User talk:LuniZunie: Difference between revisions

Line 371: Line 371:

:2. Personally would you say Wikipedia is a trustworthy resource for researching information?

:2. Personally would you say Wikipedia is a trustworthy resource for researching information?

:I appreciate any reply or information you have into this, and hope you have a good day! [[User:Stevens Point know it all|Stevens Point know it all]] ([[User talk:Stevens Point know it all|talk]]) 05:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

:I appreciate any reply or information you have into this, and hope you have a good day! [[User:Stevens Point know it all|Stevens Point know it all]] ([[User talk:Stevens Point know it all|talk]]) 05:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

::@[[User:Stevens Point know it all|Stevens Point know it all]] Heya! I would be more than happy to help =D{{pb}}

::# I watch for bad edits for fun! I also maintain my own script that a bunch of people use, and I do a bit of content creation. But, for the most part, I partake in something called “[[WP:GNOME|gnoming]]”, which means I do a lot of the minor work!

::# Well, it depends. I find Wikipedia a great source, however I also know how to spot badfaith or incorrect information because I have spent so much time here. For the most part, it is a very useful tool, and I am ”’sure”’ you have heard of the old “don’t use Wikipedia, use the sources Wikipedia gives”. There are a few topics I typically avoid when it comes to trusting Wikipedia, and those are political topics since those are so opinionated and targeted, but other than that, I trust what a read a lot. For political topics, I usually steer clear of them in general, but if I do want to read up on them, I usually just use multiple news sources from different parties, and compare local news versus what are nations are reporting.

:: <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>_{([[User talk:LuniZunie|talk]])} 14:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

== Question from [[User:Anonymsiy|Anonymsiy]] (07:33, 28 January 2026) ==

== Question from [[User:Anonymsiy|Anonymsiy]] (07:33, 28 January 2026) ==

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 =) HouseBlaster (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 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]

I would suggest checking out Help:Editing! – LuniZunie_(talk) 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I stop posts from Wiki RonaldX1 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RonaldX1 I’m not sure what you mean. – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to unsubscribe but can see no option on the website RonaldX1 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RonaldX1 meta:Mailing lists/Unsubscribing =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are some things i can help citate in certain wikipedia pages? —CaspianEdits (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CaspianEdits Well, I would suggest finding areas you like! Once you do, you can find text that has a little message that looks like this: ^{[citation needed]}. That means that that part is uncited, and you can find sources to cite it! – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a new article for Noname_trapper for a school project —Lildeathstar (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lildeathstar Okay! I would suggest looking at Help:Your first article for help. I can also assist you if needed =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right here is where I would like to do some more context clarification in relations to the Basra Federal Region. You may have only seen HurricaneZeta’s reasons on which you deemed to be a valid point, but I would like to also add that I also made some equally valid points right here.

So I’m planning to contest your closure (as per sugestion by Zeta) so that I could get a chance to have it reopened for suggestion. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GuesanLoyalist I saw all the reasons, I would not close an RM without looking at all the reasons. I can see an argument being made here for no consensus (and if I were to do the RM now, I might have closed it as no consensus rather than not moved), but I don’t see an argument that it should have been moved.The opening line of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions states the following:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

So let’s break down the arguments:

1. The last argument is a simple “per x” !vote, and provides no argument
2. The second to last argument (the one that was seconded), is a sentence fragment that states the Arabic name translation. It is already quite lacking, and then when you add on to the fact that we don’t use the native name, but we use the Wikipedia:Common name, it doesn’t hold much ground.
3. Okay, now let’s look at your argument, you claim the move should happen for Wikipedia:Consistency reasons, that’s a really good point, and when I first read the RM I thought, “yeah, great point, makes sense, I could see this move happening”, however, as you know there is still one comment left.
4. So let’s look at Zeta’s argument, they claim that it is the Wikipedia:Common name, great point, but it doesn’t fully outweigh the consistency claims when you add on the two support !votes. However, they also bring up the point that [t]he other examples don’t have that type of usage of the wording, which, when looked into (which I did do), undermines the consistency reasoning as it shows this case is not like the two examples given.

So, there’s my reasoning. Maybe it should have been closed as no consensus, but definitely not as moved. And given the fact that it had already been relisted without any further participation, relisting was not an option in my eyes. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GuesanLoyalist I should also mention, if anything comes out of this, it should be learning that discussions are not a vote. You said Also do note that I did previously suggest doing this, but someone closed it despite a clear majority, but that’s just not how consensus on Wikipedia works. It is not a tally on who got the most votes. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LuniZunie For number 4, I did argue about how the sources refered to the Basra Region

@HurricaneZeta Here are some sources that I have gathered from the article.

• Governorate have repeated their calls for the establishment of a Basra federal region
• But al-Fadel insists that a federal region of Basra will not contradict the notion of a strong, central government and that the district’s wealth will be shared.
• Some politicians and inhabitants of Al-Basrah have demanded a referendum on whether the city and surrounding province might become a semi-autonomous region
• On Saturday dozens of citizens participated in a demonstration near the headquarters of the local government in Basra, demanding the transfer of the province to a federal region in protest against the weakness of governance,
• The remarks came days after former Iraqi Member of Parliament Wael Abdel Latif claimed he had a letter obtained from Ayatollah Sistani’s office showing ayatollah Sistani’s consent regarding the declaration of the southern province of Basra as a federal region.

Majority of the sources have referred to the Basra federal region as “…a federal region” rather then the “Basra Federal Region” and the only time that I have seen it being referred as that is on the headline for the last source that I’ve mentioned

1. the usual style of headlines as they need to summarize the information to be more noticed by readers
2. a potential grammer mistake?

They referred to the Basra Region as “a Federal Region” rather then the “Basra Federal Region”, even with one source directly referring to the Basra Region as the Basra Region at https://thenewregion.com/posts/4079.

A majority of the Basra Provincial Council members have declared their support for moving forward with steps to form the Basra Region, the council’s deputy chairman said on Friday.

This also includes https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/884487/basra-residents-renew-push-for-regional-status-as-signature-drive-begins as they stated:

Organizers and activists involved in the signature drive have publicly stated they will not retreat from what they view as a legal imperative, asserting that a “Basra Region” must become a reality to address the disparity between the province’s economic output and its dilapidated infrastructure.

For more sources, check https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Basra+Region%22&sca_esv=64ac0ab895c5266b&rlz=1C1HKFL_enAU1198AU1198&sxsrf=ANbL-n6bnvmidpybqseTuCQA9RPnxR4s0A%3A1769313304287&ei=GJR1aZajEZyGnesPqvGqyAQ&ved=0ahUKEwiWj_7X5aWSAxUcQ2cHHaq4CkkQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22Basra+Region%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDiJCYXNyYSBSZWdpb24iMgYQABgHGB4yBRAuGIAEMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgYQABgIGB4yBhAAGAgYHjIGEAAYCBgeMgYQABgIGB4yCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBUiXPFCPBFibOnABeAGQAQCYAYICoAGnFaoBBTAuNy43uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIQoAKLIKgCFMICBxAjGCcY6gLCAhAQABgDGLQCGOoCGI8B2AEBwgIEECMYJ8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgsQLhiABBiRAhiKBcICCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFwgIKEC4YgAQYQxiKBcICChAAGIAEGEMYigXCAggQABiABBixA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIEEAAYA8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGNEDGIMBGMcBwgIFEAAYgATCAgoQABiABBgUGIcCwgIHEAAYgAQYCsICDhAuGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFwgILEC4YgAQYxwEYrwHCAgYQABgWGB7CAhQQLhiABBiXBRjcBBjeBBjgBNgBAZgDGPEFCiKp45OSUem6BgYIARABGAqSBwkxLjUuOS43LTGgB4ekAbIHBTAuNS45uAebF8IHBzItNy4yLjfIB-QBgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp GuesanLoyalist (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GuesanLoyalist But you didn’t. No where did you argue this, this is your entire statement:The Kurdistan Region is called the Kurdistan Region and the Sunni Region is called the Sunni Region, so I think the Basra Region should be called the Basra Region for consistency reason.
No where did you use sources. And nowhere did you argue the statement. This is not an argument you can make after the fact, and that is also not what move review is for. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please close the RM that is currently open as withdrawn. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GuesanLoyalist I should also mention, I am not trying to be rude or anything, just blunt. If this does get taken to move review, I don’t need my reasoning to be discarded because of being overly nice and writing puffery comments. I would also ask that you hold off the move review until the 27th (UTC) as I am currently dealing with the January 2026 North American winter storm and am not fully available. Thanks and happy editing. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did say it here though: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1330195953#:~:text=%40HurricaneZeta%20Here%20are%20some%20sources%20that%20I%20have%20gathered%20from,UTC)%20GuesanLoyalist%20(talk)%2001%3A12%2C%2029%20December%202025%20(UTC) GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GuesanLoyalist As HurricaneZeta stated, all of those sources call it a federal region one way or another, and they don’t lack that descriptor as seen in the comparisons you provided. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LuniZunie Like I have mentioned before, the Sources called it something along the lines of “a Federal region of Basra”, “Basra to become a federal region” or something similar. There wasn’t any sort of info that directly stated of a “Basra Federal Region.”

By the way, how ^{(as in if you’re struggling with it or handling it fine?)} are you handling the 2026 winter storms? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I saw after checking through sources, I saw a lot mention “Basra Federal Region”, but I did also see a lot (though less) use “Basra Region”. However, the issue with that is that your arguments didn’t focus on “Basra Region” alone, but rather that it was being called “a Federal region of Basra” etc. I just didn’t see this as an argument that would overrule the argument made by Zeta (as from the evidence you showed, it was still referred to as a federal region), and I can’t assume you were making an argument about the WP:COMMONNAME being “Basra Region”, as you didn’t make a point that it was not being connected to being a federal district. Making that assumption would be a WP:SUPERVOTE on my part. And, either way, I, when I searched up both, found more cases of “Basra Federal Region” from more reliable sources. The outlier in this was this CNN article, but it is rather old (and outdated with regards to this subject), and it is a really short article.And, thanks for asking about the winter storms, today has actually been worse. The heater in our house still isn’t working so it is FREEZING, and there have been more accidents as people are being less cautious. But, still holding up well enough. – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was trying to prove that “Basra Federal Region” isn’t a commonly used term in any of these articles. I did ORIGINALLY tried to use it to suggest using “Basra Region.”
2. GODDAMN! That kinda reminded me of something similar happening with me right now. It’s pretty hot outside to the point that my family had to close all the curtains and turn on all the A/C possible. Also got sunburnt on my ears and nose at the beach though.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GuesanLoyalist

1. I just didn’t see those arguments, and I didn’t see how the arguments made could outweigh the WP:COMMONNAME argument. However, I think if you compiled sources and redid the RM in say, a month or so, it would likely pass.
2. Well, I’m very glad it’s not the A/C that isn’t working for me, I can always wear some more blankets if I’m too cold.

– LuniZunie_(talk) 23:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LuniZunie

1. However, I think if you compiled sources and redid the RM in say, a month or so, it would likely pass. Didn’t you want me to close my second RM or something like that?
2. Heatwave vs cold blizzard, oh how they contrast with each other! We literally live in the opposite situation lol.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t you want me to close my second RM or something like that?
Yes, it was too soon, (as in days after the fact). Also, it would have been messy if this did get taken to move review, and the arguments you made didn’t change much in that RM. – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhhh. You might want to search up “Basra Region” and “Basra Federal Region” (including the quotation marks as you can find websites that use these exact words) and then compare and contrast both of them. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I said the following:And, either way, I, when I searched up both, found more cases of “Basra Federal Region” from more reliable sources. The outlier in this was this CNN article, but it is rather old (and outdated with regards to this subject), and it is a really short article.
That’s what I meant I was doing, the issue is there just isn’t much on either of them, but I found more (reliable sources) using “Federal”. – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve searched both “Basra Federal Region” and “Basra Region” and I would say that they have equal weight with the amount of sources talking about the federal region.

Perhaps, we may need to go to WP:CRITERIA in order to solve this issue?

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GuesanLoyalist equal weight with the amount of sources
Yes, but, it’s about what the sources are, and I found more reliable sources using “Federal”. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly include of these reliable sources when talking about the “Basra Federal Region”? It’s so that I could read for it myself. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GuesanLoyalist [2] [3]Again, neither are used much in reliable sources (as the region gets little coverage in reliable sources in the first place), and from what I see, “Basra” alone is the most commonly used name. But again, these weren’t brought up in the RM. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, all the sources (on both sides) that use them are really really old. The best source I could find for your argument is this, but that uses “Basra region project” and “…creating a Basra region could…” which both aren’t talking about “Basra region” as like, a noun. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, that is a tough problem. What else could we do instead to resolve the issue?

I have mentioned WP:CRITERIA before, so we may want to consider using that. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s the thing, I don’t think we should “resolve” the issue, the article has had a stable title for over 11 years, and if there is no consensus or no agreement, it should remain at the stable title. I think what should be done here is a future RM should be made compiling more evidence or requesting a different page move, and proper sourcing and arguments and such should be made. We have now gone beyond what the RM was, and have compiled evidence that is not present in the RM, and using such evidence to close would have been a supervote was it was not in the RM. I absolutely agree with you Wikipedia:CONSISTENT claims, but there was a failure to disprove the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME claims, and commonname beats consistency in article titles. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for talking with me. It was nice talking to you about what can and should we do with improving on Wikipedia. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any time, appreciate this not blowing up and for all the respect. Happy editing and if you need any help in the future feel free to reach out =) Cheers mate! – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding recent edits: referring to Widdowson as a “prominent conspiracy theorist” would provide important context. Widdowson has repeatedly denied documented deaths, abuse, and sexual violence within the Canadian Indian Residential School system, despite extensive survivor testimony, historical records, and scholarly research. In 2022, the Canadian Parliament unanimously recognized the residential school system as a genocide, and in the same year Pope Francis formally acknowledged the Catholic Church’s wrongdoing. Widdowson’s claims align with established patterns of denialism and can reasonably be characterized as conspiracy theories, comparable to Holocaust denial. As such, describing her in this manner is appropriate and supported by reliable sources. Thanks, Fingray7 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fingray7 I responded on the talk page, you cannot state that it is supported with reliable sources and have that be credible, you actually need to cite the sources. – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there LuniZunie. Could your wikishield perhaps have a bug: User talk:Huh67 received a second warning although it looks like they’ve only made one edit. (Special:Contributions/Huh67) Or did I miss something? Kind Regards Squawk7700 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Squawk7700 Currently testing out abuse logs, so that was a uw-attempt warning (for an abuse log hit) =) Thanks for asking though! – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, must have read too quickly and not have seen the “edit filter” part. Have a nice day! Squawk7700 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lynch44 Thank you!! Storm hasn’t been too bad, some power outages here and there but has seemed stable the past few hours. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much the same here in Indy. Almost a foot of snow (!!) plus a bunch of the kids in our neighborhood sledding. Still scheduled to get more though. Cheers! Lynch44 00:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We got around a foot too, only ice to come for us though =( – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a Californian, I have no concept of snow (except for the few times it snowed in China), but I really hope you are doing well amidst the blizzard! Some cookies may help you get through the blizzard. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 01:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing pretty well, can’t get our cars out of the house and can’t walk to the store, but we stocked up really well. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you are doing okay Luni! There’s been a cold snap in Western Washington the past week, but it’s finally warming up to a balmy 46f today, lol. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for me, my house’s heating decided to stop working so it is freezzzinggg!! – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sensei, I hope you are doing well and staying safe during the winter storm.

I created a page for Luke Lawrence (sailor), but there is another Luke Lawrence who is a motorcycle racer. My plan was to create a disambiguation page and put both names on it. However, I realised I don’t know how to change the motorcycle racer’s article name to something more appropriate like Luke Lawrence (Motorcycle Racer)? Thoughts on the idea? and help with steps if the idea sounds reasonable ?

JournalJane (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There should be a “move” option under “tools”. Remember to use lowercase for “motorcyclist” though. lp0 on fire () 07:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JournalJane As said above, there is a tool to help with moving! I personally, would also suggest using User:TarnishedPath/MovePlus.js. I would also suggest that the disambiguation be “motorcyclist” rather than “motorcycle racer” =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Both <3

JournalJane (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think your requirement that people read long essays before commenting on your edits is close to bad faith, especially when you don’t bother even providing information about why you did what you did, except for a link to a long article.

Such a citation (of a long article as evidence of who knows what) would not pass as a citation in most circumstances because it is not specific enough for anyone to know what aspect of those long articles is what you are referring to. It amounts to a change without a reason, which I find disrespectful.

Anyway, I read the citation article you pointed to and found this paragraph, which suggests to me you shouldn’t have deleted the edit I made:

“Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags, like this ^[1]. Since any citation that accurately identifies the source is better than none, do not revert the good-faith addition of partial citations. They should be considered temporary, and replaced with more complete, properly formatted citations as soon as possible.”

Note: any citation that identifies a source is better than none, so do not revert. ~2026-55060-9 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-55060-9 Except that, when it says Since any citation that accurately identifies the source is better than none, do not revert the good-faith addition of partial citations
It is more referring to, if someone adds a citation, not adds content and a citation. The issue with your addition is it both adds content without a proper citation, and I would like to see a better source for that content. And I apologize if this was taken as disrespectful, it was not meant to be, the issue is that if I go around and fix up mistakes by others’ they would not learn, and it would also take a significant amount of time for me to fix. Even if I left you a talk page message telling you I fixed it, many people would take this as “I don’t need my contribution to be correct since other people will fix it for me”, which is not a proper way of learning or contributing. Hope that better explains it, cheers. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks.

I think there is a massive difference between fixing others errors and giving basic reasons for deleting some other humans creative efforts. People deserve to live in a rational universe, and that means basic rational reasons are respectful, and citations to essays that have a dozen potential meanings are not.

I don’t expect you to fix my mistakes.

I just would like to know what the specific error was, even if it is three words. It doesn’t need to be detailed.

For example, it is only now that I know you wanted better evidence. Until now, I thought you wanted a better formatted citation.

I shouldn’t really have to guess at which part of a long article you are pointing to when you delete a good faith addition. Even something like “needs better evidence” would be better than a link to a long article that makes several dozen points that could be relevant.

Thanks. ~2026-55060-9 (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-55060-9 Will keep in note for the future, thanks for reaching out and sorry for the inconvenience. Happy editing. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Take care. ~2026-55060-9 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dafootballguy here. I noticed you co-created WikiShield, can you make a mobile version? I would love to use it but I’m on mobile. Happy editing. Dafootballguy (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dafootballguy Hey, yeah I do all the development for WikiShield now, I’ve been planning on making a mobile version for some time, but it is hard. Currently working on a huge update so it would have to be after that, but the current plan is for a mobile version to be created after this update comes out. For now, I would suggest WP:CVPI =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the help. Vandalism partol is harder on mobile and cluebot usually gets there first. Happy editing. Dafootballguy (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly second the suggestion to use WP:CVPI; it’s very usable on mobile. lp0 on fire () 21:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don’t have the rollerbacker tool at the moment, I am still doing my month of patrolling. Happy editing and thank you for the help. Dafootballguy (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, no worries. I’m sure Luni will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think WikiShield requires rollback as well. Thanks for patrolling! lp0 on fire () 21:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, give me about a month for the request then. Happy editing. Dafootballguy (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See comment and edits. Also see Q137903937 already created for this creek. H2nobodyknows (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@H2nobodyknows Hey, on my end the decline reason is “improperly sourced”, not sure why the actual decline template only talks about “reliable sources”, as part of being improperly sourced is missing inline citations, which was the issue here. Cheers, – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s because you used “v” instead of “ilc” as the decline code. It’s footnoted now and with more sources. H2nobodyknows (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@H2nobodyknows ILC is for BLP articles. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it’s not grounds for declining other AfC’s that are not BLP, and should not not be declined on that basis. H2nobodyknows (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@H2nobodyknows Well, I will keep all of this in mind for the future, thanks for notifying me of this =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please back my all edited changes done on Ankit Trivedi page. Aum Pandya13 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aum Pandya13 Your edits weren’t supported by Wikipedia:Inline citations, so I reverted them. I have restored an early version of the page because that page is a mess. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a conflict of interest. I am editing on behalf of Ankit Trivedi. I will only propose factual, neutrally worded changes supported by reliable sources. Aum Pandya13 (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aum Pandya13 I see, but your edits were unsourced, they need sources. And please don’t edit on behalf of that person. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are in Reference list. Other things are related to his careery. Which are not available on any specific resource. That’s why we are uploading it. Aum Pandya13 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aum Pandya13 Okay, but the issue is you need Wikipedia:Inline citations. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am writing to propose content additions to this article and to clarify my position.

I would like to disclose a conflict of interest, as I am personally associated with the subject, Ankit Trivedi. For this reason, I am not making direct edits and am submitting the content here for review by neutral editors.

The material I previously attempted to add is factually accurate and has been verified directly with the subject. There is no intention to add incorrect or misleading information. However, I understand that Wikipedia requires verifiability through reliable, independent sources, and that personal verification alone is not sufficient under Wikipedia’s policies.

Some aspects of Ankit Trivedi’s literary and cultural work are not widely documented in independent media, which limits the availability of published sources. I recognize that, without such sources, certain details may not be suitable for inclusion at this time, even if they are accurate.

I respectfully request that editors review the earlier proposed text and consider adding any portions that meet Wikipedia’s sourcing and notability standards.

Thank you for your time and guidance. I appreciate the editors’ efforts in maintaining the encyclopedia’s neutrality and reliability. Please RESTORE THE CONTENT. Aum Pandya13 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aum Pandya13

1. Don’t use AI
2. Please be respectful
3. You did not have WP:Inline citations

– LuniZunie_(talk) 17:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the “Namespaces to show” section of WikiShield, I don’t see “Wikipedia” or “Wikipedia talk” categories. It’s either I’m blind (which I usually am) or it’s a bug, but it’s pretty minor. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 19:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HwyNerd Mike Namespace is called “Project”, will change that in the upcoming update since that is confusing. – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I’m definitely blind. I didn’t even notice “Project” was an option… HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 19:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Barnstar for you 🙂 WikiHelperSeb (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHelperSeb Thanks =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 20:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m attempting to archive the official (governmental) election results link for the 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election article — this is the link: https://enr.elections.virginia.gov/results/public/virginia/elections/2025-November-General/ballot-items/01000000-1238-16ac-ab58-08ddfb9ff9ea.
I’ve tried both the Wayback Machine and archive.today, but neither worked… I’d appreciate your help! =) —OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow Very strange, the archives aren’t working for me, but, given the fact that the website is still up, I don’t think you need to worry about archiving! Whenever it dies, the archive will be setup and will hopefully work properly. I can’t try archiving it since it was just (I assume by you) archived 17 minutes ago, and there is a 1 hour cooldown, but once that is lifted I will see what I can do to fix it =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Maybe the website is too complicated to archive…? But okay! Also, my article for 2029 Virginia Attorney General election is nominated (and very likely) to deleted (somewhat embarrassingly) but I understand based off Wikipedia’s policy. Just wanted to say that. =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow Maybe that’s why, but I’ll play around with it!And, don’t be embarrassed at all!!! Two out of three of the articles I have actually created were deleted (Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber) & Block Blast!), and I have a lot of experience (of course, I don’t due much content creation, but still). You should be proud of yourself, making / expanding an article is a LOT, and it’s something that many people struggle doing. I will say, I, personally, am very proud to have you as a mentee as it has been amazing seeing how much you have done in such a short amount of time, and how quickly you learn =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your encouragement. It makes me want to do more on Wikipedia — you have been a great mentor! But all we can hope is the link manages to archive. =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I’ll let you know! – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow Doesn’t seem to work for me either, I assume it’s due to how the website it set up, but as I said before, since it is still active it should be fine without an archive URL. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! But…the links eventually do die out – – as reflected in the other Virginia elections. Still, thanks for trying! =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OreosTrulyFlow Here, I just found this, does this work? (specifically the “Election Results” file which has vote information) The citation guide for these would be: Template:Cite report – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm…it downloads through files, but…I’m not sure how to…export it to Wikipedia? I unfortunately don’t think it’ll last as an archive. And I’m not especially too certain on how files would work on this dusty old laptop. =( OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, sorry I thought these would archive, linking to the base page would be fine and the data is the same, just that these files are .csv files. Seems like the whole website has problems with archiving and I’m not sure how to fix that, sorry about that. – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s fine. At least you tried: that’s what matters. =) OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was participating in the battle so I am a First-Person source Hakr 95 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hakr 95 Hey, I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Original research. A reader would not be able to verify this, imagine I told you I fought in WWII, does that automatically make everything I say about WWII true? And would you be able to, without a doubt, believe everything I saw about the war? You wouldn’t, and it’s that same here. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a bot or something? How do you keep finding all of my edits lol.
And I will stop, sorry
I also just made another edit because I tried to correct soccer to football. Highkeysonkey (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Highkeysonkey Maybe I am a bot ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Thanks for stopping, I invite you to contribute is a positive manner, it is much more fun and rewarding. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Highkeysonkey (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Highkeysonkey If you want, I can even adopt you as a mentee =) As long as you promise not to make disruptive edits, I can show you around and teach you how to edit. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there.

Thanks for contacting me about reverting my edit. I believe that the removal of information of Palestine being a modern example of terra nullius is valid because multiple countries and entities claim and exercise jurisdiction over the region. It is unclaimed and non-administrated like Marie Byrd Land or Bir Tawil. Therefore, I believe my edit comes from a neutral point of view.

Thank you. Eliyahuor (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliyahuor Hey, thanks for reaching out, unfortunately you can’t edit topics like that due to the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict restriction. Additionally, the sentence says “is sometimes claimed”, which is different from outright stating it as fact. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i made in edit in the marvel rivals page as a experiment for a class i am taking and was wondering if i could ask you a question or two? Stevens Point know it all (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. what would you say is your role? are you just a user who watches for bad edits for fun or do you work for Wikipedia?

2. Personally would you say Wikipedia is a trustworthy resource for researching information?

I appreciate any reply or information you have into this, and hope you have a good day! Stevens Point know it all (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevens Point know it all Heya! I would be more than happy to help =D

1. I watch for bad edits for fun! I also maintain my own script that a bunch of people use, and I do a bit of content creation. But, for the most part, I partake in something called “gnoming“, which means I do a lot of the minor work!
2. Well, it depends. I find Wikipedia a great source, however I also know how to spot badfaith or incorrect information because I have spent so much time here. For the most part, it is a very useful tool, and I am sure you have heard of the old “don’t use Wikipedia, use the sources Wikipedia gives”. There are a few topics I typically avoid when it comes to trusting Wikipedia, and those are political topics since those are so opinionated and targeted, but other than that, I trust what a read a lot. For political topics, I usually steer clear of them in general, but if I do want to read up on them, I usually just use multiple news sources from different parties, and compare local news versus what are nations are reporting.

– LuniZunie_(talk) 14:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i have a problem (check this thread to find out the problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Some_people_know_nothing_about_space_image_processing ) —anonymsiy.user‬ 07:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]