User talk:Toadspike

Hello, Toadspike, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to USS Gerald R. Ford, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - wolf 08:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Annnd.... then you go and do it again anyway? Really?
  Please, use the preview function, (as noted just above), before you save anything. This is a good habit to get into, and not just for new/inexperienced editors like yourself, but all editors. It helps cut down on a lot of errors and reduces the number of entries in article histories and watch-lists, which in turn saves time and effort for your fellow editors.
  Also, when your don't know how to do something... just ask;
  •You can go to the Help Desk (as noted just above), or
  •Go to the Tea House, for new users, or
  •Ask on the article talk page, or
  •Ask on a related WP:WikiProject talk page, such as, in the case of a US Navy ship, WT:SHIPS or WT:MILHIST, or
  •Place a "Help me" request here on your own talk page, or
  •Follow any one of the helpful links in the 'Welcome' message at the top of this page.
  Point is, there were plenty of things you could've done, instead of the learning-via-trial-by-error method which is strongly discouraged here. Thank you - wolf 14:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Sorry for messing so much stuff up. I think I've fixed all of it now.

Thank you for providing all of these resources. As you could tell, I did not know most of them existed. I have also just figured out how Previewing works, so I'll definitely use that more often. In fact, I am using it right now to see how this message looks.

While you're reading this, could you please tell me if or when I should delete stuff from this page (such as your messages and this reply)? If this is the only method of communication between editors, I expect it to become cluttered eventually. Warm regards, Toadspike (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page basically (but not completely) belongs to you, so can delete anything you like, whenever you like, with some exceptions, such as block notices (see WP:UP for more info). Please note that archiving is preferred to deleting, and it would probably be a good idea to keep some of the links to resources here handy, for awhile at least. But again... totally up to you. - wolf 00:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Pestalozzi-Schulthess, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2022 Ukraine cyberattack, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a recent cyberattack on Ukrainian websites was disguised as ransomware? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Ukraine cyberattack. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2022 Ukraine cyberattack), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 Broadgate, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you are a major contributor to 2022 Ukraine cyberattacks and thought I'd give you a heads-up: A New York Times article just reported that last Wednesday Microsoft found an attack by a new wiper, named FoxBlade apparently aimed at Ukraine govt. I started a stub on it, could use some help. The article also has some reporting on increased cooperation between Silicon Valley and US military due to Ukraine. Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 04:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chetvorno:, thank you for the information. I will get around to adding it eventually, I am very busy with other things at the moment. Do you happen to know if FoxBlade is different from HermeticWiper (already in the article)? I suspect they are different, but they were discovered on the same day by different companies, so maybe it’s the same thing with two different names. A source on this distinction would be very helpful. Toadspike (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pro russian vandalism 37.73.57.36 (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify please? He reverted some vandalism on that article a couple days ago; do you have a question about that? (talk page stalker) Bsoyka (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toadspike. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Thadious M. Davis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I found this page in the set of pages about the deleted, and I edited it so that it is now in the main space as Thadious Davis. I'd love to see additional contributions from you on the page. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, DaffodilOcean. I never got around to finishing this and I am very grateful that you could fill the article in and publish it. It looks very good now, I especially like how you organized the citations of all the books and reviews. Toadspike (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toadspike. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anne Parsons, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You receive this message because you have voted for show nearby or related articles in maps in this year’s Community Wishlist Survey.

I am happy to let you know that soon it will be possible to automatically display nearby articles in a map on Commons and other Wikimedia projects using Kartographer. This feature is one of the improvements to Kartographer the Technical Wishes Team from Wikimedia Germany has been working on. Each Kartographer generated map in full-screen mode is now given a new “Show nearby articles” button at the bottom. It can be used to show and hide up to 50 geographically close articles.

The deployment of this feature is planned for 12 October on a first group of wikis. After the first feedback phase, more wikis will follow. Read more on our project page. Your feedback and comments to our open questions on this feature are very much appreciated on this discussion page. Thank you! -- Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 08:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toadspike. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Phil Ventre, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toadspike. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Phil Ventre".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunbar was a priest as noted in the following subsection (Religious and moral works) of the article:

"Dunbar was an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and several of his works have religious subject matter."

Yours,

107.122.161.41 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for visiting my talk page and letting me know of your concerns. The Wikipedia Manual of Style stipulates that generally the title of Reverend is not included in front of a person's name (MOS:REV). For an example of this, see the article on the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where the lead does not include either title in front of his name. I see that your addition was also reverted by someone else; I hope this adequately explains why. Best, Toadspike (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 you stated that Although there are some tweaks I would like to see (better line/color use for separation of the UI sections and less whitespace between the TOC and the article) reverting the whole thing is not a solution. If that is our first instinct, there will never be progress. Besides, the proven benefits of shorter lines and the convenience of the sticky TOC are categorically better for most readers out there. How do you feel now, months after the discussion and with certain improvements added?

Before you answer this question, please read my user page to see why I am asking you this question. You do not have to answer this question at all if you wish. If you do answer this question, could you please state if you are okay with your username being used, possibly publicly? Thank you-- DisposableUser12345 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toadspike. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Beijing Comrades, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toadspike. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Beijing Comrades".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tuas Lamp Post 1, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-- NotCharizard ^🗨 10:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note on the talk page of Caladenia rosea. I wrote a whole lot of junk about it being endemic to Western Australia. Now corrected myself. The image is correct. Gderrin (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming this, now I can be more certain in reverting if it's ever removed again. It's a nice photo! Toadspike (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I have confused myself. You will notice that the image of the plant in Caladenia rosea is the same as the image on the Caladenia rosella page. So there can only be one. The image on Caladenia rosea is of Caladenia rosella. Sorry for my brain fade. I will remove the image but it is not an accepted species by the Western Australian Herbarium. I will include a note of the Talk Page of Caladenia rosea. Gderrin (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed during my patrol that you redirect Simatupang to T. B. Simatupang. In my opinion, this is not a good redirect as Simatupang is the name of the clan. While T.B Simatupang might be the most famous of the Simatupang clan, redirecting the clan name to him isn't correct. I am looking for your opinion on this matter, thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this issue! I redirected because I saw “Simatupang” used mononymously in an article to refer to T. B. Simatupang, and there was no disambiguation page or redirect already at Simatupang. If you would like to create a disambiguation page or article that replaces the redirect, then please do. I see that the other two articles that use the name are Iwan Simatupang and Sahala Hamonangan Simatupang. However, I think that T. B. Simatupang is so much more famous than the other two that the redirect is appropriate. (For example, Churchill redirects to Winston Churchill, even though other people have the same name.) An article on the clan would also be okay, I think the closest equivalent now is the list entry at Marga (Batak), which lists only T. B. Simatupang under that name.

tldr; If you want to change the redirect, please do, but I think it’s appropriate for now. Toadspike (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toadspike. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Ratushnyi.
Message added 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toadspike, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions

• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! – Joe (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'll work through the setup tasks, and then start off reviewing redirects like the one that inspired me to request the user right. Toadspike (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles about Metro stations in Vietnam could probably be improved by adding material from the coresponding articles in the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain In most cases I checked the Vietnamese Wikipedia articles and there was no material to add. The sourcing there was just as lacking as in the English articles. However, if you show me sources with sigcov for any station and the GNG is met, I will withdraw the nomination. Toadspike [Talk] 06:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yunxian Man, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the skulls of Yunxian Man (example pictured) are "relatively complete" despite being heavily crushed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yunxian Man. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yunxian Man), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 120.56.107.103. I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Iodine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A WP:MOS error. It shows that this is an error because the article Iodine uses Use British English template in it and the article contains Sulphur in all chemical names all Sulfur in American English, which is wrong as per this national varieties of English template in this article.

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. When you correct this mistake, the article Iodine will be improved as there is no unsourced information and typos with no changes in the meaning of the text.

Thanks, 120.56.107.103 (talk) 120.56.107.103 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may change sulfur to sulphur, but please do not do anything else in an edit claiming to only be fixing a MOS issue. I did not "introduce referencing errors", or any errors; my reverting a change you made did not add anything new to the article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did not introduce errors to Iodine, but what I want is, you should change all mentions of Sulfur as Sulphur in all those chemical names in Iodine as per WP:MOS because the article's language template says use British English only but this article wrongly uses American English, so i want you to remove them and correct them now. 120.56.167.99 (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs are used by User:Vishal Kandassamy to avoid the indefinite block. Apparently, WP:SULF is not to their liking. Favonian (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of this. Incidentally, I didn't know about that guideline, thanks for sharing it! Toadspike [Talk] 09:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did just fix typos on that article about Iodine. 117.252.158.50 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did just fix typos on that article about Iodine. 117.252.158.50 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for a period of 81 days. If you still need an IP block exemption after it expires please file a new request. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Mz7 (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Toadspike [Talk] 10:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reopened and relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Zitouni as an uninvolved admin in my individual capacity, per WP:NACD. With two valid views to delete and three to keep, I don't see a clear consensus either way. I believe this is a case of WP:BADNAC criterion #2 - The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.. I hope you understand. Owen× ☎ 08:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As far as AfDs go, I don't see this one as particularly close, since the two Keep !voters provided fairly good sources to show notability, while the nomination was so vague it hardly counts as a Delete !vote. The other Delete !vote was I could not find sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR, which is a valid rationale, but when subsequent voters then provide sufficient coverage I consider that point addressed. I suppose I should've written a closing rationale to summarize this, which was a big mistake on my part.

I suppose will now go !vote Keep and ping Cocobb8 to see if they believe their point has been addressed. Toadspike [Talk] 08:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you had strong feelings to Keep this article meant that you shouldn't have closed this AFD and your participation was more valued as a participant than as a closer. In order to be fair and uninvolved, you have to be able to close discussions where you disagree with the consensus and if you have an opinion, it's better to share that view than to try to close a discussion. Just my 2 cents as I needed to see why this discussion was relisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes — I thought the outcome was clear and the discussion didn’t need another relist, but in hindsight I could’ve prevented the relist just as well by participating and making the close easier for someone else. Toadspike [Talk] 07:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: You recently opposed and closed the move request for Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography to revert to the original title of Electrical Capacitance Volume Tomography. I originally proposed the move, and I would like to clarify a few items that you wrote about in your conclusion that I did not feel accurately followed from the discussion.

Your primary conclusion was based on your search results from google scholar which showed 117,000 results for 3D ECT. When I click your source link, I see a similar 111,000 hits. However, I believe your strategy is flawed and is the same issue the original opposer WolfgangNihil committed. Through the discussion, we both agreed that in fact ECVT is a more broadly used term than 3D ECT. Perhaps you missed that section of the discussion. There are two flaws. 1.) You did not use the full name "Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography". 2.) You did not use quotes.

When you search 3D ECT without quotes, you get many results referring to electro convulsive therapy [1]. When you use quotes "3D ECT" you get 593 results [2]. Searching the full title in quotes "Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography" yields 199 [3]. Comparatively searching "ECVT" also yields 3,470 but includes irrelevant results such as electronically controlled continuously variable transmission [4]. "Electrical capacitance volume tomography" with quotes provides 1,030 results [5]. Both the original opposition and I came to agree that the google scholar method of determining most widely used showed that ECVT was the better term, and this method was first proposed by the opposition. Therefore, I do not understand your conclusion to close without moving. (Marashdeh (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Wait did I oppose and close? If so, I'm very sorry. That must have been a mistake. Toadspike [Talk] 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marashdeh I've taken a look and I did not, in fact, close that requested move. Toadspike [Talk] 19:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marashdeh, since this discussion took place two weeks ago, it will take me a bit to get reoriented in the discussion. After I've read over the discussion and your points here, I'll let you know if I agree. (At a glance your new Scholar searches seem more accurate than mine.) I think you're saying that my comment was misguided and this led to a poor closure, not that the closer misread consensus. However, if you think the issue lies with the closer, you should talk to @Polyamorph. Toadspike [Talk] 19:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've briefly read over the discussion and your comment and I have not changed my mind.

You say Both the original opposition and I came to agree that the google scholar method of determining most widely used showed that ECVT was the better term, but as far as I can see WolfgangNihil said no such thing. They maintained their opposition in both of their comments, and their only mention of Google Scholar says It is not difficult to find on Google Scholar that this is a definite minority, clearly referring to the use of "ECVT".

There was clearly no agreement between you and WolfgangNihil about whether 3D ECT and ECVT should be seen as distinct terms or not. I think the best way forward is for you to include both definitions of the terms "3D ECT" and "ECVT" in the article, perhaps as a new section right after the lead titled "terminology". Here you can explain that some see the terms as equivalent, while some see ECVT as a slightly different technique from 3D ECT. I don't have sufficient knowledge of the field to judge which definition is more "correct" or more popular. But if you are correct that ECVT is a separate thing from 3D ECT, you should probably be requesting a split into two separate articles, not a move from one title to another.

My search [6] and your search [7] for 3D ECT are slightly different, and I see no results for "electroconvulsive therapy" on the first page of my results. I honestly have no idea how this happened, so I'll ignore it. I've checked your other searches and the numbers you give are accurate. But, considering the above disagreement about how to define both terms, I'm not sure this alone is enough to move the article. Toadspike [Talk] 19:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike. You are correct, you did not close the discussion. I apologize for the mistake. I think I was confused because it was closed so quickly after your contribution (the same day after almost 3 weeks without reply), and I did not get a chance to reply. So, thank you for replying here. I will be discussing with @Polyamorph as well.

Also, you are correct that WolfgangNihil did not state that they agreed with my assessment of google scholar. However, their initial argument was a sweeping statement that google scholar supports their claim that 3D ECT is more widely used, and when I provided counter proof (as I have reiterated here) on my search results, they never addressed the issue again. Instead, they diverted to another argument of analogy to other imaging modalities which is much weaker. This is when I started to discuss CIS as a counter argument to that.

The bottom line is they claim that 3D ECT is more widely recognizable, and yet the literature shows much wider use of ECVT. So, I am not sure why this is much of a discussion. That seems pretty open and closed to me.

Regarding your absence of electroconvulsive therapy in your search, it is because I am showing page 7 in my link, which is not that far into the results before it stops showing tomography results.

Additionally, as you observed, I am arguing that they are distinct and could have two separate pages. The original article was titled ECVT and should be restored. The issue is that Wikipedia has more protections about undoing an article title change than it has for changing it in the first place. A new page should be created for 3D ECT not the other way around.

Alternatively, because of their close relationship, I think I could agree with your method of stating that some consider 3D ECT and ECVT synonymous and some don't because that is evidently true, and I believe there is a journal paper that can be cited for that. However, because ECVT is the more widely used term, it should be the primary term in the article. Perhaps you could support this conclusion? Marashdeh (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that the original title change from ECVT to 3D ECT was performed without discussion or feedback from the community, to my knowledge. Marashdeh (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much to take up with me. There is no consensus in that move discussion to move. Unless you can convince the other participants in that discussion otherwise, I won't be changing the close. Polyamorph (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marashdeh I appreciate this polite response. Wikipedia has more protections about undoing an article title change than it has for changing it in the first place – this is not exactly true. As advice for next time, you could have reverted the move per WP:BRD and then opened the move discussion. However, it looks like the move discussion took place several months after the move, which would have made a revert a bit awkward. The move also seems to have been a complicated round-robin move [8], which may not have been within your technical ability to revert. Toadspike [Talk] 14:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both, I have decided to re-open the discussion because it was not well attended and the fact that it was a previously undiscussed move means it could do with wider participation. I've notified some wikiprojects. Polyamorph (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Polymorph. I think that is a sensible way to resolve this. Toadspike [Talk] 22:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike. Thank you for the advice. My comment about the difficulty of reverting the page move is rooted in the round robin move and I was hoping someone could assist me. But anyway, I would prefer to have a consensus on the title, so we do not continue in an editing war. Seeing that this discussion was reopened, I will continue the discussion over there. Marashdeh (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toadspike,

I noticed you tagged the article SUGAR Cosmetics as {{peacock}}. Could you please point out which terms look like puffery opinions and provide suggestions to rectify it? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoopspeaks Thanks for asking about this. An example is Sugar Cosmetics operates 200 exclusive brand outlets across India, providing customers with a distinct brand experience. This should be rewritten as Sugar Cosmetics operates 200 stores across India. Given the promotional tone of many of the sources cited, I'm not surprised that an article based on those sources sounds promotional too, but you should watch out for this. Toadspike [Talk] 10:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike Thank you so much. I will try to improve, but I am not very experienced in identifying all instances of puffery, as I lack a reviewer's perspective and language expertise. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a move discussion at Talk:Public Sector Undertakings in India which is receiving less participation and is likely to be closed without a clear consensus. I would greatly appreciate if you could spare some time and leave your valuable opinion. Thank you. Have a great day. 2409:4073:104:92C2:9939:2182:D47D:646F (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how you found me, but I'm glad you asked. I'll take a look. Toadspike [Talk] 17:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am heartbroken by your accusation. I am already going through distressing situations in my life, and this has only added to my burden. What did I do wrong? I never asked you or anyone to support the move. My only request was for you (and the others) to participate before the discussion is closed. According to description in WP:CANVASS,

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion ...".

I believe this does not apply to me! I am the problem. Thanks for "exposing" me. Don't bother replying. I am not going to come here ever again.--2409:4073:104:92C2:D951:AF36:3E5E:5A19 (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t “accuse” or “expose” you – what you did was probably okay, and I said so. It should still be mentioned in the discussion that I found it because you mentioned it in my Talk page and several others’. There’s no need to stress about this. I still intend to participate when I have time. Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toadspike! Thanks for your input during the AFD discussion for Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration, and I have requested a move based on your suggestion of renaming. No worries about that. Regarding the merge of Li Keqiang Government, I personally believe that all three are distinct and notable enough to warrant individual articles, so I will not be initiating a discussion/nomination that I do not fully endorse the rationale for. But I do not oppose a merge if you find it to be necessary. Feel free to start a MERGEPROP or AFD if you think a merge is needed. I will defer to your judgment on this matter. Cheers!! — Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that! I'm a bit busy at the moment but I'll support the move later, and then I'll consider whether it's worth starting a merge discussion. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 12:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm glad you closed the BLPN discussion here. But please keep in mind, the notice board is not particularly for admin action, and is primarily kept up by non-admins such as yours truly, for consensus-based decisions. When a discussion is moved to another, better forum such as AfD, that's probably enough to close (avoiding forks, forwarded matters). So thanks again! JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

…oops. I didn’t know that. Thanks for letting me know. I’m glad the close is still kind of appropriate. Toadspike [Talk] 07:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As part of Global reminder bot, this is an automated reminder to let you know that your WP:IPBE right will expire on 2024-09-01 00:00:00, which gave you the right to bypass IP-address blocks. If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. Leaderbot (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, you don't need to write [[Bank|banks]], just [[bank]]s does the job. Compare

• banks
• banks

While I think of it, do you know about the pipe trick? (another short cut). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, JMF! I did not know that banks links the whole word, s included, so thank you for telling me. However, I usually edit with the visual editor, which automatically uses the piped version. This means I'll likely continue doing that, but not on purpose!

I do know about the pipe trick, but I currently only use it when linking WP: policy pages in AfD discussions. I'm sure it is more powerful than that, so I'll go read up on it again to see where else I can use it. Thank you so much for leaving this message here, I really appreciate it and wish editors would do this kind of thing more often. Toadspike [Talk] 06:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, as I've been there. I file away similar goodies at my home page, feel free to raid.

My most usual use of pipe trick is for [[item (disambiguator)|]]. Also for city, state. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Yo thanks for the book with more to come, it is really above and beyond. TheBritinator (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toadspike. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Picozzi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]