User talk:Barkeep49
 Archives (Index) |
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Arvind Kejriwal on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted article
Hey,I saw that you are an administrator and I have a request for you. Recently an article that I heavily contributed to sadly got deleted,the problem is that I really need all the sources and edits that was in the article for personal purposes as i puted valuable informatios that i didn't manage to put in a proper file, if you could pass me all that hard work into a userspace draft that would be really helpful and thank you. Scorpio1998 (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Scorpio1998 what's the article? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- The article itself was called: Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830) Scorpio1998 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Scorpio1998 I am guessing you are also Tayeb188 because Scorpio1998 has never edited anything except my user talk. Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830) was deleted as a fork. So it should definitely not be made again. But it's possible that you could incorporate some of the writing into the existing article Ottoman Algeria. I'm going to ping @Sandstein as the admin who closed that discussion but I would be OK restoring the deleted article for this reason if he is. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, thanks for asking. I am indifferent to that. Sandstein 18:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- sorry for the confusion,this is my mobile account as i regularly scroll through Wikipedia via mobile, and yes Tayeb188 is my main account and the one that i edited with.however,when i said that i wanted my edits back,i didnt mean to restore the draft or the article i just want all that edit into a proper userspace draft that would be great,and if appropriate i will incorporate some edits to the Ottoman Algeria page. Scorpio1998 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- For attribution purposes it was easier to just recreate the whole page which is now at User:Tayeb188/Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Scorpio1998 I am guessing you are also Tayeb188 because Scorpio1998 has never edited anything except my user talk. Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830) was deleted as a fork. So it should definitely not be made again. But it's possible that you could incorporate some of the writing into the existing article Ottoman Algeria. I'm going to ping @Sandstein as the admin who closed that discussion but I would be OK restoring the deleted article for this reason if he is. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- The article itself was called: Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830) Scorpio1998 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Libreboot on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
RM's and repeated proposals
While I'm commenting something that has struck me and caused me to think quite a bit, as an uninvolved editor, is a theory around repeated conversations that I was first introduced to regarding requested moves. The theory is that if there are repeated proposals to do a move, and which all are close but are closed with no move, the issue doesn't go away until finally a discussion closes with moving the page. At which point there doesn't seem to be nearly the same effort (and often no effort) to move it back suggesting we should have probably done the page move far earlier and something in our processes was broken. This theory has largely held true in my experience around RMs.
I saw this comment you made on Roy's page and was interested in the underlying theory but didn't want to reply there as to focus on it seemed off topic; I hope you don't mind me opening a conversation here.
My interpretation of this would be different; I see three possible reasons for this that don't align with our processes being broken in that manner:
- The world has changed and the name which is best supported by policy has changed with it; an example of this would be Kyiv.
- Our policies have changed and this has changed which name is best supported by policy.
- One side is more tendentious and invested in the dispute; while those opposing are willing to join a discussion to prevent a move they are not willing to put in the extra effort to open a discussion to revert the move - or they are wishing to avoid the drama that opening such a move would cause.
Because of this third reason I don't read much into the lack of effort in the opposite direction. While it's possible our processes are broken and the move should have been done much earlier, it's also possible that our processes are broken in that they reward tendentious editors and the move should not have been done at all. BilledMammal (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal I think we do have processes that are susceptible to tendentious editors. No question. But in the moves I'm talking about it's not the same editor repeatedly starting the move discussion. And unlike infoboxes, where you see a similar dynamic of "repeat discussion until a certain consensus is found" it's not the same group of editors that show up repeatedly to the discussions. Frequently the editors spurring the discussions are IP or low count editors who are genuinely puzzled about why we've named something a certain way. Puzzled enough to overcome the barrier to editing to discuss or note it. And I would actually suggest that we lagged, even more than our policies and guidelines say we should have, with Kyiv. So I'd have Kyiv as a clear example of the kind of discussion I'm talking about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Kyiv is the definitive example of this issue, as there were countless complaints about the name (mainly from drive-by editors, a.k.a. readers) until it was moved, and admins even had to impose so-called move moratoriums in order to deal with them. Amazingly, the disruption died down as soon as the article was at the right name. Around the time of the most recent RM (the successful one) I commented:
"All those discussion attempts should have been taken as a clue that the article is at the wrong title."
and later"The impression I have of move moratoriums is that their existence is evidence that the article is at the wrong title."
Perhaps one of my profound comments will be quoted in the eventual essay written about this phenomenon. – bradv 18:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)- I think Barkeep is on to something here. But I'd also caution that just because something has been repeatedly asked for often points to just the opposite outcome. If say people were repeatedly asking for moving Pizzagate conspiracy theory to Pizzagate scandal, that would probably be an indication that we were under assault by alt-right trolls, not that there was some legitimate reason for moving it. I'm hesitant to reward or even recognize persistent attempts at moving, because that only encourages people to bend the rules. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Great counter example Eek. A talk page watcher emailed me User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle which gets at a lot of what I was trying to get at (though not the point bradv made above about the signs from our readers) while also taking it in an interesting different direction that deserves some consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting; I thought your original post was referring to that page. I don't like the idea that "if people keep asking for it, there must be something to the request" as a broad principle, because it just takes a vanishingly small portion of the user community to request something periodically. It incentivizes never-ending disputes, since willingness to compromise will be interpreted as conceding rejection of the points being made. It takes advantage of the goodwill of conciliatory editors, and thus contributes to an environment selecting for more combative editors. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think a crucial difference between what you're discussing @Isaacl and what I'm saying is what I was getting at with the Infobox comparison: there's a large difference between repeat players and people genuinely motivated to comment on that but not generally participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Even for cases where it's a random new user dropping a note on a page, it's a very small percentage of users, and is a self-selected sampling. To take a slightly different example, there are periodic new users who complain about the lack of coverage of athletes X who all meet standard Y. There are still many other editors who have advocated for the current standard, and so just the existence of periodic requests isn't enough by itself to indicate that there should be a change. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but if the complaints stop once the change is made doesn't that prove that the change was needed? Perhaps this principle can only be proven in retrospect, but that doesn't make it invalid. – bradv 00:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it necessarily follows. There is incentive to outlast other editors and drive them away, and this does happen in discussions. In particular, moderate middle ground editors get tired of constantly rehashing the same arguments and leave. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with this and would add that it requires more commitment to open a move request than it does to contribute to one. For editors who are not invested in a topic they might be willing to take the time to contribute to an existing move request, but not willing to take the time to open a new one. Adam's Bridge is an example of a topic where policy favors the current name, but where I suspect that if the article ever was moved there would be no attempt to move it back because editors opposing the move aren't invested in the topic. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it necessarily follows. There is incentive to outlast other editors and drive them away, and this does happen in discussions. In particular, moderate middle ground editors get tired of constantly rehashing the same arguments and leave. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but if the complaints stop once the change is made doesn't that prove that the change was needed? Perhaps this principle can only be proven in retrospect, but that doesn't make it invalid. – bradv 00:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Even for cases where it's a random new user dropping a note on a page, it's a very small percentage of users, and is a self-selected sampling. To take a slightly different example, there are periodic new users who complain about the lack of coverage of athletes X who all meet standard Y. There are still many other editors who have advocated for the current standard, and so just the existence of periodic requests isn't enough by itself to indicate that there should be a change. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think a crucial difference between what you're discussing @Isaacl and what I'm saying is what I was getting at with the Infobox comparison: there's a large difference between repeat players and people genuinely motivated to comment on that but not generally participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting; I thought your original post was referring to that page. I don't like the idea that "if people keep asking for it, there must be something to the request" as a broad principle, because it just takes a vanishingly small portion of the user community to request something periodically. It incentivizes never-ending disputes, since willingness to compromise will be interpreted as conceding rejection of the points being made. It takes advantage of the goodwill of conciliatory editors, and thus contributes to an environment selecting for more combative editors. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Great counter example Eek. A talk page watcher emailed me User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle which gets at a lot of what I was trying to get at (though not the point bradv made above about the signs from our readers) while also taking it in an interesting different direction that deserves some consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
But in the moves I'm talking about it's not the same editor repeatedly starting the move discussion.
I would suggest the third reason can also apply when the requests come from multiple like-minded editors; the "side" that is more invested in the dispute. This is also where our processes start to break down; the same editor making repeated requests can be addressed as a conduct issue, but that rarely applies when it is a group of editors.- When the repeated requests are from non-established users this is less true, but I would agree with CaptainEek that while in some cases those users might have a good point they are just as likely to either not understand the policies that resulted in the current title or be engaged in POV pushing. For example, Adam's Bridge has been proposed to be moved to Ram Setu several times but the current title is favored by our policies.
- For when they do have a good point I think the most significant issue is that most non-established editors aren't able to make a good, policy-based argument for that point and that results in the proposal being rejected. Partially, that is on us; we have 90 different naming conventions, usually verbose and often providing duplicated or conflicting guidance. I doubt any editor fully understands them and a new editor has no chance - I've been working for a while now on a three-phase proposal to clean them up, but it is a significant amount of work and I suspect even the earlier phases, which would be limited to removing duplication and grouping similar guidance together without changing policy such as by addressing conflicting guidance, would be controversial. BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Another example of the colonial/foreigner's language being used rather than the local name, and just like the cases above the career Wikipedians are ignoring the readers' complaints. The arguments that finally got Kiev moved to Kyiv probably apply to this one too. – bradv 02:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- The argument that finally got Kyiv moved was that the common name had shifted. That doesn't apply to Adam's Bridge although if you believe Ram Setu would better comply with policy then I would encourage you, as an experienced editor, to open a new move request. BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Another example of the colonial/foreigner's language being used rather than the local name, and just like the cases above the career Wikipedians are ignoring the readers' complaints. The arguments that finally got Kiev moved to Kyiv probably apply to this one too. – bradv 02:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think Barkeep is on to something here. But I'd also caution that just because something has been repeatedly asked for often points to just the opposite outcome. If say people were repeatedly asking for moving Pizzagate conspiracy theory to Pizzagate scandal, that would probably be an indication that we were under assault by alt-right trolls, not that there was some legitimate reason for moving it. I'm hesitant to reward or even recognize persistent attempts at moving, because that only encourages people to bend the rules. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Kyiv is the definitive example of this issue, as there were countless complaints about the name (mainly from drive-by editors, a.k.a. readers) until it was moved, and admins even had to impose so-called move moratoriums in order to deal with them. Amazingly, the disruption died down as soon as the article was at the right name. Around the time of the most recent RM (the successful one) I commented:
Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Growth team newsletter #26
Welcome to the twenty-sixth newsletter from the Growth team! Help with translations
One million Suggested Edits
We passed the 1 million Suggested edits milestone in late April!
- The Suggested edits feature (AKA Newcomer tasks) increase newcomer activation by ~12%, which flows on through to increased retention. (source)
- Suggested edits increase the number of edits newcomers complete in their first two weeks and have a relatively low revert rate. (source)
- Suggested edits are available on all Wikipedia language editions.
- Newer Suggested edits, like Add a link and Add an image, aren’t yet deployed to all wikis, but these structured tasks further increase the probability that newcomers will make their first edit. (source)
Positive reinforcement
Positive reinforcement aims to encourage newcomers who have visited our homepage and tried Growth features to keep editing.
- The new Impact module was released to Growth pilot wikis in December 2022, and we are now scaling the feature to another ten wikis. [1]
- The Leveling up features are deployed at our pilot wikis.
- The Personalized praise features were deployed at our pilot wikis on May 24. Mentors at pilot wikis will start to receive notifications weekly when they have “praise-worthy” mentees. Mentors can configure their notification preferences or disable these notifications.
Add an image
- We are creating a new section-level variation of the “add an image” task. We have tested the accuracy of suggestions, and the development of this new task is well-underway. [2]
Other updates
- We are progressively releasing Add a link to more wikis. [3]
- After adding Thanks to Recent Changes, Watchlist and Special:Contributions, we investigated Thanks usage on the wikis. There is no evidence that thanks increased after the feature was added on more pages.
- We helped with code review for the 2023 Community Wish to add Notifications for user page edits. [4]
- We have been attending several community events, that we documented in our Growth’s Community events report.
What's next for Growth?
- We shared an overview of Growth annual planning ideas, and have started community discussion about these potential projects. We would love to hear your feedback on these ideas!
Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 5 June 2023
- News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea
- Featured content: Poetry under pressure
- Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye
ArbCom and desysops
I've updated that essay to capture motions in lieu of a full case. Surprisingly, unless I've missed a bunch somehow, motions seem to have started to make sort of a comeback since 2022. I'm posting here instead of case request as I'm not sure how much it would fall under "helping decide if a case is necessary". At any rate, I'd rather kibbitz here rather than there. :-) Maxim (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's definitely a good addition @Maxim as more cases are not actually reaching the case stage. In does add a new wrinkle to the story. One could argue, for instance, that last year's committee was unlikely to remove Admin if the person actually was around and participated in a case (Athenera block, Stephen). And I'm always happy for you to come kibbitz on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
- As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
- Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Miscellaneous
- Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.
RFC Heads up
Hello! I know that you said at WP:CR that you had endeavored to close part of the MOS:GENDERID RFC (I assume topic 1). I wanted to give you a heads up that another editor had closed topic 1.
I also wanted to apologize if your efforts proved to be a considerable time drain, as that would chiefly be my fault. On the one hand, I feel somewhat proud of the RFC set up—an RFCBEFORE at VPI got fairly messy fairly quickly, and I wanted to split off aspects of that discussion to facilitate discussion, while still crafting options that represented what had been proposed. On the other hand, I realize that my decision to segment the RFC as I did made it considerably harder on any closer. It, unfortunately, does not surprise me that you started on closing the RFC but weren't able to finish before you had to attend to other matters. Regardless, while I realize it has to be frustrating to have nothing to show for your effort, I wanted to thank you for it, and I wanted to apologize for any needless burden I may have caused.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Truthfully I was going to close the whole thing. I almost closed Topic 1 but wanted to make sure nothing from the rest of the discussion would impact the closing statement there. So while I appreciate the heads-up nothing has really changed from my POV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
June music
 | |
| my story today |
|---|
For the first time, you can listen to a concert with me in the (four) choirs on YouTube, - on my talk, look for "listen" if interested. - Today's story is taken from a 2011 DYK, talking about brotherhood (which includes sisters), - the piece in question, beginning with a psalm quotation, was first performed 300 years ago OTD. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt Are all the listen links your choir? I see 4 or so such links. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, but the first, third and fourth, - all the same. (I said it was the first time, no? So there can be only one.) - My choir - in that concert - is Chor St. Martin, no link because that's a church choir with usually one concert per year, so not notable itself. The church is St. Martin, Idstein, and that the article handling it. That church also has the Martinis, originally a youth choir but now a chamber choir. Those two are Catholic. The organiser was Idsteiner Kantorei, Protestant, - their church is less convenient (to put it mildly) to house so many singers. They are sort of my choir also, but only for larger concerts, such as Beethoven's Ninth and Orff's Carmina Burana. Fourth choir is the Kantorij from the sister city Zwijndrecht, Belgium. We - all - have performed together before, for Haydn's Die Schöpfung. We stand mixed, for more ecumenism and internationality ;) - The concert had been planned for 2020, when the city partnership turned 50, but came the Pandemic. The other concert planned for 2020, St Matthew Passion, is scheduled for next spring now, hopefully again with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for wasting your time
When I saw that you weren't sure of your capacity, I figured I could step in and take that off your plate. Sorry if that led to you wasting time reviewing the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish as I noted privately, rather than just making that presumption you could have asked which would have meant I wouldn't have spent several hours yesterday working on this (or you wouldn't have). And as I noted privately while I agree with your overall findings, I think your actual close will make it very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to implement that consensus by requiring another RfC before the consensus can be noted in the guideline. I think the net result is to have squandered the time, thought, and care of all of those who helped form the consensus in that RfC as the consensus reached by a huge number of people may or may not be implemented depending on whether a new consensus can be reached with wording that doesn't yet exist and may take months to develop, if it ever does. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I apologize for grabbing the close out from under you. I read
However, I've been sucked back to ArbCom because of the particulars of a case request so while I have opened this up and begun to read it, I'm not sure what my actual capacity for closing will be.
and the lack of a {{doing}} template as an invitation for someone to close it if they had they time and motivation. I'm sorry for misreading that, and that's on me. - I think I owe Eggishorn an apology for this, where I said
And that's the biggest problem with the close as it stands, it's just passing the buck and setting up yet another one of those clusterfuck discussions with diminishing returns, as uninvolved editors don't really seem to give a shit. We got the most participation we're going to see on the topic in that RFC, and it was summarily ignored in the close, and any further discussions are going to be back to the same group of editors with the same opinions divided down the middle.
It's a bit similar to what you've said, although I was more worked up, but it still comes down to a close which doesn't necessarily move us forward. I did what I complained about in that close review, and now I feel like an ass for spouting off like I did because I made the best close I could based on my reading of this discussion and consensus and ended with the same kind of result. - I agree that it will likely be difficult to craft the wording, but I crafted much of my closing statements to try and make it a bit easier, and highlight where there was a strong consensus. If I could have said There is consensus for option 2.8, figure it out, or if I was in a position to create the necessary language, I would have. My reading simply didn't support a consensus for using any of the proposed language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I feel like this is half my fault for asking Izno and Primefac to recuse from the whole Scottywong / ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ thing (which I notice no one else seems to have thought was a concern).Barkeep49, did you have a WIP close? Any language you can share? User:Sideswipe9th has opened a post-discussion discussion, and any alternative reading of the consensus of the RFC that you might be able to share may go far in helping ameliorate further time expenditure by participants. Folly Mox (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- As a offtopic note, I think it was a fair ask. I had been considering it even before your request, and another remark made in the request (by another arb, incidentally, and it wasn't the one that everyone else bristled at) ultimately convinced me that I didn't want to balance the responsibility. (I don't think it would have been an issue, since my personal opinion of ScottyWong's behavior in the context of the bot discussions was that he was unnecessarily stubborn but did ultimately use the dispute resolution process as intended.) Izno (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Folly Mox There's a reason the method for asking for recusals is spelled out in ARBPOL, and you're entitled to make the asks that you think are right.As for my WIP close, no close of mine is done until everything is posted. I had a completely written draft I was happy with but there was a problem (noted in a moment) which stopped me from hitting submit on the edit. The way I was going to handle the near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3 (what SFR is calling 2.8) was by saying that 3 had consensus, but by footnote or other mitigating language the not completely absolute nature of that consensus should be noted. The reason this didn't go up yesterday is because closing in that way meant "what about RfDs" also needed a close and figuring out what the consenus was for that discussion was giving me large problems. I decided starting a new the next day might help. It's possible that in closing that I would have changed my wording of the main issue. By closing it that way it immediately implements the consensus SFR and I both agree was reached - in other words it reflects the will and thinking of participants - and seemed more likely to setup further discussions that would also reach consensus on the remaining issue that everyone felt good about. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I apologize for grabbing the close out from under you. I read
Protection
Thanks for protecting Daniel Wayne Smith. Could you do the same with Dannielynn Birkhead? The same person has been trying to undo the redirect there too. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Balph Eubank Done. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)