User talk:Freedom4U

I am aware!!!!

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the Balkans or Eastern Europe the Arab–Israeli conflict articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

	The Original Barnstar
	I just learned of the Judge Rotenberg Center today from a brief conversation with User:1Veertje and was glad to find a pretty comprehensive enwp article. Looks like you're primarily responsible for that, so cheers. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There's a lot to work on in the article imo, but I got pretty burnt out at the time. I'll probably get back into it after my late summer exams :3 ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freedom4U,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

We also have a live cleanup drive, if you'd like to participate, and a mailing list if you'd like to be notified of upcoming edit drives.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 17:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template! (just kidding) While I don't think I'll find myself editing much in the anarchist wikiproject, I will say I really appreciate your featured articles Growing Up Absurd and The May Pamphlet, which have been very helpful for me when writing my own book articles. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! And more coming soon :) czar 21:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. Thanks for closing Talk:The Pirate Bay#Request for comment for The Pirate Bay link on page. Any interest in amending it to state the result more clearly? Maybe adding something like "there is consensus to do X"? Everyone bolded !voted yes so i assume yes is the outcome, but i honestly can't tell from the close alone. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I don't know how I missed that. I've edited my closing statement to make it clearer. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Freedom4U, Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. Could you please officially close the two RfCs below that have the same purpose: to decide on a new Trump profile picture? 1. RfC: Trump infobox photo 2. RfC: Trump photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election#Alternative_options%3F Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Freedom4U, Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. I am begging you to reopen RfC: Trump photo part 2 that you closed. Can you please reopen it? 1. RfC: Trump photo part 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election Teknologi Positif (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no matter how that RM was closed, there'd be pushback, so good on you for being brave enough to do it. And this is not an "I'm going to drag you to MR" because I'm not asking the close have a reversal that would actually move the articles (although I think they should move), but rather my complaint is your finding of an alleged consensus against a move because you're discarding votes against as invalid, which is something that should be done very carefully and only with really good reason.

As a general statement of principles, Wikipedia allows newish accounts to comment. Very often these editors don't know the lingo and terms of debate. Sometimes, they are dispensable, because they're a recruited-from-Reddit brigade, or arguing on grounds of pure nationalism, etc. But very often these are perfectly legitimate votes that may not express themselves perfectly in Wikipedia-ese. Closers should not discount votes just because they don't recite the magic policy they mean; these voters deserve some credit as potentially cluing a problem. Telling these voters their votes are invalid needs to be done very carefully, and I don't think it merited here.

To go into it in more detail, many/most of the support voters are familiar with WP:OFFICIAL and took it into account, and even those who weren't were still adding a useful signal to the discussion. OFFICIAL does not say that official names are forbidden, and it does not say that raising the topic of the official name in a RM discussion is forbidden. There are moves to official names all the time. It is merely saying that it is not the end of the discussion. The argument that there was a WP:COMMONNAME in favor of "Series 14" was very dubious and not well supported (a 50/50 split is not a COMMONNAME argument). It is very common that when the COMMONNAME isn't clear or is split, to defer to the official title as a "tiebreaker." So bringing up the official title was a very relevant thing here, not an invalid vote at all. More generally, for titled English-language media pieces, there is substantially more deference given to official names. (This is a whole 'nother issue, but I'm just saying that if you look at where, say, how novels or TV episodes are titled, it is rare for common name & official name to diverge, and when they do official name usually wins anyway. Actually that reminds me of a case where they DO diverge but solely because someone did a bold move I disagreed with, and maybe I should go file a RM for that now.)

If there are any votes that should be discounted, it'd be some of the oppose voters IMO. Some of the oppose voters argument was, basically, a complaint that renaming this season "Season 1" was stupid / vain / etc. That may well be so, but is totally irrelevant. While I'm fine with not dispensing any votes, if we had to get rid of some, THOSE are the !votes to toss first (I'd say this even if those were on "my" side).

I would suggest a revised close of "No consensus" and not telling people who !voted in good faith that they were wasting their time. SnowFire (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I noted in my close that there were votes on both sides that I discounted, alluding to participants on both sides of the discussion who made arguments based purely on personal preference. I was quite hesitant of how to phrase how I considered these !votes without pointing to any specific comment, and I regret the specific phrasing I ended up with in my close (I did not mean to imply that anyone's points were not considered at all in my close, and I accidentally used the word discarded instead of discounted). I didn't discount comments for not citing a specific policy, but I did go through each comment to see if they had grounds under the WP:AT policy. I'm sorry to anyone who felt my closing statement made them feel unheard.

I'm aware that editors made the argument you bring up here, that in cases where the common name is indeterminate, the official name can be preferable for reasons of recognizability, and I did consider that when closing the discussion. However, other editors, including those who still voiced support for the move, suggested that it was still too soon to consider "series 14" to not be the common name. At the time, I found it particularly compelling that editors who supported the move would concede that it was the common name and took it as evidence of the strength of the common name argument. You note that for titled media pieces, there is substantially more deference given to official names.—I didn't see that brought up in the discussion, is there some specific guideline that you're alluding to?

At the same time, I think you make a good point about the implicit point being made by pointing out that "season one" is the official name. When I made the close, I believed there was a weak consensus, but having taken your comment into consideration, I agree with some of the points you've brought and will amend my close sometime today to reflect this. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and for updating your close.

And yes, it was the rather strident tone of the original "discarded" that caught my eye, usually something best reserved for Reddit brigadiers & sockpuppets & the like. It can be a subtle difference, but people are usually happier to hear "your arguments failed to gain consensus" than hear "your arguments were invalid".

My expectation is that there'll probably be another RM in a year, but perhaps the COMMONNAME case will be clearer, then. It is a little awkward in this case because normally there's a stance of preferring the status quo if there isn't a clear consensus, but the status quo in this case was created back when nobody had any idea what this season would "really" be called, so it's not a very strong status quo IMO. But we'll see, I suppose. SnowFire (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom4U Hi! I wanted to let you know that the article Antarctic English, to which you contributed a while ago, is a current candidate to be chosen for the meta:Translation of the week project, meaning if it succeeds it could be translated into many other languages in just a week. If you want to see how the process is going and vote yourself, you can check it at meta:Translation of the week/Translation candidates#en:Antarctic English. Have a nice day! -- Brunnaiz (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice :) ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user: Freedom4U, Thank you for your interest and support in the Talk page related to the fair conduct of the US presidential election. I left a message about the closure of the Talk page below on the Admin closure board, but I have not received a response yet. Could you please let me know if it is possible to close the relevant part or if it needs to be supplemented? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goodtiming, I would suggest that you wait for a different closer to close that discussion. I only closed the discussion for the Donald Trump page because there was a clear an obvious procedural close. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to upload the Haditha images from Madeleine Baran, I was going to but couldn't bring myself to keep looking at them. They are an important piece of that history, however, and I'm glad they are now preserved and more easily viewable. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your words. They were difficult to look at, but I don't regret the time I took to upload them. The In the Dark podcast also has some FOIA-released audio clips that I'll upload as well when I get the time to comb through and clip them. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a consensus to remove the image. Some editors liked it and thought it was funny and apt, while others did not. The argument to remove it wasn't so strong as to disrupt the status quo ante of keeping the image. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors made reasonable arguments and from my headcount, the discussion saw 5 users opposed to removal (2 strongly and 3 weakly supporting keeping) and 8 users in favor of removal (5 strongly and 3 weakly supporting removal). There was some sort of consensus that the alternatives were bad, but those comments generally didn't preclude not having a lede image in the first place.

There was one prior discussion about the lede image, but it was made by an IP editor making a nonsensical argument (based on copyright policy?) so I don't see it suggesting that there was any previously standing consensus other than silence. I agree that neither side presented arguments that were particularly stronger than the other (whether it was funny, relevant, accurate or useful were all disputed), but in that case, I defer back to headcounts of users who expressed opinions on the lede image (noting that a greater number of comments that came later supported removing the image). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Freedom4U, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Tropical Storm Talas (2017). At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #11.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Bronston you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AdeptLearner123 -- AdeptLearner123 (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the time and effort you spent on that close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freedom4U, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article William Bronston you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Bronston for comments about the article, and Talk:William Bronston/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AdeptLearner123 -- AdeptLearner123 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 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]

Hi there, you currently have a user script installed from Anne drew Andrew and Drew. Several weeks ago, I changed my username to Anne drew, and unfortunately, due to an issue with script redirects, the scripts you have installed under my old username no longer function.

To fix this, please update your JavaScript pages (Special:MyPage/common.js or Special:MyPage/skin.js) by replacing all instances of Anne drew Andrew and Drew with Anne drew.

If any of this is unclear, please ping Anne drew for help. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding!

Thanks – Anne drew

You are receiving this message because you have installed one of Anne drew's user scripts. If you'd like to stop receiving notifications, you can unsubscribe here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]