User talk:CoconutOctopus

Talk:Weak n-category#Requested move 1 May 2025

I added a comment to a discussion you previously closed. A participant in the previous discussion then reply that they agreed to the merge. In this case, what should I do about the previous discussion? Should we change the consensus to merge or reopen the discussion? SilverMatsu (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to just merge it :) CoconutOctopus talk 08:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. SilverMatsu (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vote_Chori_Hoax

hey octopus wasup

check this Draft:Vote Chori Hoax Kadamb Patil (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Something like half the 'citation' links go nowhere. LLM-generated hallucinations? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

100% AI. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Well thats not, that was written by me. I think you guys are hallucinating Kadamb Patil (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

+ more news .............I’ve been developing a tool that indexes Wikipedia talk pages and automatically analyzes patterns in how editors behave So, if some editors think no one’s keeping an eye on the watchdogs… they might want to reconsider. Kadamb Patil (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Prey tell us. I'm interested to know more, and to hear who appointed you as the 'watchdog of the watchdogs' (your terminology, not mine). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm also interested. But I don't believe it's possible. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Turns out he was a sock. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That was an interesting rrad to come back to! CoconutOctopus talk 16:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CoconutOctopus,

Technically it is possible as talk pages and edits are publicly available. As an eng. scientist-to-be, this is like a top-class final year project for engineering students. It is similar to any other site reviewer codes/tools that for example AIs are greatly improving with. There are hundreds of more complex analytical tools for Twitter, lesser for Facebook and a little less likely for Instagram. Though, they review associations of groups of people but I am not sure about individual interactions. These are things many people may be worried about for the future. If Algorithms are hacked someday, everyone will be analysed for sure. It is also not a surely sure that it isn't happening already. @DoubleGrazing, nice seeing you again! What do you guys think? @Doug Weller HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 16:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The future of AI is scary. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, you are 100 percent right! Right now, administrative bodies are accelerating the use of AI globally. It may get as scary as the 2020 virus era or worse. Right now, AI is powerful enough as it is but is not represented as such by the elite "institutional mediums of information". I have seen enough documentaries and films/tv/online that I must say, we may need an anti-AI in the future. Anyway, wishing for the best for all! Hoping you are doing well now and get well enough to be ready to become karate-kung fu master ready to kick the __ of the AIs and others, haha! I hope it brought smile on your face! Best wishes, HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It did bring a smile. Sadly I won’t be around to edit much longer, see my talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, sorry for being nearly 30 minutes late here, I got busy adding an update on an AfD nomination (vague) about a notable figure page that I wrote.

I checked your talk page and I am truly sad hearing that man, I won't trouble you with questions but please be happy and safe. With all such technology and advancement of science, truly, hoping we have a cure soon and may you get better with many more years. Please be happy always Mr Doug. You are truly an amazing person, a fighter and shall be known forever for contributing to the community even in the worst challenging times. Despite all the challenges you face, for the community, you remain firm and sustained. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 18:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

That is very kind. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Rollbacker and Redwarn Guidance.

Thanks for granting the rollbacker permission, I hope to be that much more effective at vandalism patrolling.

I did want to ask your opinion on something. There seems to be a little bit of discrepancy (or at least difference in focus) between the rollbacker documentation and the redwarn documentation. Redwarn docs seem to strongly recommend using the rollback mechanism if you have access to it, but that does mean that non-vandalism edits through redwarn would be rollback tagged (e.g. a clear, but good faith revert, or test edits, etc). Redwarn seems to say this is fine, and its ok to use that mechanism for this, but I want to make sure using this correctly because the rollbacker pages seemed much more pure vandalism focused. I just want to make sure that I'm operating on the right side of community norms on this and I'm interested in what you think. Thanks! Driftingdrifting (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I've never used Redwarn - it might be worth asking about specifics on the talk page for the tool. Rollback is intended to be used for vandalism only - I know that Twinkle has a good faith pseudorollback feature so I can only imagine Redwarn is the same? CoconutOctopus talk 14:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Oddly enough, no, wants to use the actual rollback mechanism for everything if you have that permission, it's not a pseudo-rollback like twinkle. I can specifically disable it (which I will), but redwarn in all of its talk and documentation pages is adamant that this is fine: Wikipedia:RedWarn#A disclaimer regarding rollback, so it does seem like there is some policy disagreement here (above my pay-grade). For me, I'll just disable that 'feature' in redwarn and use rollback manually (and sparingly). Thanks for the quick response. Driftingdrifting (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

From reading that, as long as the tool sets an edit summary to show you are reverting good faith edits then it's fine - not sure if RW does this, though! Actually using the rollback tool the old way, i.e. hitting the 'rollback' button next to an edit, should only be used for vandalism, though. CoconutOctopus talk 14:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah! Gotcha. Yes, it absolutely does set a rollback reason. With apologies for giving you redwarn facts against your will:

Some are a canned message like for actual vandalism:

• 12:44, 19 August 2025 diff hist  −476  m Lord Mountbatten Rollback edit(s) by 45.251.234.223 (talk): Vandalism (RW 16.1) Tags: RW Rollback

Others like AGF require an additional comment:

• 13:43, 19 August 2025 diff hist  −25  m DreamWorks Animation Television Rollback edit(s) by MRWikiTankenTai (talk): Reverting good faith edits: Please don't link to draft space from main space. (RW 16.1) current   prev   rvv   rb  rollback: 1 edit Tags: RW Rollback

Thanks again for the quick guidance, I really appreciate it. Driftingdrifting (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem! CoconutOctopus talk 14:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for privileges

Hi there, can you restore my privileges that you were removed on my request, I'd like to recontribution Wikipedia again. --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7  talk  04:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 07:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

CoconutOctopus, 🙂 Thanks for returning my advanced privileges to back on my useraccount.--Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7  talk  09:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:GraniteShares

Hello, CoconutOctopus,

Consider checking the talk page of an article before page deletion in case there are objections to the article tagging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

We do typically expect that someone who makes a WP:G11-able page would object to the tagging, and we delete those articles nonetheless. But @CoconutOctopus, I don't see the G11 or A7 rationale here? -- asilvering (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

It read as G11 to me (the A7 I forgot to uncheck in twinkle). If you think it was a bad call I have absolutely no objections to you undoing it :) CoconutOctopus talk 05:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hell no. Sets off my UPE alarm bells. -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Appeal Regarding Ban

Hello, you wrote that I could contact you about appealing a ban decision. After some thought, I decided to do so.

I will try to describe my reasons briefly:

1. I am in the midst of learning the editing rules of the English Wikipedia. These rules are different from the rules on other Wikipedias (and sometimes stricter). At the end of 2023, I first started editing on the English Wikipedia. I did not know the rules regarding edits related to a dispute and accordingly there were mistakes. For example, I assumed that the editing restrictions (like on another Wikipedia I edited) were a physical restriction only and not a restriction by topic. After some time, I understood this. I started editing topics that were not related to the dispute. There were no problems or claims against me for more than a year and a half. Recently, I crossed the threshold that allows editing in entries related to the dispute. I started editing and accordingly disputes and mistakes arose. The problem is that I was not (and I am afraid that I am still) familiar with the rules for disputes in entries of this type and this led to errors. I'm afraid that a one-year ban won't prevent the problem, simply because even then I won't be familiar with the rules related to editing the conflict.

2. I believe that I can contribute a lot of information to these entries. For example, I greatly expanded one of the subsections of the entry dealing with the war in Gaza so that it describes the discourse and decisions related to post-war plans [[1]] when previously there was scant information presented that dealt with a specific point in time.

3. I sometimes have a tendency to make very large edits, stemming from the desire to add a lot of information or the need to make a lot of changes that are important to me. The result can be actions that do not appear in the edit summary, which can lead to misunderstandings.

Therefore, I propose the following:

1. I respectfully request that the ban be lifted.

2. I would greatly appreciate receiving guidance or a summary of the most important policies regarding editing disputes, particularly for conflict-related topics. I would also be grateful for the opportunity to consult on general matters (e.g., how consensus is determined, what to do if talk page discussions receive no reply for an extended period), and potentially on more specific cases in the future, if you are willing.

3. I will make an active effort to reduce the size of my edits and break them into smaller, more manageable parts to avoid miscommunication.

Thank you in advance for your patience and for the answer. Best regards, --שמי (2023) (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm afraid you have not shown me you have an understanding of why the ban was needed. I'm also concerned that you suggest you simply have not read or understood the rules of this project; all editors are expected to understand these, especially when editing in contentious topic areas. I won't be removing the ban at present; whilst you may still appeal at WP:AN per the instructions at WP:CTOPAPPEALS, I strongly suggest you avoid this and instead focus on constructively editing in other areas for the next few months before attempting a further appeal, as it will look far better on you to be able to show a period of constructive editing. CoconutOctopus talk 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Multiple explanations of the EC restrictions can be seen on this user's talk page, and they were even previously blocked for violating them after they were explained. Zero^talk 11:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Partly why I declined the initial appeal, yes. CoconutOctopus talk 11:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

CoconutOctopus, Thanks for the answer, the assumption that every relatively new editor knows every single word of the rules is optimistic, but that's not always the case, especially when the editor is used to different rules from other Wikipedias. Sometimes a learning process is needed. It's no coincidence that there is a Wikipedia:Mentorship mechanism. I have other enriching edits, related to committees of the Israeli parliament. I find it unfortunate that the appeal wasn't accepted. שמי (2023) (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse; especially as you are not a new editor and previously had multiple warnings and alerts about our contentious topics procedure. CoconutOctopus talk 18:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

May I also please request that if posting on my talk page you post one single comment saying what you need, not multiple, and please don't go and keep editing them. I get a ping for each edit to this page. Thanks. CoconutOctopus talk 18:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, regarding your assessments regarding editing on this talk page. (And in the context of the discussion, I meant that I am a relatively new editor in this regard related to controversial entries, because I only recently went through the required amount of edits) שמי (2023) (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Zero, As I wrote, most of the violations then stemmed from a misunderstanding of the restrictions on new editors' actions in articles related to the conflict (and not physically blocked. This restriction does not exist on the Hebrew Wikipedia, for example). After I understood this restriction, I stopped editing cases like this. These are events from more than a year and a half ago and their relevance to the current case is small, certainly after I had passed the required threshold. The current violations are related to disputes over the content of edits. שמי (2023) (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

For example, today I wanted to edit the article [United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon] today on my mobile phone. It is editable. More than a year and a half ago, I would have edited it. Today I did not edit it because I was not sure if it was on the restricted entries list. שמי (2023) (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Every article whose topic significantly relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict is restricted, whether it has physical protection or not. This was explained to you 17 months ago. It is completely obvious that the UNIFIL page is restricted and the fact that you are unsure is not a good sign. CoconutOctopus can clarify, but usually topic bans are even more restrictive, including discussion of the topic on your own user pages (though discussions like this one are allowed). Zero^talk 06:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yee; @שמי (2023) for clarity the ban applies to any and all discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, including on talk pages; the only exceptions being discussions directly relating to the ban or discussions about your conduct at noticeboards such as ANI or AE. If you're at all in doubt about if something counts, err on the side of caution. CoconutOctopus talk 07:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Vgans999 • Contribs

Insults to character and user created less than an hour ago, maybe a WP:SPA formed from one of the other anonymous IPs who were already being disruptive. Is there a way to CheckUser? Anomalous4929429 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please report concerns for vandalism in future to WP:AIV. I've blocked this user and revdelled their comments on your talk page, but I might not always be keeping an eye on my talk! CoconutOctopus talk 13:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I actually didn't know where to report this. And yeah I just contacted you because you were the last one on that article revision deleting and banning disruptive users. Cheers. Anomalous4929429 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Annunciation Catholic Church shooting

Hey, noticed you did some WP:REVDEL, however, there are still a number of revisions that include the WP:DEADNAME as it's been getting added and removed repeatedly. If you get a chance, can you revdel those other instances (some were just added to the infobox but not the article prose, for example). Thanks. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 14:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to, but at the risk of being annoying, I don't currently have the time to comb through the edits, so if you are able to simply link me the ones needing done I can do so! You can email me them if you'd rather. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this, I can do it later tonight. There's quite a few if I recall correctly, as it was being added and removed early on. Also, do you want just the deadname diffs, or the misgendered diffs as well? Finally, not sure, but I feel like Robert Westman should be a red link and likely salted against recreation, but not sure how we're handling deadname redirects (my gut says delete/salt is the correct action here). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus: YGM :) Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 19:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I think that's likely enough for now CoconutOctopus talk 19:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sophisticatedevening FYI, I know you opened an RFD on that redirect, but it really should have been done under CSD G10, which I've placed on the page as it's clearly an attack page. I was trying to avoid getting the name spread out in logs and noticeboards by asking here. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Anastasia Kuzmina page move

Just want to check with you about the page move you performed a couple of hours ago. The article was moved upon agreement of me and another editor but the associated talk page hasn't been re titled yet and the move discussion I started is still located at Talk:Anastasia Kuzmina (dancer). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

weird, I definitely clicked the "move talk page" option. Thanks for letting me know, fixed now! CoconutOctopus talk 16:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the necessary moves. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia and showing civility to everyone! ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 17:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It's really appreciated. CoconutOctopus talk 17:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Request to restore deleted talk page

Hi,

I noticed that an entry in the talk page for Anito was recently deleted. I’d like to request that it be restored, so I can take a look at the previous discussions for reference. I think there might be some helpful context there that could assist with future edits or improvements to the article.

Thank you! EditLeaf (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, there's nothing deleted there; you can look at comments that have been removed by simply going into the edit history. CoconutOctopus talk 16:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! I’ll check the edit history for the discussions I’m looking for. Appreciate the quick response EditLeaf (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Help with Diwata disambiguation page

Hello about the Diwata disambiguation page, how should i proceed with it? Can you help me with it.

The word “Diwata” comes from the Sanskrit word “Devata”, meaning deity, god, or divine being. It entered the Philippines long ago through Indian cultural and religious influence (via trade and Hindu-Buddhist contact in Southeast Asia). Below is the things i wanted to add, but should i remove references? how do i proceed?

Diwata in Philippine mythology is a gender-neutral umbrella term for gods, goddesses, nature spirits, nymphs and fairies.

Diwata - Tagalog mythology is the old term for the Bathala the supreme deity

Diwata - Modern Tagalog and Filipino term for fairies and nymphs

Diwata - Devata or Diwata minor gods and goddesses and forest spirits in Hinduism where the word diwata originated from

Diwata - a 'shiny', 'exalted', 'heavenly being', 'divine being', 'anything of excellence', and is also one of the Sanskrit terms used to indicate a deity in Hinduism

Diwata - Relating to a concept within Hinduism that in Sanskrit literally means 'descent'. It signifies the material appearance or incarnation of a powerful deity, or spirit on Earth

Diwata may also refer to:

• "Diwata" (song), a song by Filipino rapper Abra featuring Chito Miranda
• Diwata-1, a Philippine microsatellite launched to the International Space Station (ISS) on March 23, 2016
• Diwata-2, a Philippinemicrosatellite launched on October 29, 2018
• Diwata (entrepreneur) (born 1982), Filipino internet personality and stall owner

ZamboniZoomer (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Afc Reviewing

Hi @CoconutOctopus, I hope everything's alright, It's been a month since my rights removal, [2]. There are currently some AfD discussions here [3] and here [4], following my report on the excessive amount of LLM-written text, which was promotional and included non-existing claims, see [5], Previously I also had caught similar LLM creations from the mainspace and reported the users who did it without undisclosing, which resulted in blocks.[6], [7] And regarding the case of uncertainty before declining, I will stay hands-off in those cases! Can you give your opinion on whether I can again start patrolling?? Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 17:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, you'll need to make an application for the rights again over at the AFC project as I'd like to have another admin take a look for that. CoconutOctopus talk 17:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus I'm not in a hurry to apply, nor am I sure it would be accepted, as I was given them on probation and they were removed before the end of the period. I just wanted to get some feedback. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 04:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 September 2025

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation loses a round in court
  

UK Online Safety Act remains undefeated.

• In the media: Congress probes, mayor whitewashed, AI stinks
  

Plus Wiki rules, Wiki Spin, and physicists get street cred!

• Disinformation report: A guide for Congress
  

The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.

• Recent research: Minority-language Wikipedias, and Wikidata for botanists
  

And other new research findings.

• Technology report: A new way to read Wikisource
  

Tis true: there's magic in the web of it.

• Traffic report: Check out some new Weapons, weapon of choice
  

With the usual mix of war, death, super heroes, a belt, and Wednesday.

• Essay: The one question
  

It's an easy one.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Samwah 1805

Hi, just to ping you that Siege of samwah 1805 has been recreated and moved to Siege of Samwah 1805, by same article creator. No idea why it was speedied as a hoax yesterday, so I'll defer to your judgment rather than parade my ignorance, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Attempted assasination of Charlie Kirk

A tag has been placed on Attempted assasination of Charlie Kirk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Giraffer (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks but I meant to hit the "don't leave a redirect" button. Oops! CoconutOctopus talk 20:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I meant to delete it lol not tag it Giraffer (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

We're both doing amazing. CoconutOctopus talk 20:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

PIA

What do you think about these edits? [8] - not the Indian ones, the ones to do with Palestine. I may be wrong about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SimpleLegoLarry Doug Weller talk 11:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

My god, the edit history is like a who's who of CTOPS. I think the edits aren't the worst I've seen; I think they're likely ECR violations but I probably would have given a final warning rather than blocked... but I've also no real issues with the block as it's a short one. CoconutOctopus talk 12:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

They've continued after the block - 2 edits. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I completely misread the block time. I'd say any more edits now, since I see you added a clarification on their talk page, should be a longer block. CoconutOctopus talk 13:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

So any edits relating to that ar also violations. Doug Weller

🧹

(A/OS) talk 09:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

So there have been more edits since I posted that. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Images on Main Page subpages

Hi, thank you for working on WP:ERRORS reports. Please be more careful with edits like this one: you added an unprotected image to the Main Page, which can lead to nasty vandalism visible to millions of people. The image was protected three minutes later. The correct procedure, which unfortunately isn't explained very prominently in the relevant places like Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Today's featured list, is to first add the image to Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection, then wait until KrinkleBot protects it. (If KrinkleBot is down, which happens once or twice a year, ask a friendly Commons admin on Discord to protect the image and to restart the bot). Only after you have double checked that the image is protected on Commons you can add the image to the Main Page subtemplate. Happy editing, —Kusma (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for the tip! CoconutOctopus talk 20:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 October 2025

• News and notes: Larry Sanger returns with "Nine Theses on Wikipedia"; WMF publishes transparency report
  

This time "not merely negative".

• In the media: Extraordinary eruption of "EVIL" explained
  

Wickedpedia wrangles post-truth politics.

• Disinformation report: Emails from a paid editing client
  

Unexpected news!

• Discussion report: Sourcing, conduct, policy and LLMs: another 1,339 threads analyzed
  

Fifty hot topics from fourteen noticeboards.

• Community view: The pressing questions of the modern WWW, as seen from the Village Pump
  

Policy, politics, icons, captchas, and LLMs.

• Recent research: Is Wikipedia a merchant of (non-)doubt for glyphosate?; eight projects awarded Wikimedia Research Fund grants
  

And other recent publications.

• Opinion: Some disputes aren't worth it
  

When to walk away.

• Obituary: Michael Q. Schmidt
  

Rest in peace.

• Traffic report: Death, hear me call your name
  

Celebrities, deaths and software.

• Comix: A grand spectacle
  

All invited!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Seoul and Zurich metropolitan areas

Something went wrong with the moves for Seoul and Zurich. Can you please check the uppercase and lowercase titles and their corresponding Talk pages? Seoul metropolitan area is a redirect to itself, and Seoul Metropolitan Area is a red link. The article content is at Draft:Move/Seoul metropolitan area. Now that I found the article content, I think I could fix it myself, but that might rob you of the opportunity to figure out how it went wrong. If it's still that way after some more time passes by, I'll do it myself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That'll be the pagemove script messing up.... thanks for the heads up! I'll go clean that up now. CoconutOctopus talk 21:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That should all be sorted now. Thanks again! CoconutOctopus talk 21:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The Talk pages are still misplaced. Thanks for closing the RM, by the way. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that's the talk pages sorted now. CoconutOctopus talk 22:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Zurich Metropolitan Area is still red, with a lot of incoming links. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Man, it's really not my night. CoconutOctopus talk 22:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks OK now. We all have our moments. Thanks. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It might have been better if you had moved the content of Draft talk:Move/Zurich metropolitan area to Talk:Zurich Metropolitan Area (without creating a redirect) and changed its target, as that would have preserved its history. I think I'll do that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :) CoconutOctopus talk 22:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Closing Talk:British Post Office scandal § Requested move 17 September 2025

On what basis did you determine (as you obviously entitled to) that strong consensus against the move? Of course many editors opposed the move, but this is presumably a matter of the quality of the arguments…as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy (WP:DCON), and some arguments can be WP:discarded. Docentation (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was not shown to be met by the keep arguments; pageviews alone do not confer this and the sheer volume of oppose votes do create a strong consensus. Whilst yes, it is WP:NOTAVOTE, when determining consensus the oppose votes did have arguments backing them and were not simple blank "Oppose" or other arguments null of merit. The onus is on the proposer to show that a primary topic is clear; not the other way round. CoconutOctopus talk 18:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure I understand here. Is your reasoning for the closure that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was shown not to be met by any arguments actually advanced by opposers? Rereading the discussion, I can’t see any arguments to that effect; the opposing comments addressed other points (even though I explicitly and repeatedly asked about wp:ptopic status). If this all hinges on wp:ptopic, then even substantive arguments about other policies should still be disregarded. Docentation (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that the community were convinced WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was met; conversely, I did see evidence that the community thought it explicitly was not met. The role as a closer is ultimately to judge consensus and the consensus was against the move in my eyes. CoconutOctopus talk 18:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t wish to waste your time, but I do struggle to see any explicit comments in the discussion, let alone enough to justify that reading of consensus. Rereading the discussion, opposing votes mostly seemed to ignore what the primary topic was. (Ppery, who opposed, actually agreed it was the primary topic and mooted a primary redirect from Post Office scandal to this article!) Would you be able to quote any of the comments on which you based this judgement that there was consensus or any widespread feeling specifically about the primary topic? Edit: I misread the above and now see that you don’t think there was an explicit view either way. Docentation (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Pppery suggested a redirect from Post Office Scandal, i.e. all capitalised. CoconutOctopus talk 18:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Presumably the primary topic for Post Office Scandal and Post Office scandal is the same, and at any rate I suspect @Pppery was talking about the primary topic for both (have tagged to check). Docentation (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for quickly clarifying. Docentation (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the move discussion that would say not to have a redirect rather than a WP:ONEOTHER disamb, so feel free to propose one or to BOLDly do it. CoconutOctopus talk 19:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a helpful suggestion. I’d still, if I may, like to press you on your reasoning for finding a strong consensus. It now seems we’re agreed there wasn’t strong consensus that wp:ptopic wasn’t met (sorry for the double negative) and the inkling of a weak consensus the other way. And there were also obviously arguments other than about wp:ptopic (that I think should be wp:discarded, but you presumably not). What I’d like to know is: which ones? Docentation (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you should read too much into the use of the word "strong", there; it was not chosen to mean anything in particular. CoconutOctopus talk 19:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, my question (not that you’re obliged to answer) is really: if this isn’t about the wp:ptopic and isn’t, as we agree, a vote, what exactly was your rationale for ascertaining consensus? I fear that there wasn’t one, in which case this may not have been properly closed. Docentation (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

My view is that there was a consensus that ptopic was not met, and thus, no consensus to move. If you disagree you are more than welcome to take it to WP:MOVEREVIEW. CoconutOctopus talk 20:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You’ve been very generous with your time. I have one last question; I think I misread above: you did see evidence that the community thought it explicitly was not met. I thought you hadn’t, so crossed out the following question: what, in your view, exactly was that evidence from the discussion? Docentation (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

And, rereading this, I’m not quite sure how this is consistent with your (in my view helpful) suggestion to redirect Post Office scandal → British Post Office scandal (which would only be justified if the latter really is the wp:ptopic). I mention this because I was going to raise an RfC at Talk:Post Office scandal raising your suggestion (after being BRD-reverted by @Bkonrad), but a wp:move review is probably more appropriate if you actually did find consensus that it’s not the wp:ptopic. Docentation (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Consensus in my eyes was that your arguments were not enough to show it is the primary topic; and that it is too vague as a title. That's the last I'll say on it. CoconutOctopus talk 21:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you probably don’t want to pursue this conversation, but I should ask whether you considered finding that there was no consensus instead. (If you were to make such a finding, I could simply raise the request again, with more evidence that this is the wp:ptopic, and linking here. Otherwise, I’d want to lodge a move review.) Docentation (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

As I have said, I did find a consensus against a move. Please feel free to raise a move review but I do not see this conversation getting anywhere further here. CoconutOctopus talk 22:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, that means I shall probably have to request a move review rather than simply raising new evidence. Docentation (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:SMALLDIFFERENCES is very commonly discussed in page move discussions so I would assume Pppery was aware of what they typed. CoconutOctopus talk 19:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Survey

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

i have been very glad

To see you at utrs. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :) I said I'd do unblocks in my election and I meant it! CoconutOctopus talk 07:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)