User talk:Moops/Archive 2

Hello Moops. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Menē Inc., gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Moops. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Moops|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. scope_creep^Talk 07:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am fully aware of UPE being disallowed, and have even been through the NPP school myself. I have zero connection to that company, though I like their stuff, but am not connected in any way. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 07:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep: courtesy ping for your notification. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 07:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are did you create that brochure article then? It reads like native advertising, is wholly unsuited to Wikipedia and breaks The Wikipedia Terms of Use. scope_creep^Talk 07:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not my first article, and was written with WP:NPOV in mind as a neutral party merely interested in their products. Having made around 18,000 edits myself, I am more than well versed in the Wikipedia Terms of Use. If you do not like the copy, then please copy edit to your liking and I will review after you complete your edits. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 07:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

If you move that article back, without significant work on what is clearly a brochure promo article with tone issues and non-encyclyopedic language then I will need to try and delete. I have no confidence in what your doing at NPP with that mess. scope_creep^Talk 08:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Have you been through NPP school as well? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not moving the article back. This isn't my first day, and I do not have any interest in an edit war. I would ask that many of the editors that patrol my talk page review the page and see if any of them agree with you and if it could be improved sufficiently to move from draft to main space then. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

For the record, the sources were in fact WP:reliable, such as The New York Times. Secondary, and independent from the source material,in addition to primary source material of course, but that is only supplementary, never stand alone when writing an article. I am aware of this...

Having been through the NPP school myself, I would ask you to make any specific suggestion if you take issue instead of a generalized statement of "brochure promo article with tone issues" and some unfounded claim of "non-encyclopedic language." A teal quote response would be fine as well. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep:, @Blaze Wolf:, @Tails Wx:, @Atsme: for some more opinions. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It is never a good idea to canvass other editors on Wikipedia when its you yourself that has written such a poor quality article. The onus is on you, only. scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I am fully familiar with Wikipedia:Canvassing as well. Jeez, today really is lets talk to Moops like it is their first day session. :( — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and it does not scream immediately promotional to me (I did look at the version that was drafted before the various edits were made). The only thing that seemed pretty promotional to me was the section "Brand differentiators" and the section header for "Branding and advertising" which probably would've been better as just "Marketing". Scrolling through some of the comments, I do see some of the concerns about the tone used and the information provided. However I don't think that would be enough to make me think "Oh this person is being paid to create the article". I honestly think it was quite rude to simply just warn Moops for UPE rather than leave them a more personally worded message (doesn't have to be extremely personal, but I don't think the UPE editing template was warranted). Looking at the sources, I do have some concerns about it (The Street and SeekingAlpha are marked as generally unreliable, no clue about the YouTube source, and 2 of the sources are WP:SPS) but I do see it as a good faith attempt at making an article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I happened to come across this article as well on the NewPagesFeed, and was about to tag it with {{Advert}} before scope_creep draftified it first. My issue is that the article focuses on things that you would expect to find on a company's website, but not in an Encyclopedia. The section on "Branding and advertising" for example, covers how the company doesn't do paid advertising, and priortises return business etc; all sourced to the company's website. It makes sense for a company to boast about things like that on their website, but it really doesn't seem due for an encyclopedic article, unless secondary reliable sources actually emphasise these aspects about the company as well. Bennv123 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I searched for other companies in the space, something that it is always a good idea to do when making an article. I will admit that I took that exact phrasing from a company called APMEX. Please see that page for some comparisons. When making articles in the past, I have always found it helpful to look at other pages of other firms or people and take some templated language when and where you can if it is just for titling or substance of that nature. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bennv123:, thanks for the helpful feedback. I will remove that section altogether out of WP:DUE concerns. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree it can be very useful to use similar Wikipedia articles as a reference. But I try to use Featured Articles or Good Articles for such purposes. The APMEX article you referenced for example, has been tagged with {{Advert}} since October 2022, so the quality of that article itself may not be a useful standard. Bennv123 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I removed some of the titles from the problem areas, and sourced directly from the New York Times article that spoke to the content at the point you referenced. If you have any other thoughts or ideas please let me know. I will wait until tomorrow to move it back from the draft space to the main space then upon having made these changes, unless there are any other changes that you or @Scope creep: may suggest (or anyone else). TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The references on the article is woeful and constitute PR and a block of non-rs links. There is not a single secondary source that satisfies WP:SIRS. The New York time article is PR. I will look at this when I get back. scope_creep^Talk 08:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of the sources are primary to the website, so that is obviously problematic if it was used for anything other than tertiary information following up other information on the page but nothing critical or overly praising of the company or anything like that. If you have other suggestions I can make deletes where you may see them, or if I am missing criticisms somewhere then I will gladly insert them or add a 'Criticism' section if that is something that it warrants, though I think mainly your points were related to concerns of WP:Notability over anything else if I am not mistaken. On those grounds, I think the article has Vogue, New York Times, The Street, Marketwatch, and businesswire. There were also many other sources that one can find on this if you did your WP:BEFORE, but that mainly relates to more business earnings and the like. That is still relevant to this particular public company I believe, but I was just getting the page started based on the minimum required aspects of notability, reliable, secondary and independent sources, and was then going to work on it more from there over time as I may see fit. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep:, I also just self tagged the page with the encyclopedic tone concern. If you wish to do any cleanup on that basis too, I would be grateful. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Moops, I am somewhat aware of your interest in jewelry based on a comment you made to me during the tutorial, and it certainly did not ring any warning bells relative to a potential UPE. It is quite difficult to create articles about retail companies because it typically requires a high level of expertise/experience in presenting such articles in a neutral, dispassionate tone. I recommend that you study this Reuters' description, and its dispassionate, fact-based tone. I read your draft, and the company is notable, but the focus needs to be on what makes it notable beyond retail sales. I'm of the mind that its co-founder Diana Widmaier Picasso, a granddaughter of Pablo Picasso is somewhat notable, but then notability is not inherited, so where does that leave us? I focused on the history of gold and how various cultures treated it, and the company's approach that might elevate it beyond WP:MILL. Their unique trademark and approach restores the spirit of investment jewelry rather than what some people see as "baubles" and fancy gifts. I removed what appears to be promotional, and consider the article to now be ready for namespace and further development. Atsme 💬 📧 12:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Got it. I made some more changes, cleaned it up a bit more. I think it is notable in its own right as a very unique type of company in the jewelry space, and this isn't just my take, but is highlighted in the RS'es that I cited. I moved it back then to the main space for now, but if it needs further improvement that can continue from there in my view. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  TY kindly for your constructive feedback. I generally do avoid companies too, but felt this one was past due for its own little page once I did all the WP:BEFORE I was surprised to see one did not already exist! :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

hello, Moops,

I'm not sure if this article really warrants 39 redirects pointing towards it. Please do not mass create redirects based on any possible misspelling or possible connection of related terms. Use your knowledge of Wikipedia and of the subject to selectively create only the most obvious titles that might be likely search terms for the article. There is no prize for creating the most pages, so quality is much more important than quantity.

We've lost some otherwise good editors who went overboard creating far too many redirects which led to topic bans on redirects or even blocks and I'd hate to see you go down that samw road. You're a well-intentioned editor so use your discretion when choosing which redirects to create. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend not creating any redirects unless it would obviously be useful (for example creating a redirect at "Mene Inc." since not everyone can add that mark above the e) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: and @Blaze Wolf: thank you for the constructive feedback. I take that seriously, especially from editors that I know are only trying to help me improve. I will ask you though, what of WP:CHEAP? I totally think one COULD go overboard, and only 'plausible typos' etc. are generally warranted. However, do you have any thoughts on the 'redirects are cheap' notion? TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Cheap ≠ Constructive

Just because redirects are cheap does not mean creating a bunch of them is constructive. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair point @Blaze Wolf:. How are you doing today by the way? :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm doing pretty alright. A bit tired but I'm usually tired most days anyway. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you drink tea? I like tea a lot to stay alert while editing WP. Thus, the tea in the bottom right hand corner of my TP. Have some if you would like. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Lastly @Liz:, one more question. Since you are a seasoned veteran (the mere fact that you have a name as simple as 'Liz' goes a long way by itself in proving that fact!), do you happen to have any examples or past-history of editors 'who went overboard creating far too many redirects' that I could learn from their experience? I generally like to see things so that I can learn from it, and really understand the nuance of 'going overboard' versus 'remaining on board'... I very much want to remain on the ship and not be cast into the sea! :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I just read your history as 'NewJerseyLiz'... I am glad that just 'Liz' was available for you to use! — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

scope_creep^Talk 06:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Numerous updates were made to the page, including removing any and all material that might have been interpreted as running afoul of WP:Advert etc. I will certainly chime in as a keep for the page. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi TP stalkers,

Regarding 'Discord', I am curious how many from the team are on it regularly for the NPP crew? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 08:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

133 members! Though I’m not on it because I’m not an NPP reviewer…but that’s ok! Tails Wx 12:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not in the NPP discord, just the regular enWiki one. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Moops, the numbers vary. Sign-up and you can see for yourself. Limit your questions, be direct, be polite, etc. Atsme 💬 📧 14:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

We're showing 27 online and 106 offline right now. A lot of us use it to discuss article and to get a second opinion on whether a topic is notable or not (and why). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: thanks Josh. By the way, is it acceptable to just call you 'Josh'? :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course! Wish I had an easier name but it is what it is. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I just jumped on Discord for the first time in my life. Let me know where I can find all of you great people. :)

My username is 'Moops'

Pings for relevance: @Hey man im josh:, @Atsme:, @Blaze Wolf:, @Tails Wx:.

If I missed anyone, I apologize.

No promises I keep this app, if I don't like it, I will delete it, but I will try it out since I have been asked now numerous times to get on this thing. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, there's also a pin number (e.g. mine, #5485), do you know what the number is? Thanks! Tails Wx 22:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It says #0769. I think. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Tails Wx 22:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Moops, it appears you did not read the Tips section at the bottom of your training page. May I suggest that you go back and review it? Atsme 💬 📧 23:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I had not ever wanted to join Discord, but since I decided that with enough communal urging to join it. Let me go back though and take a look again. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Atsme:, just went back over that and I am surprised I miss some of those, just installed the User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js tool. I am looking forward to putting these added tools to use. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Moops,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Karriem Abdallah for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Karriem Abdallah to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VickKiang (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hey, Moops - when you move a page to Draft, do not check the box that says leave redirect, ok? Atsme 💬 📧 00:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ah got it. I will be more careful in that. Getting better every day. TY kindly everyone. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Atsme, I think that option is only possible for Wikipedia:Page movers, which has the technical function of suppressredirect. Given that Moops and I does not have this perm, I don't think that's possible. However, the script User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft would automatically do the cleanup (add R2 templates, add AfC templates etc...). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Vick - I thought that was one of the scripts in the Tips section at the bottom of my tutorial. Just looked, and saw no sign of it, but there soon will be.   Atsme 💬 📧 01:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks all. I feel like I am in good hands. Any other things I should keep in mind or look for as part of my trial? I will be busy starting in march for a bit so I will need to wrap things up by the end of this month which is rapidly approaching its close..

  @Atsme:, would you suggest—given that I will not be free to get back into the swing of things until mid to late march after the end of this month—that I should just re-apply for the NPR perm come the end of Feb? Or should I let it expire, and then just re-apply come the middle of March or sometime from there? I really was not expecting the trial post-NPP school, so I am scrambling to balance real life stuff and editing on here as best I can to be helpful and productive for my favorite hobby! :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 01:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, I would not suggest that. If you just do 2 or 3 reviews/week you're fine until you get back. Atsme 💬 📧 02:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Wait, sorry, I asked a few different things there. Could you clarify please? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I though I turned on the archive setting of my page, but it seems like it is getting bigger and bigger with no archive. When will it wipe the slate again? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

When the oldest thread is a month old. Currently, the oldest thread is only 22 days old. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Just updated to 7d. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You have reverted the change in Great Migrations of the Serbs article, without providing any explanation. Provide answer to the question posted there: This article is dealing with Migrations of Serbs - next to all the areas Serbs were migrating from and even more of those they migrated to, it spends 50% of the whole article text in the last section to cover the topic of Albanians being autochthonous population in Kosovo. This is very biased and not acceptable. BbBgSr (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I did reply, you appear engaged in an edit war. I said, "please do not edit war" and used the template for reverting an otherwise work of blanking a large segment of cited content. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

But where do we go if I label you with something like "You work for Albanian government", the same as you have unilaterally labeled me "that I engage in edit wars".

I do not speak the internet slang you use.

You still did not answer my original question, please pay attention to that, as you have taken the right to own the article text.

Something is very strange here. A person from US/UK is providing inputs on Serbian history in a very biased manner and claims ownership on the text. BbBgSr (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

In what manner did I even remotely "claim ownership" of the text? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moops, tomorrow I am removing the section. I am of opinion that it is much more appropriate to remove a section with very problematic content, then to do anything else.

The reason will be: In the article that deals with Migrations of Serbs, a bigger part of the text is spent on the last section to provide justifications for Albanians being autochthonous population of Kosovo and that everything else is a Serbian myth. That is off topic, completely biased and very inappropriate as ad edit in an article belonging to WikiProject Serbia, which should be a portfolio of the country in Wikipedia. BbBgSr (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not involved any longer, I intervened once, I am not part of any edit war here. It is for other editors to continue from here. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you had to put up with that. User:MorbiusWonAcademys was a sock of User:Morbius Won Best Picture who was blocked after blanking and general uncivility. It seems that they are making socks now, so this will be fun to deal with. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It is A-OK. TY kindly for your kind words though. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

i wanted my edit back because i want to keep it for my self and also i hate it when my edits are gone Etwgerhtuhetydyhgw45erdxrd (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN and WP:NONSENSE. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

My spidey troll senses are going off. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and see User:Etwgerhtuhetydyhgw45erdxrd/sandbox that... — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef. General Ization ^Talk 03:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Awww I missed the party. Too busy making a new article lol. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome! Pull up a seat, grab some popcorn, and enjoy. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note that it does no good to report a user or an IP that is already blocked at WP:AIV. The report will automatically and immediately be removed by a bot when it detects that the user or IP is already blocked (as this IP is). If you are proposing that TPA should be revoked for the IP, you will need to contact the blocking admin. General Ization ^Talk 03:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I wish AIV had an option to report an IP or user to get their TPA removed but i suppose asking that to be done on a high-traffic page isn't the best. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I use a tool called AntiVandal, and normally it won't let you report someone that has already been reported and blocked. I will @Ingenuity: (the creator of the tool) about this. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect it checks for an existing report at AIV, and if there is one, it won't let you create another (Twinkle does this also). But if the report has been removed by a bot because the user/IP is blocked, there will no longer be an existing report. I doubt that it is checking the user's block status before submitting your report at AIV (or that the developer will think this is worth the additional coding). General Ization ^Talk 03:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Good and probably correct points. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I will need to check then and be more thorough in that aspect of my checking. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly correct. I'm actually in the process of rewriting all the code right now, and that's one of the bugs that will be fixed. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 04:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is why I love the AntiVandal tool so much. I also love the creator, Ingenuity, he does so much to ensure it really is the best tool that money can buy for reverting vandalism! Yet it is free!! — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Moops, I saw that you reverted that anonymous IP edit I tried to address earlier this week. I was just wondering based on your actions whether it would have been the right call to revert that edit myself when I saw it instead of taking the route of manually deleting the text? I know this probably doesn't matter much if the end result is the same, but I just want to know for next time I see something that looks like vandalism.

Thank you! Goddale120 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As you pointed out, I think it would be fine either way. You are good. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Moops, I reverted your edit on The G Word because I did not feel it adhered to NPOV, and started a discussion about it on the talk page. Please take a look and weigh in so we can resolve without edit warring. Thanks! MellowOffspring (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I am busy with some other things right now, but will get to this in a bit. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I keep editing Alice Longyu Gao’s pronouns on xyr wikipedia page but they keep getting switched pack. Xyr pronouns are listed as xyr/xe in xyr instagram bio and it is disrespectful to repeatedly misgender xem. 199.119.233.246 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If that is what the source says. Then try again and I will leave it be. Ensure it is cited in a reliable source. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Mmm no. That's not true. See MOS:NEOPRONOUN. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If they truly do go by "xyr/xe" now then singular they should be used. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Curious, how are those pronounced? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ My guess would be "zeer" and "zee" but x can be pronounced in a number of ways along with y ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking "shir" and "she", but you are right, there are a variety of ways it could be pronounced I suppose. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Link to Wiktionary: [1], with an audio file of how to pronounce it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 17:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)