Jump to content

User talk:HouseBlaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page!
Note: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. Unless you request otherwise, I will ping you so that you know I have responded. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there.

Thank you!

Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories

[edit]

Hello, HouseBlaster,

We have a big problem. This category should be empty, and it normally is, but now it has over 6,000 categories because, it looks like, bad instructions going to User:JJMC89 bot III when it was instructed to rename categories. Soft redirected categories should be empty and the categories in Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories are redirect categories created by JJMC89 bot III but they are full of articles and other categories. It looks like this problem started in mid-December with some renaming requests and JJMC89 bot III created these redirect categories but didn't move the contents of the categories from the category redirect to the actual category they were supposed to be in (or it moved the pages into the redirect categories, I'm not sure).

I noticed this problem last week but it will take a huge effort to figure out how to fix this if it needs to be done manually so I put off inquiring about it until now when I came across another redirect category that wasn't empty. You and User:Fayenatic london are the admins who have the deepest understanding of how categories function so maybe you can come up with a solution that won't take hundreds of editor hours to correct. I'm willing to pitch in to help but I think we first have to understand how this problem happened before we get down to moving thousands of pages to the right categories. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should also see if this huge mistake is the result of newer editors handling CFD closures. They are tricky! Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ has been doing a lot of work on templates and modules to update these. See e.g. Module_talk:WikiProject_banner#Changes_for_FM-class, and Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working/Archive 37. I've been assuming that the editors listing all these categories for renaming are also working on template updates to implement the outcomes. I did some housekeeping on backlinks to FM-class articles categories, but the template work is beyond me. (So I left that project to help with moving Timor-Leste pages, until that was taken to Move Review.) – Fayenatic London 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz! It was a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#Category:Category-Class articles. As usual, this is because of template-generated categories. The jobqueue is still catching up; there were 13,000 of them (you can see the full list at WP:CFDWLM) a week ago so we are making good progress. It should be sorted (fingers crossed!) in less than a week. No manual action is needed; there might be some templates which need updating, but I've been taking care of that as they come up. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit impatient so started running null edits on all of the pages in those categories (as well as the categories themselves when their pages were done), getting through a couple thousand in the last 30 hours or so by starting with the low hanging fruit (the ones with the fewest pages), and working up to the big ones (now with ~130+ pages). I set my minion to ignore any categories with the strings highway, byway, auto trail, road, roads, route, russia because it seemed like the templates that put them there still needed updating.
That's left me with this list of categories where the null edits had no effect:
That list was a bit bigger but I've gone through and manually fixed (I hope) a few others. Would you mind having a quick look through some of my recent edits to check that I was on the right track? I'm fairly sure things like this were correct but I've only really worked on the templates of one or two Wikiprojects so I'd like to be sure; hope I've been more of a help than a hindrance! Aluxosm (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for helping out! Edits like this (removing the category from a template's documentation) is absolutely correct.You shouldn't need to make edits like Special:Diff/1268746943; {{category class}} redirects to {{Articles by Quality}}. But the null edits are definitely speeding this process along, and I will do my best to investigate the list you gave me :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 00:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! I've left it running with the goal of helping it out to the 800 mark where it'll a bit easier to scan through that category manually. Thanks for browsing my changes, good to know I haven't been making a mess haha. No worries about about the superfluous edits where I removed the redirects, I don't plan on "fixing" them anywhere else, WP:RNLI has just been a bit of a pet project and I wanted to make those categories as up to date as possible in case I copied the wixitext elsewhere. Cheers, Aluxosm (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand done (ish), under 800 categories now, huzzah! Just the monster ones now. I've uploaded the code to one of my subpages for reference, but for anyone who finds this please take note of the warning at the top. I'm keeping an eye on Template talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Redlinked class-rating categories and will run it again when the changes are live. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Aluxosm (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aluxosm, thank you so much for your help. May I modify the list inline to indicate which items I have taken care of?
MSGJ, it looks like there is some issue with projects opted-out of the standard quality assessment; see e.g. Talk:C2Cl2F4 which is in Category:Disambig-Class List articles. It appears that when a non-PIQA parameter is provided, something gets lost in translation. Is this something you could take a look at? Apologies for handing you yet another thing to do; this looks like it is the home stretch. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 01:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes I see the issue. The code uses its own checked to detect whether the page is an article or not. In this case C2Cl2F4 is not actually a disambiguation page so it gets tagged as an "article". This will need some thought. It may be that we have to use the names of the classes (i.e. Disambig) to determine this instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: Thinking about it now, I don't think that C2Cl2F4 is actually in scope of WP:WPLIST (unless all disambiguation pages are in scope for WP:WPLIST)? I've inquired at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Is C2Cl2F4 in scope for WPLIST?. (Obviously, this doesn't negate the need for a solution in the long-term, but the immediate problem appears solvable.)
Throwing out a super crazy idea: Would making use of Module:Resolve category redirect be a solution? I suppose this could be a way to implement all of article->page category moves. It is inelegant, and an immediate (non-technical) problem I can see is that its maintainer is non-admin Tom.Reding, and the module might need(?) to be fully protected to be used on this scale. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 07:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There also (?) seems to be a problem on pages where {{WikiProject banner shell}} isn't populated with a WikiProject, such as with Talk:@blueorigin, where Category:NA-Class articles is applied instead of Category:NA-Class pages. Is this another one for you MSGJ? Aluxosm (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a change to the sandbox code that I believe should fix this. Aluxosm (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied the change. Weirdly it's taking two null edits of a page to make it move over. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timrollpickering: Good stuff, cheers! I've just started up the script I mentioned above and it seems to be doing the trick, should be clear in a few hours. Aluxosm (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wikieditorken (03:52, 14 January 2025)

[edit]

Dear Mentor, I would like to start my first article, however, it has been rejected 3 times. I tried to use reliable sources as CNN, The Japan Times, GQ, Vogue. I would like to make improvement. Thanks a lot for your help. Ken --Wikieditorken (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditorken: hi, do you have three reliable sources which are independent of ChoyChoy which describe the restaurant in detail? (Three paragraphs would be ideal ideal.) Thanks, HouseBlaster (he/they) 06:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I do have 3 independent articles.
Therefore, it is not recommended to add sources as CNN titled with "Ten Best" etc...
Also, is Vogue or GQ a reliable sources which I can use.
Really appreciate your help. Wikieditorken (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditorken: I would avoid using "Top ten"-style sources. They tend to be less reliable and more sensationalist. Vogue is a reliable source, as GQ. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 06:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate your help. I will deleted the references fron CNN and SCMP as it stated ChoyChoy as Top 10 and Top 5. Thanks again. Wikieditorken (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor,
Really need your help.
I submitted the Draft:Choy Choy Kitchen carefully and still does not work.
I have tried my best and I really don't know what mistake did I make.
Really appreciate your help.
Best,
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking you to show me the three sources, Wikieditorken, and I would be able to help you. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 08:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor,
The following are the links. There are also some links of smaller media and offline media I have not given you.
Really appreciate your help.
Ken
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2023/06/03/food/grace-choy-chef-nakameguro/
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/food-drink/article/3261292/grace-choy-enjoyed-cooking-so-much-she-opened-restaurant-wrote-award-winning-cookbook-then-left-hong
https://www.gqjapan.jp/life/food-restaurant/201900610/grace-choy
https://www.vogue.co.jp/lifestyle/gourmet/2019-07-16/inukai
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/48-hours/article/1845536/five-best-hong-kong-hidden-private-kitchens
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/hong-kong-best-private-kitchens/index.html
https://lot.dhl.com/this-hong-kong-born-chef-shows-there-are-no-borders-in-the-world-of-good-food/ Wikieditorken (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Yes Some discussions express doubt of the reliability of the Japan Times Yes Appears to have details paragraphs of the kitchen Yes
No Written by Choy herself Yes Yes Yes
No This is using a machine translation, so it might be off. There is some writing from the "I" perspective, meaning that Choy had a hand in writing it. That means it is not independent. Yes GQ is a generally reliable source Yes Yes
Yes Yes Vogue is a generally reliable source Yes Yes
Yes There are some quotes of Choy, but there is enough not quoting Choy that this can be considered independent Not sure if this is reliable No When we take out the non-independent parts (i.e. the quotes), we are left with a couple of sentences, which is not a significant amount of coverage Yes
Yes Yes No Yes
Yes Not sure if this is reliable or not No Not enough coverage of ChoyChoy the restaurant Yes

It appears we have one source which contributes to the notability guideline for businesses. Do you have any other sources like the Vogue source? We need two or three total, so one or two additional sources which tick all four boxes above would be enough to get this article accepted. If additional sources do not exist, there is unfortunately no amount of editing you can do to get this accepted. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mentor,
Really thanks a lot for your help.
After reading your detail explanation, I got more understanding of the reference.
I feel I have more confidence in writing.
Really appreciate your help.
Best,
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor,
I have resubmitted.
If I were rejected again, could I add reference of printed magazine which can not be found on-line?
Thanks again,
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditorken: You can add references to offline sources if they are reliable. However, the only thing that matters to get your draft accepted is if there are multiple sources which meet all four criteria I showed you above (a good amount of detail, independent of Choy, a secondary source, and reliable). HouseBlaster (he/they) 01:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mentor @HouseBlaster,
I found that the title of my article is changed from "ChoyChoy" to Choy Choy Kitchen".
Would like to know if I could change it back?
Thanks again,
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it back, Wikieditorken. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 01:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor @HouseBlaster,
Really thanks a lot for your help.
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mentor @HouseBlaster,
I submitted my article with 3 references I thought it met the 4 requirements.
However, it was rejected and STOP my submission.
Please help, Really appreciate your help.
Ken
Besides Vogue's references, 2 more references are :
https://www.elle.com/jp/gourmet/gourmet-restaurants/a28328943/choychoykitchen/
https://www.travelerluxe.com/article/desc/170000117 Wikieditorken (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditorken: I am unsure if those are reliable sources; we might consider asking at the reliable sources noticeboard.
@SafariScribe: pinging you for your thoughts as the most recent reviewer. What sources were considered? I think the Vogue source is SIRS, and potentially the Japan Times source. Not sure about the two Ken presented above; I would appreciate your thoughts on if an RSN thread would be appropriate. Thanks, HouseBlaster (he/they) 04:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster, I have commented on the draft. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Thanks. I merged them together. Wikieditorken (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content threshold for subtopic articles

[edit]

It appears Wikipedia has assigned you to be bothered by me. I'm working on a draft article titled 'Draft:Cheating in online chess', a subtopic of the already existing 'Cheating in chess'. Cheating in online chess in particular is both notable and complex, and many aspects of it would qualify for article level coverage under Wikipedia's requirements, let alone section level. However, I don't wanna make a 100KB article in draft space all by myself. Should I expect to need more information and citations than would be expected of other articles because I'm making one on a subtopic for it to get past reviewers and controversy, and to what extent if so? Do I only need to establish the breadth of the topic with some summaries, or do I have to flesh all of it out? I've read WP:Splitting and I know the regular requirements. Also, are there any means of finding sources you use other than the ones given by Wikipedia? Thanks, and よろしくお願いします。 Kaotao (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaotao! I would start adding a "cheating in online chess" to Cheating in chess and going from there. It is probably notable for Wikipedia, but sometimes we merge notable articles because it is best covered in a different part of the encyclopedia. If the section gets big enough, editors will notice and suggest a split. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, is there any way to create a citation consisting of a named reference with additional text at the end? Like {{r|name|a=}} if the 'a' parameter only applied to the specific citation it was being defined on. Kaotao (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaotao: I am unaware of a way to do that with the <ref>...</ref> markup or with {{r}}. You can manually copy/paste the reference information into a fresh citation, even though it is not as cool. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aww... what about replicating {ref}'s custom citation look, but with named references/cite-notes instead of endnotes? I think it'd look prettier to do {{ref|x|§3.0}} than it'd be to do {{r|x|at=§3.0}}. Kaotao (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be considered a change in WP:CITEVAR, which is a no-no. As much as I dislike {{rp}}, it is probably your only option until m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing is deployed. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This site sucks, but at least you don't. Thanks! Kaotao (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

Dear Mentor,

I am editing Grace Choy.

I got the message"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (January 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)"

As advised by other Wiki writer, I should disclose the COI even I am a follower of the subject's social media.

I am a follower of ChoyChoy facebook page and I have disclosed ine my user's page.

I try to write as objective as possible. How could I improve more.

Thanks a lot,

Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditorken: You should respond at Talk:Grace Choy#Apparent conflict of interest. Are you Kenneth, the husband of Grace Choy? HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor,
Understood.
Have replied and disclose on my user page.
Thanks a lot for your advise.
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

Dear Mentor,

The Article "Grace Choy" is Grace Choy paid a Editor to set up a Wiki for her.

As the editor does not know Chinese and there are many reference.

Also, there were many wrong information.

The editor who edited "Grace Choy" page asked Grace Choy to give him maintainence fee. It is very expensive (~USD2,000/year) and she could not afford it.

Therefore, I tried my very best to correct the article, however, there are some other editors who are giving me difficulty on my editing.

I just want to write the facts and do nothing about promotion.

Would like to have your advice.

Best,

Ken

Wikieditorken (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditorken: I am traveling until Monday. Would you please ask this at the teahouse? Thanks, HouseBlaster (he/they) 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Mentor. Have a great trip. Wikieditorken (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Newman families

[edit]

I assume that in your closing you still want us to split the Newmans into two categories, with the Paul Newman-adjacent ones in the new Category:Newman–Woodward family and the Randy Newman-adjacent ones in a recreated Category:Newman family (show business). Correct? Or something else? Mike Selinker (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; it appears I forgot to make a listing at WP:CFDWM. My sincere apologies for the confusion. I am on mobile until Monday, so I can't create one now, but you are free to work on the split in the meantime. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to do it. Thanks! Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to clarify; thank you for doing the legwork! HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Split done! Mike Selinker (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fast!

[edit]

I made the removed-content-warning template, but I'm not finished yet. I'm scared others might revert it. Gnu779 (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content removal warning template already exists: {{uw-blank1}} (if it's the first warning), {{uw-blank2}} (for the second), etc. After the fourth warning, then we block. Editors are allowed to revert your warnings, but this is taken as a sign that the person has read and is aware of the content of the message. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 18:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I put the {{db-G7 | rationale = useless, templates already exist. {{smiley}} }} template. Gnu779 (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-04

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

  • Administrators can mass-delete multiple pages created by a user or IP address using Extension:Nuke. It previously only allowed deletion of pages created in the last 30 days. It can now delete pages from the last 90 days, provided it is targeting a specific user or IP address. [1]
  • On wikis that use the Patrolled edits feature, when the rollback feature is used to revert an unpatrolled page revision, that revision will now be marked as "manually patrolled" instead of "autopatrolled", which is more accurate. Some editors that use filters on Recent Changes may need to update their filter settings. [2]
  • Recurrent item View all 31 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the Visual Editor's "Insert link" feature did not always suggest existing pages properly when an editor started typing, which has now been fixed.

Updates for technical contributors

  • The Structured Discussion extension (also known as Flow) is being progressively removed from the wikis. This extension is unmaintained and causes issues. It will be replaced by DiscussionTools, which is used on any regular talk page. The last group of wikis (Catalan Wikiquote, Wikimedia Finland, Goan Konkani Wikipedia, Kabyle Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikibooks, Wikimedia Sweden) will soon be contacted. If you have questions about this process, please ping Trizek (WMF) at your wiki. [3]
  • The latest quarterly Technical Community Newsletter is now available. This edition includes: updates about services from the Data Platform Engineering teams, information about Codex from the Design System team, and more.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 01:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Iceland article categorisation into European article categorisation

[edit]

I have noted that you have just merged two disasters in Iceland categories into Europe. Perhaps you have unilaterally decided that Iceland is geologically part of Europe which is not the case. Its on two tectonic plates which only one is shared with Europe and is in the middle of the Atlantic rather than to its European east. It is politically and historically associated with Europe (although had joint American/British occupation for a period) but presently Iceland is less politically European than Greenland although some want the later to become American and Iceland bless it is considering having a referendum to join the EU. Do you categorise natural disasters in Tahiti or New Caledonia as in Europe just because they are more politically part of EU than Iceland. I hope not. There is also evidence that you disregarded the well justified in my view discussion comments in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 10 that suggested best action was to group in Category:2020s disasters in Iceland. Please reconsider an action that seems to me to have created categorisation inconsistencies. ChaseKiwi (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not unilaterally decide that Iceland is part of Europe, but that discussion established consensus to merge the two Iceland disaster categories into Europe categories. One person did in fact suggest merging to Category:2020s disasters in Iceland, but that did not attract anyone else's support. Given consensus was very clear in this instance, I will not be unilaterally undoing my action. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 04:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you have acted appropriately to ensure that the issue is now minor from both of our likely perspectives and any who feel strongly on the issue of over-categorisation given the political debate that I assume you were unaware of, can correct. If you were unaware of the recent political debate within Iceland at the time you proposed the categorisation to Europe which others aware of the proposal did not challenge as potentially PoV you should ideally declare it in a reply to this comment for the record. At this time many in Iceland appear to want closer ties to Europe, but Icelandic nationalism remains strong. ChaseKiwi (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My job as a closer in the discussion is not judge consensus, nothing more and nothing less. My personal knowledge of Iceland's affiliation with Europe is irrelevant. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 06:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tf2fanlol (15:47, 22 January 2025)

[edit]

Hello Sir! I have a tiny question, what does it mean if something is red text? --Tf2fanlol (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tf2fanlol! First, you don't need to call me "Sir". We are all equals here :)

Red text is a link to a page which does not exist yet. See Wikipedia:Red link for more information. Happy editing, HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove information from unreliable sources

[edit]

Dear Mentor,

I am editing Grace Choy. As there are many information from East Week[4] which is a unreliable source as stated in Wikipedia as "「狗仔隊」偷拍，及再加類似 「故事創作」"(Translate by Google as "Paparazzi" sneak shots, and adding similar "story creation"").

I would like to delete related wrong information, however, it was reverted when I had deleted it.

Please teach me how to do to delete the wrong information.

Thanks a lot,

Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditorken, the first thing you need to do is explain how you know that Choy was asked to pay someone $2,000/year to maintain the article about her. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 07:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Choy told me this and therefore I am here and help Choy to correct her Wikipedia. Choy did not know everyone can edit on Wikipedia. Thanks, Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditorken: Okay, so you do have a conflict of interest. You need to only use the edit request process to make changes to Choy's biography. Please follow these instructions to do so. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 17:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor,
Thanks a lot.
But I have disclosed I am fan of Choy's Facebook and I have Choy's Whatsapp.
Would like to know why a paid editor could edit whereas I am non-paid and I cannot edit.
Is that I can edit if I got paid.
Thanks again,
Grace Wikieditorken (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditorken: Paid editors are not permitted to edit directly. The person who attempted to charge Choy $2,000/year was breaking our rules (as well as scamming her). Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 00:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Mentor.
Understood.
The paid editor is now the editor trying to revert everyting as he did not got paid for maintenance.
Thanks again,
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the editors reverting you on Grace Choy appear to be the original creator of the article, who has not been active since August 2024. Sarsenet (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarsenet Thanks a lot. Wikieditorken (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor,
I have done edit request process.
As it is the first time I do it, please advise that I have done correctly.
Thanks a lot,
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditorken, it is not clear what changes you want to make. You should do it in the "change X to Y" format. So, for instance, please remove the sentence 'Example sentence.' or please change 'Example sentence' to 'Another example sentence'. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor,
I have rework the request. Please help to see if I have made improvement.
Thanks a lot,
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditorken, those edit requests are now formatted correctly. You need to follow the instructions given in the decline rationales: provide reliable sources (Wikipedia is not a reliable source) that support your proposed changes. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 18:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor,
Very happy that I got improvement.
Would like to have your advice again.
As East Week is a media famous for "Story Creating" as stated on Wikipedia. It is not very possible to have other more reliable media to respond the story-created article as Choy is not that famous.
What should I do?
thanks again,
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditorken, I am not sure I understand your question. What is the problem? Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 02:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mentor,
As you advised "provide reliable sources (Wikipedia is not a reliable source) that support your proposed changes."
Is that I need to use other more reliable media source to state the credibility of East Week is not reliable? Or need other more reliable media to prove the information of the article was wrong.
Thanks again,
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditorken, I see what you are trying to do. I misunderstood you. Those instructions were for requesting the addition of information, not the removal of information. The best way to go about this would be to offer a correction to the incorrect information, and make sure that is cited to a reliable source. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Mentor.
As East Week is a "Story Creating" media . It is not very possible to have other media to correspond to the story-created article.
How should I do?
Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditorken, all citations to East Week in the article are accompanied by another citation to a different source; are you claiming that the other citations are unreliable, too? HouseBlaster (he/they) 05:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mentor,
Actually, the 2 articles are talking different things. I think the original editor do not understand Chinese. Thanks, Ken Wikieditorken (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditorken, in that case, what specific information do you want to remove? I'm trying to understand what you need. I will note that the amount of patience I have for editors with a conflict of interest is quite low; we generally prefer editors with conflicts of interest find other topics to edit. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 05:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood that your patience of editor with conflict of interest, Mentor. Thanks. Wikieditorken (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page

[edit]

Hi!

Thank you for your review of the sources I shared with you in December. Now, I am ready to return to the task of creating a page for the Center for Art Law and would like to present the following news sources for your to consider:

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2025/01/07/behind-ukraine-russia-battle-over-19th-century-seascape-painter

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/richard-prince-instagram-ripoff-artist-has-own-art-appropriated-1.3102200

https://hyperallergic.com/536499/center-for-art-law-in-new-york-launches-an-immigration-clinic-for-visual-artists/

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/06/new-yorks-art-law-center-looks-to-empower-creators/

https://secretsofartmagazine.com/2020/01/helping-artists-to-navigate-legal-waters/

As you may see in the archives, there are many other references to the Center's resources, alums, events, etc, etc. It is a nonprofit organization with a wide reach and it should be possible to have a page for it on Wikipedia.

Could you please let me know if there is any other information I can provide to you at this time to get started on drafting the page. Many thanks. StarsinAirI (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StarsinAirI! I will try to analyze these sources later tonight when I have a moment; thank you for your patience in the meantime :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To qualify for an article, we need multiple sources which meet the ORGCRIT (short for "organization criteria", meaning the criteria for organizations to have articles on Wikipedia). These criteria deal exclusively with having sources which talk directly about the Center. Brief "name drops" of the center, which mention that the Center said or did something, are completely irrelevant. In particular, the fact that there are many other references to the Center's resources, alums, events, etc, etc is irrelevant. Here is my evaluation of the provided sources:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Yes Not sure if this is reliable No Just a trivial mention of the Center for Art law. We need paragraphs worth of information about the Center as an organization Yes
Yes Yes No Another trivial mention. We need sources (plural) which contain paragraphs worth of information about the Center as an organization Yes
Yes Appears independent Yes Appears to be reliable. – This is borderline. More than a trivial mention, but much of the article is talking about immigration law rather than the Center's activities, or else is quoting from a representative (those parts fail the independence criterion, though the rest of the article appears fine. Yes —
Yes This is the source you showed me in December which passed the criteria. Yes Yes Full-length article on the Center Yes
No Secrets of Art magazine is in the business of offering paid coverage, which unfortunately casts the independence of this source into doubt. Not sure if this is reliable Yes Yes

As you can see, we have 1+1⁄2 qualifying sources; we need 2–3. If you have any additional sources like the Above the law source, then it qualifies for an article. If they do not exist, the Center is not eligible for a Wikipedia article and there is unfortunately no amount of lipstick you can put on the pig to make it qualify. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 04:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does an interview with Mutual Art Magazine count as an additional source? Let me see what other references I can provide. Certainly do not want to put lipstick on a pig. StarsinAirI (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StarsinAirI: Interviews are not independent of the subject, and thus do not count. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

[edit]
Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Please help translate to other languages..

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Empty categories

[edit]

Hello, HouseBlaster,

We have a lot (hundreds?) of empty categories tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion (see Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion) or ones that will be tagged (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories) that might be due to template problems.

Is there anyone who is supposed to check these CFD closures to see if the bot's page moves are sufficient? Does it fall to the nominator to be aware of consequences of their nomination or is it the closer's responsibility? I really don't recall seeing these issues in past years but it seems to be happening more regularly since last fall. I think it would just be kind of a waste to have all of these categories deleted and then have to recreate them a few weeks later when this gets sorted out.

By the way, I'm not posting this to you because I expect you to fix this. It could fall to a template editor. But right now, you are the admin who works most often with categories and also closes a lot of CFD discussions so I thought if anyone would know what's going on, it would be you. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! There is a process for checking the bot moved all the categories. It falls to the admin removing the entry from WP:CFDW, which should happen within the week. If you look at its page history, when we say "removed some after checking", we check that the backlinks (including uses of the category) are resolved properly. In this instance, I will try running WP:JWB to properly populate the categories. Stand by... HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Most of them should have been taken care of. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from VeryEpikk (20:13, 24 January 2025)

[edit]

Hello! I have a question regarding becoming a extended confirmed user. Do minor edits count towards the 500 edits needed to become extended confirmed? --VeryEpikk (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VeryEpikk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Edits marked as minor count towards the 500 edits, but a general note that it is against the rules to make a bunch of small changes to "game" the requirement. Just edit as you normally do, and extended confirmed will come naturally. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

[edit]
Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Please help translate to other languages..

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages extended user

[edit]

Do edits in other languages count towards the extended user confirmation and when I become an extended user do I have that privilige in oher languages as well? VeryEpikk (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VeryEpikk: it is English Wikipedia only: other language edits do not count towards the 500 edits for extended confirmed, and you do not get extended confirmed on other language Wikipedias (most other language Wikipedias don't even have the extended confirmed permission). Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 23:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close of Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants

[edit]

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 16#Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, I think it would have been beneficial for this to be relisted to get some more eyes on this, especially seeing as the oppose !votes were active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Drag Race so there might be some WP:BIAS there. Also, as a "no consensus" close, wouldn't that imply that there was no consensus to create these recently created categories in the first place? --woodensuperman 09:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Woodensuperman! I'll start with your second comment, because that it easiest: from first principles that might be a good argument, but WP:NOCON is clear that deletion requires affirmative consensus (or WP:SILENCE, but that is obviously not applicable here). Articles taken to AFD during NPP are not deleted after a no consensus closure. Turning to the first part: I can and will relist the discussion, though members of a WikiProjects are not given less weight when assessing consensus. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 17:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for relisting! I'd have thought that in the event of no consensus we should revert to the status quo, i.e. with the categories not having been created in the first place by the wikiproject as they were created so recently. Anyway, let's hope we see consensus with some fresh eyes. --woodensuperman 08:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 1

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue in December 2024. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

Ideas for Wikipedia @ 25 needed
  • Conversation with the trustees: Speak directly with the Wikimedia Foundation trustees about their work at the next Conversation with the Trustees on January 30 at 14:30 UTC.
  • Community Resilience and Sustainability: Join the conversation hour which will discuss Trust and Safety, the Universal Code of Conduct, Committee Support, and Human Rights on January 30 at 20:00 UTC.
  • Annual Planning: Shaping Wikimedia Foundation’s 2025–2026 annual goals: Key questions for the Wikimedia movement.
  • Central Asia Wikicon: Submission for sessions is open until March 22.
  • Wikipedia is turning 25: We just celebrated Wikipedia's 24th birthday, and are already planning for next year's big milestone! Share your thoughts on what you have in mind to mark the silver jubilee of Wikipedia.


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org


Annual Goals Progress on Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

  • Global Advocacy: Wikimedians will promote cultural preservation and knowledge diversity at RightsCon 2025. Tune in!
  • Mis- and disinformation: Training on misinformation and disinformation prevention for communities in Indonesia: A recap.
  • December's Global Advocacy Newsletter: For quarterly insights into the internet governance and policy work the Foundation is doing, subscribe to our Global Advocacy Newsletter. You can see our latest December edition here.


Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · other newsletters:

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Edward moore1234 (18:08, 27 January 2025)

[edit]

I know you are a bot --Edward moore1234 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward moore1234, I am not a bot! I am a real, living person :)

Let me know if you have any questions, and I would be more than happy to answer them. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 18:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are a bot or a 40 year old person with good grammar Edward moore1234 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Edward moore1234 (19:10, 27 January 2025)

[edit]

what's 9 + 10 --Edward moore1234 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward moore1234: The correct answer is 19; the meme answer is 21. But I'm here to answer questions about Wikipedia, not to prove I am not a robot. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but I don't need help Edward moore1234 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-05

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Weekly highlight

  • Patrollers and admins - what information or context about edits or users could help you to make patroller or admin decisions more quickly or easily? The Wikimedia Foundation wants to hear from you to help guide its upcoming annual plan. Please consider sharing your thoughts on this and 13 other questions to shape the technical direction for next year.

Updates for editors

  • iOS Wikipedia App users worldwide can now access a personalized Year in Review feature, which provides insights based on their reading and editing history on Wikipedia. This project is part of a broader effort to help welcome new readers as they discover and interact with encyclopedic content.
  • Wishlist item Edit patrollers now have a new feature available that can highlight potentially problematic new pages. When a page is created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted, a tag ('Recreated') will now be added, which users can filter for in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. [5]
  • Later this week, there will be a new warning for editors if they attempt to create a redirect that links to another redirect (a double redirect). The feature will recommend that they link directly to the second redirect's target page. Thanks to the user SomeRandomDeveloper for this improvement. [6]
  • Advanced item Wikimedia wikis allow WebAuthn-based second factor checks (such as hardware tokens) during login, but the feature is fragile and has very few users. The MediaWiki Platform team is temporarily disabling adding new WebAuthn keys, to avoid interfering with the rollout of SUL3 (single user login version 3). Existing keys are unaffected. [7]
  • Recurrent item View all 30 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • For developers that use the MediaWiki History dumps: The Data Platform Engineering team has added a couple of new fields to these dumps, to support the Temporary Accounts initiative. If you maintain software that reads those dumps, please review your code and the updated documentation, since the order of the fields in the row will change. There will also be one field rename: in the mediawiki_user_history dump, the anonymous field will be renamed to is_anonymous. The changes will take effect with the next release of the dumps in February. [8]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Formerly missing people found dead

[edit]

I'm not quite sure how WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Category:Formerly missing people found dead could have been read as having consensus in support of merging. Even if you discounted Dimadick (who was a participant in the previous CfD) and Nayyn (who made the most substantial argument in the discussion)'s arguments as canvassed, the remaining !votes apart from the nominator were two keeps, one delete, and one merge. (Also, the consensus from the previous discussion was to delete one of the categories rather than merge, while the other was never CfDed, so the nominator referring to it as precedent for merging was incorrect.) --Paul_012 (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in to headcount (which is relevant), I count the nominator. If Dimadick is to be pinged as a participant in the old CfD, you need to ping the six(!) other participants in the discussion who all supported deletion. The delete is "per nom", which I read as a merge (that is what the nomination was, after all). Nor is an editor's personal opinion of what is to be considered important relevant (In my opinion, the distinction between missing person cases where the individual was found alive and those that were found dead is a very important one). Three supporters of merging who reference a guideline (WP:CATDEF) compared to two WP:ILIKEIT/"its important" (without backing that up with citations to reliable sources) is a clear merge. HouseBlaster (he/they) 23:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had to squint to find the CATDEF reference, which was made as an off-hand reply without any supporting arguments and wasn't even mentioned in the nomination. In any case, the CfD was such an ill-informed mess that I don't think re-listing it would help anything, so I won't request any further action here. I might however consider opening a new, clearer discussion based on the options presented in the much more substantial 2024 discussion. Thanks for your explanation. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism and Folklore 2025 starts soon

[edit]
Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Feminism and Folklore 2025 starts soon because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.
Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wiki Community,

You are humbly invited to organize the Feminism and Folklore 2025 writing competition from February 1, 2025, to March 31, 2025 on your local Wikipedia. This year, Feminism and Folklore will focus on feminism, women's issues, and gender-focused topics for the project, with a Wiki Loves Folklore gender gap focus and a folk culture theme on Wikipedia.

You can help Wikipedia's coverage of folklore from your area by writing or improving articles about things like folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, women and queer folklore figures, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales, and more. Users can help create new articles, expand or translate from a generated list of suggested articles.

Organisers are requested to work on the following action items to sign up their communities for the project:

  1. Create a page for the contest on the local wiki.
  2. Set up a campaign on CampWiz tool.
  3. Create the local list and mention the timeline and local and international prizes.
  4. Request local admins for site notice.
  5. Link the local page and the CampWiz link on the meta project page.

This year, the Wiki Loves Folklore Tech Team has introduced two new tools to enhance support for the campaign. These tools include the Article List Generator by Topic and CampWiz. The Article List Generator by Topic enables users to identify articles on the English Wikipedia that are not present in their native language Wikipedia. Users can customize their selection criteria, and the tool will present a table showcasing the missing articles along with suggested titles. Additionally, users have the option to download the list in both CSV and wikitable formats. Notably, the CampWiz tool will be employed for the project for the first time, empowering users to effectively host the project with a jury. Both tools are now available for use in the campaign. Click here to access these tools

Learn more about the contest and prizes on our project page. Feel free to contact us on our meta talk page or by email us if you need any assistance.

We look forward to your immense coordination.

Thank you and Best wishes,

Feminism and Folklore 2025 International Team

Stay connected  

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore is back!

[edit]

Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wiki Community, You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 an international media contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 31st of March.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

You can also organize a local contest in your country and support us in translating the project pages to help us spread the word in your native language.

Feel free to contact us on our project Talk page if you need any assistance.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit description help

[edit]

Could I receive an explanation on the format of a part of an edit description that instantly refers to the section mentioned when said edit is viewed.

Ex: →top Executive20000 (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Executive20000! Those are an indication of which section of a page the edit was made within. They automatically show up when you click the "edit" link beside a section within a page or when you click "new topic" or "reply". Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 00:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Executive20000 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HouseBlaster&oldid=1272731004"