Scroll down past the boxes for threads :)

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people climate change COVID-19, broadly construed She should not be given alerts for those areas.

This user is busy in real life, and may not reply swiftly, and if they do, may reply in an abbreviated fashion.

Do you like my editing? Do you want to say hi? If so, please check out my guestbook here. Note: This message is also on my user page.

If I send you a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will be waiting. If you'd like, ping me. If you send a message on my talk page, I will reply here, and please expect to be pinged.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

If you email me, please also add a {{ygm}} template to my talk page. I don't check my Wikipedia email that often.

Hi TheTechie! Nom of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article here, would you mind self-reverting your close, as you were involved? While it is obviously going to close as keep, WP:NACINV state that Closing editors must abide by the standard of being uninvolved as described at Wikipedia:Administrators § Involved admins. Closing editors should be aware of any actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest they may have that could affect their decision making, or give the appearance of impropriety, potentially compromising a consensus reached by the community by casting doubts on a closure. For the avoidance of doubt, editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted, or XfD discussions where they created or non-trivially contributed to the object under discussion; thank you! :) This weeks's tornado; E_F⁵ 04:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103042300","author":"EF5","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EF5-20250103042300-Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion\/Wikipedia:Not_every_single_thing_Donald_Trump","replies":["c-TheTechie-20250103042300-EF5-20250103042300"],"displayName":"E"}}-->

@EF5 Sorry about that, thanks for letting me know. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103042300","author":"TheTechie","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-TheTechie-20250103042300-EF5-20250103042300","replies":["c-TParis-20250103064700-TheTechie-20250103042300"],"displayName":"TheTechie@enwiki"}}-->

I was coming here to say the same thing. It's okay to make a non-admin closure but you should just do it instead of !voting. If you do end up !voting, then it's best to leave it for someone else. Anyone closing a discussion is expected to be uninvolved and impartial. Not to say you shouldn't be bold in the future, just make sure not to also !vote.--v/r - TP 06:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103064700","author":"TParis","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-TParis-20250103064700-TheTechie-20250103042300","replies":["c-TheTechie-20250103190500-TParis-20250103064700"],"displayName":"T"}}-->

@TParis thanks for the added details. Looks like someone has undone my undoing of my closure. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103190500","author":"TheTechie","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-TheTechie-20250103190500-TParis-20250103064700","replies":[],"displayName":"TheTechie@enwiki"}}-->

• MexFin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Disinformation research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello!

I am writing to understand more about your decision to reject the draft of disinformation research. I am writing this here because the template used to reject the submission is a bit unclear, and I would like to have more clarity on the precise issue so I can correct it. The template emphasizes three problems with the draft: Informal writing, neutral point of view, and reliable sources.

- Informal writing. Could you please help me understand what exactly you see as informal writing? I would like to know how to correct it.

- Neutral point of view. I even included a section on criticism of this line of research precisely to make it neutral.

- Reliable sources. Could you help me understand which sources are not reliable? I included 38 academic references, all of them from peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

Thank you so much for your help. MexFin (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250107073000","author":"MexFin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MexFin-20250107073000-Request_on_07:30:01,_7_January_2025_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_MexFin","replies":["c-TheTechie-20250108024400-MexFin-20250107073000"]}}-->

@MexFin I have responded on the AFCHD thread. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250108024400","author":"TheTechie","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-TheTechie-20250108024400-MexFin-20250107073000","replies":[],"displayName":"TheTechie@enwiki"}}-->

Hello, TheTechie,

I was just working on closing nearly two dozen AFDs that you had opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 3 and am hoping that I can persuade you to not post a deluge of AFDs over the course of an hour or two. Please pace yourself and don't post so many on the same day. Maybe 3 or 4 a day over the course of a week. Remember that every single AFD you post has to be reviewed by a closer and, typically, several commentators.

Also, your deletion rationales are very insubstantial and poor. It's not evident from reading them whether or not you have conducted a thorough WP:BEFORE which is required. Look for sources that might not have been found yet before nominating an article for deletion. Thank you though for your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250110043700","author":"Liz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Liz-20250110043700-AFDs","replies":["c-Xxanthippe-20250110044100-Liz-20250110043700"]}}-->

I support the above comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250110044100","author":"Xxanthippe","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Xxanthippe-20250110044100-Liz-20250110043700","replies":[]}}-->

So I noticed that you had tagged the Vikasa Soudha page for the lack of a lead. I have added lead to the article now, but my main inquiry is the second tag, that is the notability tag. The notability tag us for geographic features, but the Vikasa Soudha is a man made structure. Do I just revert it? AlvaKedak (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250110130100","author":"AlvaKedak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AlvaKedak-20250110130100-Inquiry_about_the_page_tags","replies":[]}}-->

Hello TheTechie, Vitorperrut555 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vitorperrut555 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250110230300","author":"Vitorperrut555","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vitorperrut555-20250110230300-You've_been_smiled_upon!","replies":[]}}-->