User talk:LuniZunie: Difference between revisions

Line 222: Line 222:

Hi there, my move proposal for the page [[Zhug|Sahawiq]] (zhug) got closed because I wasn’t extended confirmed, yet my proposal had nothing to do with a topic I needed to be extended confirmed for. I made move requests in the past that *were* in violation of my confirmed status, I recognise that, but the RM I made, rather than being judged on its merits, got judged on the basis of a different RM I made with different arguments from half a year ago. I don’t feel like any consideration was given to the actual substance of the new RM I made and the only reply I got was from someone [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|judging me]] based on an old RM and from you closing the RM, both citing extended confirmed requirements even though nothing in my RM touched on extended confirmed topics. It feels a little unfair that I get judged for old requests I made half a year ago when I put a lot of effort into giving my motivations for the move in this new RM, and none of the motivations touch on extended confirmed subject matter. [[User:Poundthiswriter|Poundthiswriter]] ([[User talk:Poundthiswriter|talk]]) 01:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

:@[[User:Poundthiswriter|Poundthiswriter]] I understand, and my closing statement was definitely not the best, so I am very sorry for that. However, I can’t go against the consensus, and the only participation was an opposition. But again, I am sorry for my closing statement. <i style=”font-family:cursive,Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #f008;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#fb0,#f0b);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:#0000″>– [[User:LuniZunie|LuniZunie]]</i><sub>([[User talk:LuniZunie|talk]])</sub> 01:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

== Question from [[User:Kikat4444|Kikat4444]] (10:57, 22 January 2026) ==

hi! how do l start? –[[User:Kikat4444|Kikat4444]] ([[User talk:Kikat4444|talk]]) 10:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

If you are here because I removed your edit, please read the following before leaving a talk page message.

Please note that it is possible that I have made a mistake.

If you are here because I declined your draft.

Please note that I will not accept requests to check your draft again.

Archives (7d)
2025: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2026: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D

Why was the current userpage’s edit history moved to User:LuniZunie/Old_userpage, instead of just leaving the revision history at User:LuniZunie? Yellowmarkers (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellowmarkers I just thought it looked nicer. – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maduro’s first name is Nicolás, not Nicolàs. (I pointed this out in the move discussion, and the proposer corrected it in the proposal, but some people had already responded.) You’ll want to correct this in the close and move. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion Whoops, the move was acting weird and I had it set up right the first time, but had to redo it and forgot to change it. Thanks for letting me know. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BTW, I noticed the cat on your user page and thought you might enjoy some of the more elaborate origami cats, such as this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Will check out =D – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, if you do think some things are Ai generated when you see them I recommend using the tool GPTZero for detection. I am open to all feedback and suggestions, to be honest I was excited to begin my journey but the welcome here is pretty tough. Thank you! I don’t mean to cause any problems. I am human! Salv0603 (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Salv0603 We don’t use AI detectors because they are not accurate, there are proper ways to tell, and your messages are rather suspicious. Sorry if I am wrong. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, maybe just reading too much AI, we become the AI sometimes I use it but not all of the time. It seems Ai is not friendly here so I’ll definitely refrain from it. Thank you! Salv0603 (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Salv0603 Yeah, it isn’t (which I don’t fully agree with, but I do agree comments and articles being AI generated is bad). Just be careful, I would suggest looking at WP:NEWLLM, happy editing! – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m writing this to reinstate my edit of the Wikipedia page for Alan Becker. Read this thoroughly and if I’m in the wrong, feel free to respond.

I only fixed typos that the previous editor/page creator left and tweaked a few entries . No new information has been added. OmarZouabi77 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OmarZouabi77 You can see here that you did add new information. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OmarZouabi77 Sorry, I was overly blunt here due to stress. As long as you remove that one block of text or source it, the edit should be fine =) Thanks for reaching out and happy editing! – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I really didn’t mean to cause that much trouble… Again, I’m actually really sorry for what I did, and maybe I should respect your userspace more next time. I hope you didn’t get offended or anything, and I promise that I did not intentionally revert Lowercase Sigmabot. I don’t know why that happened either. Again, please forgive me. Trout me if you need to.

Regards, HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 01:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HwyNerd Mike Lol no you’re good, I came off as passive aggressive because I am exhausted so I apologize for that. Was more concerned about the Lowercase Sigmabot because it could mess up archives and was asking if something was wrong, and I have a lot of talk page watchers nowadays and I don’t want you getting in trouble for a comment that was clearly a joke =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LuniZunie, Thank you for reviewing the draft entry. You said it read more like an advertisement, which may have been a consequence of my being too fulsome and transparent about the Foundation. I have amended and deleted words, phrases and sections that may have given this impression. If I have not succeeded, I’d appreciate specific feedback on the elements needing to be changed/deleted. I have tried to be rigorously accurate and to back up all key elements with citations So I don’t think the veracity of the draft is in question. More one of tone. I hope I can look forward to your further review and feedback. Pen Rupert Hadow (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupert Hadow I would suggest you to read Help:Your first article and to look at some Wikipedia:Good articles to see what makes a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, I won’t rereview your draft as I have biases and it would not be fair to you or other people in the AfC queue. Thanks, – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monkeysmashingkeyboards submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate LuniZunie for editor of the week, for his sustained work finding and preventing vandalism, as well as being a a joy to talk with. LuniZunie developed and maintains WikiShield, the best new and valuable anti-vandalism tool on the Wiki Project, which reverts edits extremely fast. While doing my Welcoming Committee duties it’s hard for me not to find his welcoming messages on new users, and when I’m recent change patrolling with RedWarn and I find a vandal, usually Luni has already reverted and warned them. He’s also open to feedback – this conversation is probably the most civil conversation I’ve had during my one-month tenure as an editor. This nomination was seconded by QuicoleJR, Vacant0, Rafaelthegreat, Alachuckthebuck, HouseBlaster, pro-anti-air and GoldRomean.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Fan of German football

LuniZunie

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning January 11, 2026

Acknowledged for his sustained work finding and preventing vandalism, as well as being a a joy to talk with. A role model of civility. During his Welcoming Committee duties, his messages on new users are abundant, and if you patrol recent changes with RedWarn you will often find a vandal that Luni has it already reverted and warned. He is open to feedback. This conversation is probably one of the more civil conversation one can find at Wikipedia.

Recognized for

developing WikiShield, the best anti-vandalism tool on the Wiki Project

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 19:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This means so much to me!! I lost almost everything important to me in a sporting accident a few months before I started editing, which included most of my friends and hobbies, so to finally have a community where I feel I belong and I enjoy being with means the world. I am genuinely so grateful for this and couldn’t be happier right now. So thank you for the nomination monkeysmashingkeyboards!! =DAnd thank you for the seconds from QuicoleJR, Vacant0, Rafaelthegreat, Alachuckthebuck, HouseBlaster, pro-anti-air and GoldRomean, I appreciate it so much.
And of course thank you User:Buster7 for handling everything behind the scenes =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations!! Incredibly well deserved :). GoldRomean (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto—incredibly well-deserved =) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 HurricaneZeta^C 20:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Why did I never notice you have been nominated? Shame on myself HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 23:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also didn’t see this (I don’t really follow that side of the project) but I would have supported it as well. You do a lot of great work here. lp0 on fire () 00:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Luni! Absolutely deserved 🙂 tony 02:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 We need to create Wikipedia:LuniZunism, a religion like Wikipedia:Oshwahnism VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What, where people edit instead of sleeping? kewl sock (anti-pro-air) 02:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Do you believe source editing is more effective than visual editing in the long-term? If so, how do you source edit and where can you find instructions to do such? =) —OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow That’s a really good question! I started out with visual editing for a while, but switched to source editing since it makes the advanced stuff easier. I still sometimes use visual editing for things such as tables (I still suck at them), but for the most part I use source editing. So I would suggest source editing, it is a steep learning curve but once you get it, it makes editing so much easier!If you need help, you can always check out Help:Wikitext, or you can also reach out to me =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Also, hope this isn’t too much of a hassle for you, but do you think the 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election is…a good article, for lack of better words? I worked quite a bit on it and hope t add some more, but I’d like some advice from an experienced editor. Thank you! =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow It looks good! One thing I would suggest is to check out Wikipedia:OVERLINK, there are some places where there are a lot of links. We typically also only link text on the first occurrence, so like Republican would only be linked when it first shows up in the article body text, and would be normal text the rest of the time. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thanks for the advice. Would you say it’s a B-class article? OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow I’m not the best at rating but with the linkage fixes I would put it B-class, but I could see a case for a very high C-class too. – LuniZunie_(talk) 04:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you so much! You’re very kind. =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are too =) Happy editing! – LuniZunie_(talk) 04:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write my first wik can you help me —Patcreator (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Patcreator: Absolutely I can help! Any ideas on what you want it to be on? – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just tried source-editing to archive a link and it’d…didn’t work out the way I thought it would.

“Guerra, Shirleen (March 21, 2025). “Virginia’s 2025 gubernatorial election update”. The Center Square. Retrieved March 26, 2025. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251105101045/https://www.thecentersquare.com/virginia/article_d169c390-dea8-441a-a93f-4475fbdccb92.html |archive-date=November 5, 2025″ and it shows up like that in the article itself…? Did I do anything wrong? I’d really appreciate help, since I’ve archived a link in source mode before and it’d worked fine. —OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow: Not entirely sure what the issue is here because I don’t have the full citation, but the following should work:

<ref>{{cite web |last1=Guerra |first1=Shirleen |title=Virginia’s 2025 gubernatorial election update |url=https://www.thecentersquare.com/virginia/article_d169c390-dea8-441a-a93f-4475fbdccb92.html |website=The Center Square |url-status=live |publisher=The Center Square |access-date=18 January 2026 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251105101045/https://www.thecentersquare.com/virginia/article_d169c390-dea8-441a-a93f-4475fbdccb92.html |archive-date=Nov 5, 2025 |language=en |date=21 March 2025}}</ref>

I was able to do this using the source editing toolbar, if you click the templates dropdown, then click “cite web”, then enter in the info it will make it for you. For the archive stuff just hit “show/hide extra fields”. Once done, you can insert the citation into the article where your cursor is =)

Hope this helps, – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I really appreciate it; I’ll try it and hope for the best! =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if it doesn’t work! – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It worked! Thanks so much! What was the issue in the first one? =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow Could be a number of things, but from what I see did you forget to wrap it in the {{cite web}} template? Or the <ref></ref> element? Without those, it is just treated as normal text! – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks so much (again) You’re super! =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 🙂 so very nice to meet you. So how do I actually create a page? I believe I actually have been editing on my user page. —Jmarty1212 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarty1212 Hello, nice to meet you too! To create a page, just go to a page that does not exist (such as your current userpage, User:Jmarty1212), and click the “create” button found in the top right. An editor should open and you can edit the page, once ready to create the page, just click publish and the page will be created. Make sure to describe your changes in the edit summary box first though! – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! So I finished my draft page. How do I publish it to go live? —Jmarty1212 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarty1212 I added the template to the draft, now all you have to do is hit “Submit the draft for review!”. – LuniZunie_(talk) 16:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much! You have been so helpful Jmarty1212 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarty1212 No problem! Happy editing and let me know if you need further help =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 16:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha! Hope you’ve had a great start to the new year <3

Some BLP subjects seem to have multiple careers, is it better to have them under a same section “career” and list of chronologically what they’ve done? or have seperate sections? (assuming ofcourse they are notable in both)

Thoughts on emailing the subject’s listed email online to ask for access to closed articles/images that can be used as reearch for wikiArticles?

What would be your thought process for BLP’s that are significany but the articles are in a differen languages than English? I’ve been using google translate for my research, but I am not sure if it is entirely accurate.

Sincerely,
JournalJane (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JournalJane Heya!

It really depends on how big these careers are. The first person to come to mind for me is Dwayne Johnson, who has separate sections for each career. But, other people, like Anthony J. Ferrante have subsections for each of their careers since they are smaller (note that the dates are not necessary in the section heading). In other cases, like Shihab bin Tariq, the individual careers don’t even get a unique subsection, but rather a short paragraph or sentence in the main section. So, I would treat it as what feels natural.
I would personally avoid it for two reasons: 1) It allows people who were contacted to provide images that make themself look better compared to other people who may not have been contacted 2) The copyright licenses would get very complex very fast and that should generally be avoided.
This is an interesting one, I personally would only translate articles from languages I know or somewhat understand. If you are going to translate it, you should probably check it through with a person who speaks the language, and when you are translating make sure to translate it back to English to make sure the translation makes sense. For example, if you use Google Translate to translate the phrase “Hey, how are you? What did you eat for breakfast?” into Korean, when you translate it back to English you get “Hello! What did you have for breakfast this morning?”, which is a completely different from the original (missing the entire “Hey, how are you?”).

Hope that helps =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 16:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are always helpful and kind. This gives me a lot more clarity and direction.

Thank you!

JournalJane (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LuniZunie, how do I upload a picture to Wikipedia Commons? —LexicalAmbiguityFixer(T|C) 22:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lexical Ambiguity Fixer You can upload it through commons:Special:UploadWizard, and there are instructions there to help =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! LexicalAmbiguityFixer(T|C) 22:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This sounds like a **very** specific question, but…do you include links in the article even if the infobox (let’s say the election infobox) includes it?
Ex: Abigail Spanberger in the infobox.
But in the article, the first time it appears, would you link Abigail Spanberger? Thanks for the help you’ve already given me too! =) —OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow Yes! Usually when we refer to something as the first instance on Wikipedia, it means the first instance in like, the actual article text if that makes sense. So yes, you would still link it =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Then you don’t think all the times after that regardless of section. Thanks again! =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow Well, that actually brings up a good point. If the link is in another major section, and is needed contextually, it would be fine to relink it. There is a bunch of info at MOS:DUPLINK that should help =D – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Another quick question…for election articles…should campaign stuff be included in the lead section? Like, “X focused on y. A focused-on C.” Also WILL check out MOS:DUPLINK =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! It really depends, I would prefer (as a reader and an editor) for the focuses to be an umbrella in the lead, like summarize what all parties are focusing on (since elections are usually debates meaning issues focused on by a party will likely have a stance taken by all parties). Then, in the party’s individual sections focus on the campaign stuff. Here’s an example from the 2020 United States presidential election article:The third paragraph in the lead section states:

The central issues of the election included the public health and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; civil unrest in reaction to the police murder of George Floyd, the Supreme Court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, and the future of the Affordable Care Act.

This is like the umbrella for the debate, and tells the reader what happened without providing too much detail or sounding promotional (content that could be perceived as promotion in a political article is generally bad).The article then uses the Campaign issues section to expand on each party’s stance on the issue. Another way of doing this is as seen in 2024 United States presidential election#Campaign themes, where the campaigns are talked about in separate sections.In general, when in doubt you can usually look at the larger articles that are similar in subject for help! But again, great question =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! I’ll use this advice, thanks! =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am trying to update a Wikipedia page that has erroneous and outdated information. However, this has become an incredibly difficult and tedious process. I would love your help. Thank you! —Jenjadeben (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenjadeben Hey! I’m a bit busy and cannot do much content writing, but if you need help finding sources or have some questions feel free to shoot me a message =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenjadeben I should also mention that you should respond to the message on your talk page. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I do not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. The submission is based entirely on publicly available sources, including published books, media interviews, and articles by independent outlets. All references in the draft are verifiable and come from reputable publications such as FourFourTwo, These Football Times, Yahoo Sports, Dunking with Wolves, and Pitch Publishing. No content in the article has been added based on personal experience or unpublished material.
I am submitting this draft solely to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of notable sports writers and journalists, in accordance with the site’s content policies. Grin123 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Grin123 Thanks for letting me know! Was concerned since your username can be read as “G. Rin.” (i.e. George Rinaldi). As for your draft, the sources did not show significant coverage. On top of this, your draft is littered with signs of AI writing (and so does this comment). – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I understand the points raised, but this has been compiled with information from a substantial period of time for this person. ~2026-45451-1 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, either way, it was written with AI. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Luni – AI was used to help format the article, as I followed guides but kept faltering on the cite-web sections. The text itself was human written, I’m not sure how to combat this given i cannot alter what i wrote? Grin123 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Grin123 The issue is that it is clearly AI generated, you obviously did not check over what the AI changed to the article as there are so many signs. If you did not check over the article after the AI edited it, how am I supposed to trust the content was written by you?As per I’m not sure how to combat this given i cannot alter what i wrote
I would suggest writing the article without using AI. Whether that means starting afresh, or going back to a point where you did not use AI, write it yourself. If your claim of only using it for formatting is true, that means you made it 99% of the way to the finish line, but decided to use AI to finish it, just finish that 1% yourself.And again, even if the draft was just formatted with AI, your original comment was not just formatted using AI. I do not want to have conversations with a robot, if I did, I would be over at grokipedia. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Luni, I shall go back to my original sandbox drafts and step backwards and reword and resubmit when in a place that works. Thank you. Grin123 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy editing =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Grin123 I would suggest checking out WP:MOS and WP:Your first article for help on formatting. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello – yes I did do that first of course. I couldn’t figure out the cite web and a tutorial on YouTube didn’t help. When using AI it offered to solve and refine text which is where the issues are lying. Now I have a working references I can reedit and rewrite the entirety or source on the old sandbox drafts/google sheets. Thanks ~2026-45451-1 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, it could be the same user operating both Devgru20 and Khykim, and also one or two others; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khykim. My guess is they different, though, but working together. I’m waiting for them to respond to questions/comments, maybe we find out then. — DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing I doubt they will given that the original user did not. I have gone ahead and declined all of their drafts since I found signs of AI in all of them (except one, but if 19/20 of the drafts are AI, the 20th will be too). I really do hope they respond, as they are expanding on a part of Wikipedia that is lacking… – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa Thank you!! – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my move proposal for the page Sahawiq (zhug) got closed because I wasn’t extended confirmed, yet my proposal had nothing to do with a topic I needed to be extended confirmed for. I made move requests in the past that *were* in violation of my confirmed status, I recognise that, but the RM I made, rather than being judged on its merits, got judged on the basis of a different RM I made with different arguments from half a year ago. I don’t feel like any consideration was given to the actual substance of the new RM I made and the only reply I got was from someone judging me based on an old RM and from you closing the RM, both citing extended confirmed requirements even though nothing in my RM touched on extended confirmed topics. It feels a little unfair that I get judged for old requests I made half a year ago when I put a lot of effort into giving my motivations for the move in this new RM, and none of the motivations touch on extended confirmed subject matter. Poundthiswriter (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Poundthiswriter I understand, and my closing statement was definitely not the best, so I am very sorry for that. However, I can’t go against the consensus, and the only participation was an opposition. But again, I am sorry for my closing statement. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hi! how do l start? —Kikat4444 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply