Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hi, you said you found sources on Swissbox regarding Brandhärd. I don't seem to have access to the platform, if it's not difficult can you drop a couple of them, plus my charts link, in the external links. It would settle the question of notability (marked since 2011!). Good day! LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LastJabberwocky It seems I haven't responded to this yet, my apologies. I've gone back to find some sources with sigcov: [1][2][3][4] I hope this is enough to convince you that they meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the German version via an expand tag. Please add the sources to the article. We can clean up later. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only saw this after I was nearly done with my talk page message. I will do my best to expand it with the sources I've got. Toadspike [Talk] 16:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I saw your recent feedback on one of the FL candidates and I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who had difficulty with the formatting of the table. Anyway, I currently have this article up for FL nomination – Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Figure Skating Championships/archive1 – that has not received much feedback. If you have some time and would be willing to offer any feedback, it would be appreciated. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Toadspike. I saw you listed here and I was wondering if you'd be willing to help translate the German Wikipedia article on Silvio Gesell or de:Freiwirtschaft into English? In my opinion, Gesell has fascinating and groundbreaking ideas on economics, and I wish that he was more well known in the Anglosphere. Thanks in advance. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero Contradictions Those look like really hefty articles...thanks for asking, but I think I don't have the capacity for this right now. I might come back to it in future, but no guarantees. Toadspike [Talk] 11:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike(like the handle): I am a native of Hayward, Freeborn County, Minnesota. My issue is with the naming of Hayward. The geographical references to the namesake of Hayward incorrectly, my researched opinion, refers to a David Hayward. I maintain that this is incorrect. My research indicates the namesake is George S. Hayward. The Freeborn County Historical Museum staff concurs with me. Researching the county records reveals no reference to a David Hayward ever living or owning property in Freeborn County. The same research has multiple references to George S. Hayward living and owning property in the county and the township. Additionally, historical records indicate the namesake originally arrived in the mid 1850's from Postville, IA. Postville, IA has no records of a David Hayward. Concurrently, all records from Postville, IA do indicate a connection with George S. Hayward. Additionally, historical records indicate that Mr. Hayward moved to California and died as a result of an accident in 1869. There is no record of a David Hayward passing in California at that date. However, there is a cemetery in Colusa County, CA with George S. Hayward. This fits perfectly with all previous accounts. My belief is the confusion originated when George S. Hayward and David Judson concluded a real estate transaction and somehow a previous researcher inadvertently transpose the names.

I would like to see the error corrected and the source documents reflect the same.

Gary Skaar Garyskaar (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Garyskaar Hi Gary! Thanks for writing to me. I'm happy to help get this fixed, but I'll need some sources I can cite – even though I believe you, I can't just edit the page and say "Gary said so". If you don't have any books or research papers (secondary sources) that say this explicitly, could you get the museum to put something on their website? Toadspike [Talk] 17:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Thank you for your timely response. Here is the correct reference you requested;

"History of Freeborn County" Franklin Curtiss-Wedge, 1911. pg. 84.

"Hayward. This town takes its name from Geo. Hayward the prominent citizen of the early days." ..... Garyskaar (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source, I have made the edit [5]. Toadspike [Talk] 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm 82 years old and this has been bugging me for years. Now I can rest in peace, thanks to you. Sincerely, Gary (Gerhard E. Skaar) Garyskaar (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you may be misunderstanding me. Framing my good-faith, instructive advice to a new editor to use best practices as “casting aspersions”!, then re-framing that with a non-apology apology and doubling down on your original accusation with a scolding attached. I certainly did not “take a shot at the nominator’s character/conduct to advance [my] opinion on the deletion debate”. Wow, just wow.

BTW, I am pretty sure that an AfD nominator doesn’t need to be pinged, as the page is already on their watchlist, and they will likely get a notification if that preference is selected. Is there something else you would like to share? Netherzone (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Yes, I know you didn't do any of those things. I was trying to explain what prompted my original concern. It was not my intent to double down or accuse you of anything. When I said "it is easy to misconstrue this kind of comment", I meant "this is how I misconstrued your comment"; I was admitting my own mistake, not accusing you of making one. If anything, this exchange has made clear how difficult it is to judge a person's intent from what they write on the Internet.

Many editors, including me, rarely or never check their watchlist. It's also not possible to subscribe to AfD pages easily. There's a good chance the nominator doesn't know how to find this discussion again (via AfD Stats or their contribs); since they nominated using an automated tool, they may not even know the discussion exists. (WormEater13, if you are reading this, I mean no offense.) There are also experienced editors who deliberately "fire and forget"/COAL at AfD, like NPPers simply looking to mark a page as reviewed and move on.

If you would like to teach WormEater13 how to do a good BEFORE search, which I think is a good idea, I highly recommend heading over to their user talk – it looks like they are very friendly and receptive to feedback. Toadspike [Talk] 15:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the job recommendation, but I must decline. Acting on your own good idea might be something you enjoy. Regards, Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'll go let them know. Toadspike [Talk] 16:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for posterity that I have chosen not to post on WormEater13's talk page because their subsequent AfD activity has convinced me that they are doing very well already without my help. Toadspike [Talk] 18:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that – I decided to leave some tips after all, not least because they seem to be unaware that they have TWL access. Toadspike [Talk] 12:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike I never thought the page (Anthony Stephen (dog trainer) got deleted so fast, why is the other GNG is not recognized? Spanizh fly (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike why not use it as stub? Spanizh fly (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires all article subjects to be notable. If the subject is not notable, we don't have an article – not even a stub. Being "notable" means something very specific on Wikipedia: it means that we have enough high-quality sources to write an article. The basic requirement for those sources is summarized at WP:42 – that is the standard by which I and others judged the sources in that discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 19:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening! Please let me know when you have a chance to examine the improvements I made to this article per your feedback and suggestions. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 Sorry for dropping that – I do plan to get back to it, but I keep getting distracted. I was hoping to review the remaining prose section before wrapping up my review. I will try to do this tomorrow. Toadspike [Talk] 22:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I appreciate your time! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Toadspike -- it's @AnonymousScholar49. On April 24th, I nominated Zürcher Vokalisten for deletion. I have now closed that discussion, deciding to keep. I'm on here to thank you for your hard work, research, and subject matter expertise; you found a whole bunch of sources and cleaned up the article, and per WP:HEY, I was convinced by your work. good stuff AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, @AnonymousScholar49. I appreciate you bringing the article to my attention by nominating it for AfD. I watch WP:DSCH closely because I am fortunate to have access to some handy Swiss sources and I am always happy when I'm able to put them to good use. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have reverted some valid changes of mind. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that - @Toadspike, was this an error? CoconutOctopus talk 17:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger@CoconutOctopus Thanks for catching that – I noticed a small mistake in my relist notice, which I had to add manually due to a sock relisting the discussion and only getting partially reverted. I left to do some cooking right after that edit, so I'm only seeing this now. I'm very sorry about it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I must've accidentally edited an old revision of the page, not the newest one? No idea how that happened without me getting an edit conflict warning.) Toadspike [Talk] 18:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I'm off to cook the dinner myself now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your close would state: There is a clear consensus that "Church Fathers" is a proper name for the purposes of WP:NCCAPS and should be capitalized. Could you please be more specific as to where the strength of argument lies to reach such a conclusion, viewing the evidence and arguments through the lens of WP:NCCAPS or any other P&G relevant to determining what is a proper name that would be capitalised on WP. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have read the above, but I am fairly busy at the moment and might only be able to reply by tomorrow. Toadspike [Talk] 15:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments there seems no other way of closing the discussion, many editors recognized the WP:COMMONSENSE of keeping the uppercasing of this familiar and historically grouping of a set number of individuals who shaped the Christian religion. Thanks for a good close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157 NCCAPS, in its first, bolded sentence, tells us to use sentence case, unless the title is a proper name. This caveat is explained, in its second sentence, as unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. There is, to my knowledge, currently no project-wide consensus on what "would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" means. One interpretation, which I believe you share, is that "always capitalized" means "capitalized in all sources". Another interpretation, expressed by many other participants in this RM, is that "always capitalized" means most sources capitalize the name throughout the source's text; this view emphasizes the grammatical definition of "proper name". The disagreement on "where to draw the line" came up in a recent Village Pump discussion (which I participated in); though not formally closed, it seems folks broadly agree that "always" in NCCAPS does not literally means "always". I only say all this to emphasize that neither interpretation is, at the moment, considered so indisputably contrary to our naming conventions that I can disregard it as an RM closer. Thus, my close must reflect the interpretation of the RM participants.

Editors in favor of the move, including you, presented evidence (Ngrams, Google Scholar results) to justify the move. Most other editors were not persuaded, for two broad reasons: 1. Many offered different interpretations of the evidence or disputed the accuracy of your methodology. 2. Editors opposing the move emphasized "proper name" as their standard for capitalization, disagreeing with the interpretation of "would always occur capitalized" as meaning "is capitalized in all sources". Both of these are reasononable differences of opinion. They are not arguments that I, as a closer, can discount as cut-and-dry disregard for naming conventions. It is not my duty as closer to investigate the evidence myself and come to my own conclusions about its strength (unless I had reason to think the evidence was being presented dishonestly, which I did not). It is also not for me to determine how NCCAPS should be interpreted. There were some arguments on both sides that I downweighted or discounted as not based on evidence or guidelines, but these were just a handful; this still left more than twice as many editors opposing the move as supporting it with reasonable arguments, which is not a margin I can disregard in good faith as a closer without clearly supervoting.

Also, in case there was any doubt, my reminder about our civility policy was not directed at you.

Best, Toadspike [Talk] 15:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taiwan on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you would consider reverting your no consensus close on [[6]]. Per WP:NACD, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins", which is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun I'm going to reopen this discussion, but I genuinely don't think this is a close call – it's as obvious a no-consensus as I've ever seen.

We currently have, by my count, 44 AfDs overdue for closing; we do not have enough admins closing AfDs at the moment (I have just posted at WP:AN asking for more admins to help out). So, when you make requests like this, please consider whether the odds of getting a different outcome are worth the costs of bogging down the process (WP:NOTBURO). Toadspike [Talk] 05:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have relisted the discussion, as it had only been relisted twice. Since an admin has now closed the discussion, I will not pursue the matter further at this time, but I'd encourage you to avoid closing AfD's as no consensus in the future and either let an admin make the call or relist the discussion, per WP:NACD. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your well-reasoned contributions to AfD as of late. We need more editors like yourself active in the area! Eddie891 Talk Work 09:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is an honor! Thank you, Eddie! Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]