User talk:Pawnkingthree

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

December 2006–March 2008 May 2008–November 2008 January 2009–July 2009 September 2009–March 2010 May 2010–November 2011 November 2011–May 2013 June 2013–March 2017 March 2017–July 2018 September 2018-March 2020 March 2020-October 2021 November 2021-April 2023

Good day! I just wanted to give you a heads up again (and pinging @OtharLuin here as well) that during the second half of September more or less, I will be unable to edit sumo articles - or anything on Wikipedia for that matter - due to personal down time. This will include most of the September basho dates. Thank you, JRHorse (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JRHorse: Thanks for the heads up! I'm sure that between OtharLuin and myself (and maybe one or two others!) we will have the updates covered. Enjoy your break! Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, hope all is well at home. Normally no major problems for this tournament for me either. See you later, have a good break! - OtharLuin (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you, JRHorse (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree @OtharLuin thanks again, enjoy the rest of the basho! JRHorse (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the revert? A quote isn't a proper dismissal. Секретное общество (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Секретное общество: I thought my edit summary was perfectly clear. Why did you add the phrase "burst onto the scene" to the article about six times? That is not good writing. The section about Roy Keane is also not important enough for a biography of Richards per WP:UNDUE. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit was at 17:54, September 4, 2023

There's nothing about "bursting into the scene", let alone six occasions. Also, a complete revert wasn't warranted when, as per WP:MoS and several other guidelines, well-known happenings are supposed to be handled with source tags or simply fixed/added to. I'm going to submit this happening again, and I will add some more references. If this is an issue, we'll bring it to the talk page. I don't think you should accuse people of edits that they did not make. Секретное общество (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you did make the edit. Look at the diff. When you added the section about Keane, you also restored an older version of the article that contained the bizarre "bursting onto the scene" edits. So it may have been unintentional, but you were still responsible for putting that nonsense back in! If you want to add the Roy Keane update again properly, go ahead but I don't think I acted improperly - per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit and I reverted because "well known happening" or not, in my opinion it did not warrant inclusion in the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made one edit to add another source, and one revert. You're looking at the wrong edit, apparently. Regardless, that's not the process. Секретное общество (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the right edit. The diff above is the only edit you have ever made to Micah Richards. You added a source and made a revert on Roy Keane, but that's not the article we're discussing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I was a bit surprised that you re-opened the nomination on the world record in men’s marathon by literally undoing my closure without keeping a single track of it. You really do have the right to re-open closed nominations at any time, but you should at least mention that you’ve done it and then continue the discussion. Otherwise, the effect of your action is equivalent to removing someone’s comment. Thanks for you understanding. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril Simeonovski: I intended to simply revert you, which would have generated a notification, but there was an edit conflict, so I had to do it manually. I thought it made it clear in the edit summary what I was doing, and that you would be watching the page anyway. Sorry if that wasn't the right way to do it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You undid my addition of Chess18 to the table of similar variants because there is "no indication of notability" of Chess18. That's fine, but is there indication of notability of Chess870? They both seem to lack notability and are not generally played as variants on their own. I know that Chess18 was at least played in a tournament format in the Timber Moose Chess18 event which featured popular chess streamers, including Anna Cramling, Daniel Naroditsky, Eric Rosen, and others. I know of no such notable events occurring with Chess870.

I'm fine with leaving Chess18 out, but how can that be consistent with leaving Chess870 in? Is there evidence that Chess870 is a more notable variant than Chess18? Theferocious1 (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theferocious1 I see you posted to the talk page as well. I'll respond there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted here as well because I wasn't sure you'd see it. Thanks! Theferocious1 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I went back to look for possible new sources on the WP:Sumo page recently to work on improving the article related to tokoyama and I noticed that our page lacked a bit of organization compared to other pages (like WP:FR or WP:HV.

Of course, it's not a critical but I've worked on reorganization of the page (I'm still working) and I'd like to have your opinion on example the home page and the assessment page. Cheers! - OtharLuin (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @OtharLuin I like the redesign! Looks much better. Just one thing, is there still a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sumo/Recognition somewhere on the page? I think that is worth keeping. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PK! Thanks for the feedback! Regarding the Recognition page, the Assessment page already mentions the recognition ratings via the table so I didn't really think about including it but I can add the content after the assessments, or create a new tab, what do you think? - OtharLuin (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OtharLuin I don't think a new tab is necessary. Just after the assessment is fine. I just think with a relatively small WikiProject like ours it might be nice to keep track of when an article has reached one of those milestones! Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the categories from the base page to the assessment tab :) - OtharLuin (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as that's a dynamic IP, I don't see a connection with the blocked user and the newly created account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fellow CU confirmed block evasion after all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pawnkingthree,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Jimmy "Five Bellies" Gardner. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG Had this in draft for quite some time already. Not my article originally but I saw it was speedily deleted via A7 despite previously being a DYK (!) then I asked for it to be restored so I could work on it. Wasn't moved into main space by me, that was another editor, but I thought it wasn't far off. I'd been focusing on notability and referencing, being promotional hadn't even crossed my mind. It mentions his convictions and bankruptcy, hardly seems like an advert to me. Oh well, needs another rewrite I guess. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i stopped reading after the first sentence in the lead... It needs work starting from there. Articles, particularly bios, should lead with something of the form "Person is a profession ..." not "Person did thing..." and particularly not "earned media attention". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the thing - his profession is not what he is known for, it is for being the mate of a famous footballer. I think he meets GNG but he doesn't fit the format of most bios. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Person is a whatever who is known best for thing/event..." - UtherSRG (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pawnkingthree :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]