 on 2025 Arizona Cardinals season (02:14, 20 October 2025)

Hi, did I write the notable injuries section well and in the right place? I know it needs citations and I am working on it.Dafootballguy2 (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy2 Wow, that looks really good! Great work! A small formatting tip: we usually put the citations right after the end of a sentence, like this. Keep it up! Toadspike [Talk] 07:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi,can you help me put the citations in the right spot. Also can you please leave a 5 links to NFL pages that need editing. Last thing did I put the notable injuries in the right spot?Dafootballguy2 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Dafootballguy2: Hi, consider participating in the NFL WikiProject discussion page at WT:NFL (which I sometimes frequent) where there is a community of editors interested and knowledgeable about the subject matter, and thus more likely to be able to help with your concerns. Regards, Left guide (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy2: I moved the citations to the right spot. Overall, this is very nice work, well done. The notable injuries section is in a fine location. Regarding five NFL pages to edit, is there a specific sub-topic and/or task you'd like to participate in? If you're interested in current Cardinals players, consider the options at {{Arizona Cardinals roster}}. Left guide (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like to help improve any active Arizona Cardinals players or any NFL pages, not other teams or other teams players. Dafootballguy2 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy2: Based on your prior edits, you seem well-versed in being able to research and write from sources. You might be interested in expanding the game summaries at 2025 Arizona Cardinals season#Game summaries, using sources to write sentences and paragraphs about what happened in the games. Some of the summaries have very little information, and could really benefit from expansion to create a fuller article. I think readers want to know what happened in the games. Left guide (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I tried but I couldn't put in citations so I published it without intenteding to add citations later but it was reverted by a administrator.Dafootballguy2 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@LuniZunie is just another editor, not an administrator. Regardless, @Dafootballguy2, being reverted is no cause for panic. Normally you should go to the Talk page (Talk:2025 Arizona Cardinals season) to discuss the edit, but here I suggest simply making the same edit again while adding a citation.

Is there any reason you couldn't add a citation? If you post a link here, I try to figure out what went wrong or add it for you. Toadspike [Talk] 23:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike Hi there! Dafootballguy2 is an alt account for Dafootballguy and it seems like it was created to circumnavigate the warnings? I'm not that versed with the multiple accounts rules, can you look into this? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 23:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

That is interesting. @Dafootballguy2, I strongly recommend choosing only one account to use. While using multiple accounts is allowed in some cases, the policy on this (which can be found at WP:SOCK) is very tricky and it is easy to get in trouble when using multiple accounts. If LuniZunie is correct that you have been using two accounts to evade scrutiny, I may have to block one of them. Toadspike [Talk] 23:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike I just want to point out that, the user who commented on my talk page was Dafootballguy, who hadn't contributed in 9 days leading up to that. However, right after reverting Dafootballguy2, Dafootballguy left the message on my talk page, saying I reverted their edit even though my last revert on that account specifically was 9 days ago. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I have essentially given up on dafootballguy. it seems that lunizunie has been trying to mess up my helpful edits which is highly frustrating and unhelpful. Dafootballguy2 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike Also, completely unrelated; I might need some administrative help at CNaa S before it blows up. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

hey, I didn't know those rules. I was using @Dafootballguy as a training account. While I liked having 2 accounts if you need to block one please use that one. Dafootballguy2 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I tried to copy and paste but it didn't work. Dafootballguy2 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Draftifying Susana Panadés Diaz

@Toadspike Following up this discussion User talk:OwenX#Susana Panadés Diaz, I plan to try to Draftify Susana Panadés Diaz, but wanted to run my rationale by you first since you participated in the AfD and OwenX trusts your judgement. IMO the notability argument is not GNG (perhaps could weakly be SNG) but mainly WP:NENTERTAINER #1, which states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions. In this case the subject has significant roles in dance performances, dance films, and virtual/augmented reality dance performances. Here are the works with sources:

• Quantum (2014) - dance, one review in The New York Times
• Força Forte (2015) - dance, two reviews Berner Zeitung, Le Temps
• Womb (2016) - dance film, subject mentioned in Le Temps
• VR_I (2017) - dance film virtual reality, one review in Le Temps and mention in review of Cosmogony in Le Monde
• Dance Trail (2019) - dance film augmented reality, mentioned in The Salt Lake Tribune for upcoming Sundance festival that year
• Cosmogony (2021) - review in Le Monde and Le Matin, went to Sundance
• Genetrix (2022) - review in Le Temps

Note sources generally have 1-3 sentences about the subject; most are in French but I've translated them. Not enough for GNG, but enough to show she was a principal performer in these works. Please let me know if you have any concerns with my changing the Redirect to a Draft (which seems supported by two other editors in the AfD/subsequent discussion). Nnev66 (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nnev66 Go ahead. As I said on OwenX's talk page, your argument is sensible. Heck, even if you were to recreate the page in mainspace, I would not nominate it for deletion, since it's a borderline case and a deletion discussion would be a pointless waste of community time. Toadspike [Talk] 09:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I was disappointed that the AfD for this subject was closed before the NENTERTAINER #1 argument could be fully hashed out, which is part of the reason I wanted it in Draft via AFC so there could be a clearer consensus. I'm now thinking moving it back to main space with an explanation on the talk page will minimize editors' time to have to re-review this given how discussion has gone post-AfD. I'll do it tomorrow one way or the other. Nnev66 (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike I tried to Move the 2nd to last entry of the Susana Panadés Diaz redirect page (which had the original article history) to Draft:Susana Panadés Diaz but that clearly was not the way to do it. Do you know how to unwind that move and restore the original history to Draft? Nnev66 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nnev66 You seem to have performed the move correctly, but you didn't revert to an earlier version of the article, which I have now done. Happy editing! Toadspike [Talk] 00:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Joseph Nwobike

Hi @Toadspike, I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to reach out regarding the recent deletion of Joseph Nwobike after the AfD discussion. I completely understand and respect the deletion process, but I believe the decision may not have fully considered some of the improvements and reliable sources that were added before the discussion closed. The article included national coverage from ThisDay, Premium Times, TheCable, Tribune, and Daily Post, among others, all of which provide independent, in-depth reporting on his legal career, advocacy, and court proceedings.

The article had also been previously reviewed at the Wikipedia Teahouse, where editors confirmed that it met notability guidelines. An earlier deletion tag was withdrawn after similar concerns were addressed and the sourcing improved.

Would you please consider either reviewing the deletion or restoring it to my userspace (userfy), so that I can continue improving it for possible resubmission later? I’ll gladly make further updates and ensure everything complies with policy. Thank you for your time, and I truly appreciate the work you do in maintaining article quality.Nnamdi93 (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nnamdi93 I took a look at the page before it was deleted to check if the arguments made by other editors were accurate. Here are the sources you refer to:

• ThisDay – an interview, which is not independent, and a clearly promotional, likely paid article that also consists almost entirely of interview quotes.
• The Premium Times sources are solid.
• I do not see any sources from "TheCable" in the article. This is very concerning.
• The Tribune source is another interview (not independent)
• The Daily Post source is also solid

However, all of the Premium Times and Daily Post sources are about criminal proceedings, with the end result that he was convicted and then the conviction was overturned. If your argument is that he is solely notable as a criminal defendant, then WP:CRIME likely applies, which requires that "those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of a crime" have "had a large role within a well-documented historic event". I do not think that is the case here.

I am willing to restore the draft to your userspace, but please be aware of the above, in addition to the arguments made at AfD. I strongly recommend going through articles for creation. Resubmitting the page without strong evidence of notability will not be looking upon favorably. Toadspike [Talk] 11:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It is now at User:Nnamdi93/Joseph Nwobike. Toadspike [Talk] 11:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the draft and for your detailed feedback. I acknowledge the issues raised and will re-evaluate the sourcing and structure to comply with policy before attempting AfC. I still believe there may be additional independent coverage beyond the court reports, and I will investigate and incorporate that before any resubmission. Thanks again for the restoration. Nnamdi93 (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

They moved the page out of their user space and back into the main space. This is the only edit they made. It only seems to remove/move a couple of sources around. I don't see any improvements from the AFD status. Can you review and determine if this should be returned to user space? CountryANDWestern (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,

I understand the concerns previously raised at AfD. I have already worked on addressing the major issue, the promotional and non-independent sources have been removed or replaced with stronger independent references.

I have no objection to the page being returned to my userspace. In fact, I am willing to move it back myself so I can continue improving it and then properly resubmit it through the AfC process.

Before I do so, I wanted to check if there is any objection from the involved editors or admins. If none, I will move it shortly and continue improvements there. Nnamdi93 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nnamdi93 I have moved it back to userspace. You added a single source , which is obviously promotional and was likely paid for. This would not survive another AfD. Please submit this to AfC as I asked you to and do not move it yourself again. Toadspike [Talk] 10:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Toadspike, I would like to bring to your attention a few more pages that may need extended protection on Wikipedia, similar to the action you took on the page for Chhetri, thank you.

• Ambalavasi
  
• Sambandam
  
• Pillai (surname)
  
• List of surnames from Kerala
  
• Nambiar (caste surname)
  
• Thachudaya Kaimal
  
• Velama
  
• Brahmin dynasty of Sindh
  
• Sat-Sudra
  
• Vokkaliga
  ఆనంద్ ఎస్ బ్రహ్మన్ (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. In future, though, it's best to take these to WP:RfPP. Toadspike [Talk] 12:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

AI content of Scientific machine learning

How can you detect my article containing AI content? For the article, I seriously checked all references, cite them, and rewrite the content? As an admin, you should carefully handle the case. Alphama (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alphama I deleted that page because it was substantially identical to the page deleted by consensus in this deletion discussion. I did not delete it for "containing AI content". Please stop recreating that page. Toadspike [Talk] 12:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Ngotj at WP:ANI

This redirect that you speedied had been getting a fair amount of discussion over at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Massive dump of unhelpful redirects. Not saying that your deletion was wrong, just that you should be aware of it. —Cryptic 20:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Thank you for letting me know. Toadspike [Talk] 20:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Request to restore deleted article “LEVUMA” to my sandbox

Hello Toadspike, I noticed that the article LEVUMA was deleted under G11. I fully understand the concern — and I would like to request if it’s possible to restore it into my user sandbox for neutral rewriting and proper sourcing. The subject is a verifiable fine-jewellery maison covered independently by Vogue Arabia, Hia Magazine, Hello, people, InStyle, CNN Greece, Private Members UAE, and Gheir magazine in arabic.

I’ll make sure the rewritten version follows Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability guidelines.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Jwlryedit (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jwlryedit I have undeleted it to Draft:LEVUMA. You will have to rewrite it fairly quickly to be more neutral as it will likely be tagged and deleted again; I suggest copying it to your device if you wish to keep a copy. Toadspike [Talk] 20:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dafootballguy2 (01:08, 27 October 2025)

Hey, what happened with @lunizunie? He was not helping anyone by reverting my edits. I was very frustrated by how quickly he undoes all of my edits that I spend time working on. I understand that there are some issues with having multiple accounts but I only wanted to use @dafootballguy as a practice account which I can use to do quick minor edits when neccessary. Dafootballguy2 (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy2 It would be best if you disclosed the alternate accounts by listing them on both userpages. If you want to use that account only for specific edits, you can also add that information to the userpage. Don't worry about LuniZunie, if you cite sources for your edits you won't be reverted. If you can't figure out how to use the templates, you can just put a URL between <ref> tags in the source editor, like this: <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page</ref>. It is not ideal, but at least you should be able to cite a source. Toadspike [Talk] 01:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I usually use a newer device that allows copy and paste, the device I'm using today doesn't have that feature. I would love to add citations but I can't do that now. Dafootballguy2 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It might sound blunt but if you can't add citations don't make edit that need them. Ultraodan (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Revdels

Thank you for your attention to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srbernadette, which I see that you're closing. But I'd been hoping to start a little quasi-discussion there about revdels. For just one of the affected articles, Emmanuel College, Warrnambool, I've just now revdel'd the changes made by the rogue IP. Shall I do ditto for the other articles? (Me wearing admin hat: "Yes: the puppetmaster shouldn't be able to edit simply by picking a new IP." Me not wearing it: "No: there are only so many hours in my life, and this puppetmaster has already wasted enough of them.") Am I perhaps overlooking some handy tool for the multi-article revdel job? -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary Is removing sock edits a valid rationale for revdel? Forgive me if this is common practice that I didn't know about. It doesn't seem to be explicitly in the revdel policy, but maybe some of the really broad categories (RD3, RD5) could be construed as allowing this? Toadspike [Talk] 11:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You are missing a handy tool, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js, very useful for MAB attacks. But I'm not sure why the revdel, either? -- asilvering (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:Blocking policy says: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made in violation of a block or ban . . . but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. (Incidentally, I've lifted that nugget from this talk page.) [I'm now heading for bed.] -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Revert, yes. But revdel? -- asilvering (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Good point, Asilvering. But the page I've cited continues: Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits made to it by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. That's the spirit -- but a mere addition to an existing article is of course not a page. Meanwhile, as a "[criterion] for redaction", WP:Revision deletion allows "RD5. Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete". This sounds rather promising, but the WP:Deletion policy to which it links is all about entire articles, files, etc. So there doesn't seem to be a policy to back deletion of revisions made by block-evading IP-puppets; but you or I or anyone is free simply to revert these revisions -- here meaning freedom to delete such additions (via the normal editing process) . Whereupon these deletions may of course be reversed (perhaps by a fresh, block-evading IP-puppet whose master is no longer quite so incompetent at hiding the puppetry). So now I suppose I must undo the revdels I perpetrated earlier of Draft:Claudia Joseph and Emmanuel College, Warrnambool (but nowhere else); and, if I think doing so would be worth my time, delete (via the normal editing process) what I've just resurrected. And the blocked puppetmaster may pour themselves a self-congratulatory drink. -- Hoary (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: I've now deleted (not revdel'd) the rogue additions to both Whitbread and Church of Our Lady of Lourdes Klang. (I can't be bothered with the block-evading changes to other articles.) I un-revdel'd a set of states of Emmanuel College, Warrnambool, but left these deleted. ¶ And there is Draft:Claudia Joseph. Earlier, I left only two versions of that un-revdel'd: the first and the second. The second is by 49.184.232.220. The first, made on 2 April 2025, is by Keith D and has the cryptic summary "Create for IP". It seems to have been a response to a plea by "T" for the creation. (See also Michael Reed (historian).) Now, (i) perhaps I'm just imagining the resemblances among "T", Srbernadette and 49.184.232.220, (ii) Srbernadette wasn't blocked till months after that first edit (so no block evasion was involved here), and (iii) Keith D is an editor of long and excellent standing; and in short I've un-revdel'd this draft too; again, leaving the rogue revisions deleted (in the everyday sense). You (Toadspike) or Asilvering; or Keith D; or the draft contributors Anachronist, Victor Schmidt or Jimfbleak ("or" ≠ XOR) may wish to nudge the draft in one direction or another, to comment on my rogue revdelling, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It's ironic that on Draft talk:Claudia Joseph you expressed regret that you, me, and Victor wasted time on this draft, and here you are doing some more work. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Work that I've never seen anyone else do before - it's never even occurred to me to revdel or seldel something simply for blockevade. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

History merge redirect targets

Hey, cool that you're working on the history merge list. However, please make sure that you're history-merging to the right targets, as some of the pages listed there are redirects. For example, I just fixed one where you history-merged the revisions to Suiyuan CampaignSuiyuan Campaign (which is a redirect) rather than Suiyuan campaign (where the article is now). To avoid this sort of thing, I like to open jup the target listed in the table and check that it's a redirect first. Graham87 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ack! Thank you for looking out for me, Graham, and sorry about that. Toadspike [Talk] 13:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Mentee

Hi! I got a notice you claimed one of my newbies, which I am actually grateful for since my RL is kicking my butt and taking all my time right now. However, I think you were supposed to notify me, and since I didn't hear from you, I am checking to be sure everything is copacetic and that you have in fact taken them on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't know I had to notify you, sorry about that. I assume you're talking about Dafootballguy, which is an alt account of Dafootballguy2, one of my mentees. You can search his name on this talk page for some context; it seems he intends Dafootballguy2 to be his main account, but I figured it made sense to claim the other account as well. I hope that's alright with you! Toadspike [Talk] 17:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It is perfectly okay, in fact, it helps me out, and I'm grateful! I just wanted to check because I have not been very attentive... :-( So, thanx -- and cool! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not too late

Congratulations on your recent adminship. We have long memories at WikiProject Unreferenced articles. And we remember that you expressed interest in the November backlog drive. Sign up today. (Also we could use more admins and experienced editors in the mix.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I've signed up now. Toadspike [Talk] 08:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Didn't remind me of that one

You no longer need to "not participate" now they are blocked elsewhere. Come on in, the water's lovely! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hehe, I can always rely on the CUs to cover my behind... Toadspike [Talk] 16:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Or a loincloth! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C./to do is very clearly a WP:!G6 case, and pages of that type are sometimes retained at WP:MFD, as such please undelete the page and list it there for deletion, thanks. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you'd tried to contest the deletion beforehand. It's pretty close to a WP:G7 case, if not outright eligible, but as CSDs should be more or less uncontroversial I'll let @Govvy take this to MfD. Toadspike [Talk] 10:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike: That qualifies for speedy, why is an IP asking me to send one of my own creations to MfD, if I want to speedy a page I created years ago I can, it doesn't require MfD at all. And besides that IP is clearly a duck. So I strongly suggest you re-delete the page and stop messing everyone's time around. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If you think they're socking, please take this to SPI. You are welcome to re-tag as G7 and another admin will take a look, but I don't think this is as straightforward as you think. I do not appreciate being accused of "messing everyone's time around". Toadspike [Talk] 12:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Not you messing around, the IP I was accusing! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Govvy, WP:ASPERSIONS are a form of prohibited personal attack. If you have evidence of wrong-doing you are welcome to present it at the appropriate noticeboard. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. There are simply too many non-trivial edits by others for me to be comfortable with G7. It has now been properly listed at MFD, so all procedural matters are now attended to. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't care what you think, please don't ping me duck. Govvy (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Govvy if you do not wish to be pinged then stop replying. Juvenile name-calling is not collegial, and will persuade neither me nor anyone else. If continued the most likely result is escalation and subsequent sanctioning. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:KALARATNA DR.K.V.SATYANARAYANA/sandbox

Hi Toadspike, could I ask why you deleted this under G11 rather than G12? — Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi I threw it into Google Translate and the text didn't seem similar at all. On the other hand, it was still obviously promotional, so I went with the criterion that I could verify applied. I was a bit confused by the G12 tag in hindsight, but since the end result was the same I didn't think too hard about it. Toadspike [Talk] 15:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you mind emailing me a copy of the deleted sandbox? It could be that I gave a link to the wrong page. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. Toadspike [Talk] 15:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Weird, not sure what happened there. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Jwlryedit (07:08, 30 October 2025)

Hi Toadspike, I hope you’re well. I’d appreciate your advice regarding an ongoing deletion discussion for the LEVUMA page I created.

I disclosed a COI transparently and ensured the article was rewritten multiple times for neutrality and factual tone. It now cites several reliable, independent sources (Vogue Arabia – Condé Nast, Hia Magazine – SRMG, People, CNN, InStyle, etc.), but one editor is questioning them as “promotional.”

I would be grateful if you could take a quick look at the discussion and share your view on whether the sources and neutrality meet Wikipedia’s GNG and RS standards.

Article was also significantly reduced and rewritten to include only verifiable facts and maintain a fully neutral, encyclopedic tone in accordance with WP:NPOV.

Thank you so much for your guidance — I really want to make sure I’m following the proper approach. --Jwlryedit (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Need help with a user's contributions

Hello @Toadspike:, there is a user (Deertyyyh) changing all instances of "Taiwan" to "Republic of China"; I am wondering, is that fine? I don't really like getting into the politics. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 16:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@LuniZunie In this case it's fine – these are political officeholders and that is the official title of the office. I'll try to explain to them what makes a good short description, though. Toadspike [Talk] 16:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike Okay. Thank you so much! – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 16:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)