Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ST)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


School project making non-simple edits[change source]

It seems that most edits made in the last 30 minutes or so are part of a school project. I've noticed though that most if not all the edits are written in complex (not Simple) English. I don't know how we would deal with this but I feel something needs to be done before it becomes a larger problem. J991 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Generally that is part of us allowing schools to have projects here. Usually one of us ends up going through and fixing things up where necessary when they are done. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@J991: I hadn't heard that we had a current school project. If no one let us know that this one was coming, I'd say we could treat the edits like any others: warn the editors when language is too complex, qd articles that warrant it, etc., and on the other hand, welcoming users who seem to want to contribute, and directing them to the pages that explain how to write here. What is the indication that this is a school project? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
We all know this wiki needs more regular editors. School projects are one way to show people, there's another Engilsh language Wikipedia. It takes time to get a grip on writing in "Simple English". So I think treating the editors of a school porject like any other editor is probably a good way forward. We point out that the language in an article or section may be a little complex, and we welcome those editors who do the right thing. Deleting an article is easy, writing a new article for our audience takes time, and is not as easy as it may first appear...--Eptalon (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree --Examknow (lets chat!) 19:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Article descriptions[change source]

I see articles with descriptions like Wikipedia:Simple talk. How can we make one? National Railway (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@National Railway: What do you mean by "articles with descriptions"? Do you mean how the page title starts with "Wikipedia:"? Computer Fizz (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I mean when you search for an article like insect, you see a line of smaller lines below the title. National Railway (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@National Railway: Do you mean the thing that says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?" Computer Fizz (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure they mean the short description which comes from wikidata and shows up on mobile. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: This is exactly what I mean.National Railway (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I assume that, too. Does anyone know if Wikidata actually delivers descriptions in simple? (I don't especially have a problem if simple "falls back" to en, but we should get simple descriptions here if they exist.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: No I do not believe it does. If it does I have never heard of it. --Examknow (lets chat!) 15:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
All wiki's except en fall back on whatever is in wikidata using the language you have set in your preferences, like any other language based text on any of the wikies. For example, I use Canadian English so I get the Canadian English descriptions. Simple not being an actual language has never been able to be used for any of the internationalized text. En itself does their own thing separate from wikidata. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I mean the description of an article. Like the article insect, the description for the article is “class of invertebrates”. National Railway (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@National Railway: As sasso said you gotta find it on Wikidata. It's not anywhere on here. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: It means the description that you see in an article under the title in mobile view. National Railway (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I can find it, but how can I apply it to the article? National Railway (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@National Railway: I'm not entirely sure I don't use wikidata very often, or ever. You might wanna ask @Djsasso: cause he seems to be experienced with it. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

the notability rules should be changed[change source]

The notability rules should be changed on Simple English. Movies which are even nominated for an award (example: Golden Globe Awards, Academy Awards or Emmy Award) should be notable and said to claim notability. Why are movies that win an award said to claim notability, and movies that are nominated for an award not said to claim notability? That is insulting and embarrassing. For example, recently in August 2018, one article, Heal the Living, was nominated for an award, yet still got deleted. I was highly offended by that. Angela Maureen (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The rules for this should be the same as on enwiki. One reason that being nominated doesn't make something notable is that some prizes always nominate a minimum number of entries. If there aren't enough truly worthy things to nominate, they nominate lesser things just to make up the number. Besides that, the notability guideline for movies doesn't require any nominations at all; it lists several other ways that notability can be shown.
Finally, if you disagree with a deletion, you can request a review of it at WP:Deletion review. Just be aware that reviews are conducted on the merits: Saying that you were embarrassed or offended by a deletion will not affect the review. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Saying it was nominated would be a claim to notability. It just doesn't assure notability. In other words it would stop a quick deletion, it might not stop a full Rfd. I restored Heal the Living as it did have a claim. People keep forgetting that a claim can be the most minor thing. That QD criteria doesn't require the claim to actually be notable. And being nominated for an award most definitely would qualify to make people think that something might be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

orphaned articles[change source]

Orphaned articles on Simple English should show the orphan template on the top of them. The template should show so that editors and people who are new to Simple can see them. But it ain't just those articles; Simple has many articles which are orphaned though are not tagged so. Sometimes, finding a link to an orphaned article is hard, and the orphaned article might stay so for a long time. Angela Maureen (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

People can add that tag, but its the one tag that is pretty often discouraged to use, because it would be on so many of our articles that it would just end up making the articles look worse with no actual benefit. It is especially unnecessary if the article is already marked as a stub, as it is very likely a stub is orphaned especially if its new. Tags while they are good at pointing to an issue in my opinion very rarely result in someone actually fixing the issues, its why articles once they are tagged don't often seem to have their tags removed. No one wants to be the person to remove them. The orphan tag is the the most useless of the bunch. I can't remember the exact discussion I would have to go searching, but the reason it doesn't show is because of how little purpose it serves and we didn't want it cluttering up pages. Some wanted to remove the tag all together but others thought it was still worth having for category purposes. I think that change happened because AWB used to add the tag to all orphaned articles it would come across and people got sick of the tag cause it would end up on like 7 out of 10 articles. Personally I would still delete the tag but I know some like it so the current status as an invisible tag to discourage use is the best situation. -DJSasso (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
In the enwiki, the orphan tag only appears if the date is in the same month the tag was placed. If older, the tag remains but does not show. This gives it one month for hopefully someone who is reviewing new articles to see it and fix things, and then after does not disturb readers. Probably it works the same way here? Desertborn (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah it does, I just forgot to mention that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Desertborn: I just placed this template on an article, but it does not show up. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Which one was it? I can check it out. Did you add the month and year? For example, right now the tag has to be {{orphan|date=May 2019}} for it to show up. If there are any other dates than May 2019, or there is no date, it will not show. When we get to June, none of the ones marked May will show the maintenance notice anymore. Of course, they will all still be in the category, no matter if they show a maintenance notice on the page or not. Desertborn (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Desertborn:Thanks, yes, you are right. I did not date my tag. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC) ...But cybot did, and it is now displaying the orphan tag. 19:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not clear to me, after reading the description Maureen Angela linked to, what an orphaned page is. I posted my question on the talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
An orphaned page is a page that no other pages link to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
There are currently only 1,411 pages tagged with Orphaned. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes as mentioned we discourage the use of the tag. If you notice it has been rarely used in the last few years. Category:Orphaned articles 2012 was the last time that it was regularly used. Since then its only been used by people who likely weren't aware we don't really use it anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

orphan category update[change source]

Since last week 14 articles have been unorphaned, and four have been added to the orphan category. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A4 clarification[change source]

It seems as though there's a bit of a disagreement over what constitutes an article that can be deleted via A4. I think it would be best to discuss it here. The current description at WP:QD is:

"Is about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites that do not claim to be notable. This includes any article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, product, service or web content that does not say why the subject is important. If the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead."

The disagreement seems to be over what constitutes a claim. How should we define it? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this essay on en wiki may be helpful to us in this. In fact, this goes to the heart of the matter: "One, search for a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject; for example: 'John Doe is the State President of the Democratic Party in Tasmania'...Such a claim of noteworthiness need not be supported by any reference; the fact that such a claim exists, deems that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied." Of course A7 on enwiki is nearly equal to A4 here. So I think the definition of a claim should be the same here. Notice how the existence of a claim does not even require a source. Thus it is a much lower barrier than notability even. Desertborn (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
To add to my comment above, that essay has a lot of good information on this subject. I highly recommend it. Based on it, I think the following are good examples of what a "claim" is.
  • "Ronald Wilson Reagan was an American actor and politician" (from Ronald Reagan)
  • "Dan Kelly was an Australian bushranger and outlaw" (from Dan Kelly)
  • "Aniuyguyna Sergeevna Kournikova is a Russian model and retired professional tennis player" (from Anna Kournikova)
  • "Jessica Alba is an American television and film actress and model" (from Jessica Alba)
I took all of those from very good articles. They all show a simple formula for a claim. The name of the person followed by a statement of something that makes them notable. Of course, I don't think we can make a rule that a claim must follow a specific format. There are many other ways to phrase such a claim, in more or less words. Desertborn (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
None of the things in that bulleted list is a claim of notability. They're just statements of the person's profession, and a profession alone is not a claim of notability. For example, everyone who participates in a school play is an actor. Everyone who runs for office is a politician, no matter what level office it is or how successful they are. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I see those as claims of notability. Yes, someone in a school play could call themselves an actor, but their notability past that point is for RfD to decide, not individual admins. Vermont (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
They are not claims of notability. The notability of the people from whose articles those quotes were taken is shown later in the articles. Wikipedia:Notability (people) has these things to say about what constitutes notability:
  • Sports people may be notable if they have (1) participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics; (2) won a national event of competition; (3) played for a national team; (4) played for a team in a national level competition.
  • Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: (1) Has had important roles in several notable movies, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; (2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; (3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
  • Politicians: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the main guidelines of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
There are similar specifications for other professions. If being in a profession were enough to make someone notable, these other specifications wouldn't be needed.
It can be tricky when you are talking about someone undeniably notable. Take the statement "Ronald Wilson Reagan was an American actor and politician." We want to say that that shows notability, but it doesn't. Reagan is notable, but that statement doesn't show the notability. The notability is shown later in the article where it talks about his work as an actor and the political offices he held. Suppose I change it to "Joe Smith was an American actor and politician"--to me, that makes it clearer that we need more than just a statement of being an actor and politician. If "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have shown individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article" (from Wikipedia:Notability (music)), that shows that just being in a profession isn't enough to show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This isnt a question of what constitutes notability; it's what constitutes a claim. Of course that one sentence doesn't prove notability, but it claims it. A4 isnt there for individual admins to decide if articles meet notability policy. If someone writes an article about a subject in a small-time production that has a town council seat and refers to them as a "actor and politician" that should go to RfD, in my opinion. Vermont (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
'No' to that last sentence, because that would make much of the world notable. It is not being an actor that makes an actor notable. It is being an actor whose notability meets the criteria. The process is two-stage:
  1. First to say in some direct form "John Smith is a notable politician". For the word "notable", obvious synonyms are acceptable. So stated, his page should not be deleted under QD. Also acceptable are mentions of significant awards such as winning Nobel Prize, playing for international teams in sport and so on. However, the absence of a clearly meaningful claim does make the page liable for QD.
  2. Second, to give evidence of that claim. Failure here makes the page liable for RfD.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind, though, that we aren't supposed to call people famous, notable, noted, etc. Their notability is supposed to be shown by what is written about them. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I was not saying that my example is notable. I said it has a claim. They are two entirely separate things. Meeting of notability criteria is not for individual administrators to decide, it's for community consensus through RfD's. Vermont (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking about claims of notability, not demonstration of it. Stating someone's occupation doesn't claim notability. If it did, we wouldn't need all the guidelines about whether people in certain occupations are notable. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I do have a good exapmle: look at Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord. It is a sohort article, only a few sentences long. There are external references (we get an "other websites section, and links to towo other pages, where we can discuss whether these are related). The question is just: does the article assert enough to not be dletable under A4? - All it has are some claims and illustrationsa without reference. For those who don't know it: Talleyrand was one of the most important/influential diplomats of the 19th century, so the question is not whether he is notable. The question is: does the article in its current form show this, as to not fall under A4? --Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that one claims notability because of the things he did, not just because the first sentence says he was a diplomat. Our guideline on diplomats says, "Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required," and I think that is met here, (although it could use some inline references, and sentence that starts "He is widely seen" is a bit weasely). --Auntof6 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes it does Eptalon. As long as it makes a claim a quick deletion can not be used and it must go to Rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

In some professions, the profession itself is the claim. A4 is meant for things like "Joey is a cool guy." Almost every article created if it says something about the person such as "Joey is an actor." is a claim. Basically the TLDR of A4 is that if it says anything that even remotely no matter how far fetched could make someone think the person was notable then a claim was made. (excluding situations of hoax where no sane person would think it were true) The decision on whether or not the topic is actually notable is for Rfd to decide not individual admins. A4 gets used way too often here. I often have to go through the logs undeleting articles that should not have been A4'd. This isn't the first time this has come up either a number of admins have pointed this out on many occasions. To use the example above "Ronald Wilson Reagan was an American actor and politician." is a claim, they are claiming the person is notable because they are an actor and a politician. It doesn't show they are notable, but it does make the claim they are notable. We don't have to show notability to avoid quick deletion, we only have to claim it. The things in Wikipedia:Notability (people) for example are about showing notability not about claiming it, for example if I said "Joey is the fastest kid in New York." that would be a claim, but it you won't find fastest kid in New York in WP:N. But that doesn't matter because you can't delete when a claim is made. It has to go to Rfd to decide if the article is actually notable and if being the fastest kid in New York does make him notable. Or in the case of an actor, we need to go to Rfd to evaluate the article against WP:ACTOR to see if indeed they meet the requirements. If you are comparing them against WP:N in order to make an A4 call then you are bypassing the communities power and doing it yourself which is a big no. We as admins only get to decide on things that are extremely black and white. Anytime you are about to use judgement when deciding on a QD then you immediately should know its not a valid QD and it needs to go to Rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Something else to remember is WP:BEFORE. You are supposed to make a good faith look for sources before you put something up for deletion, this applies just as much to an admin checking a QD as it does to any other editor creating an Rfd. If the article here is lacking something showing notability but you know on en.wiki there is a big well referenced article. They you aren't doing your job properly if you delete it because more likely than not the topic is notable. And deleting notable articles just for the sake of some mistaken belief we have to delete something if it doesn't meet A4 is never ok. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: This is completely unacceptable and against basic A4 policy. Vermont (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually only came here after seeing that this had been deleted again, either by negligence or wheel warring and it's very disappointing. A two second google search would have shown anyone who looked that this is a completely notable subject. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not only that, but once it was restored it had to go to Rfd (where it 100% would have been kept). This is ridiculous. It isn't like people haven't told you two that you are deleting incorrectly before. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I had a quick look and was surprised to find two other articles that I had attempted to correct vandalism on by restoring the actual correct content for unquestionably notable subjects, had also been deleted. Would you please restore Saliva (band) and CKY? Praxidicae (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Done and did a tiny bit of cleanup by adding categories etc. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not a huge fan of this genre (aside from Saliva) but at least there's now an indisuputable claim. :) Praxidicae (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Do these articles have any policy or other issues that would prevent them from restoration? Dolores Prida, Bette Bao Lord, Antonia Hernández, Sandra Cisneros - I included enwiki links to establish that they are generally considered notable and probably will require an RFD. apparently those links don't work, but point still remains. Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The first three only really said X is an activist. While in some situations like a professional athlete I would be ok with. I am a little more hesitant about restoring in that state as I wouldn't think most activists are notable, rather the notable ones are the exception. That being said there is definitely notability based on the en.wiki articles so its very unlikely I personally would have deleted them. I would have just brought some information over from en.wiki to prevent the loss of articles on notable people. That being said if you are objecting to them being deleted I can restore them and whomever if they want to can take them to Rfd. But I would prefer that they be expanded if I restore them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't have time to fully expand them but I'll make sure they have at least a relevant claim and source. Do any of them contain anything worthwhile? Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I restored them. Feel free to take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I obviously don't have the same understanding as the people being vocal here. I'll just stop doing A4 deletions altogether. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Not saying you shouldn't delete any or follow what I am about to say. But way back when I was first made admin on en.wiki. The recommendation to us new admins was that for any of the notability QD options we should just tag them so that a second admin always looked at those deletions. That being said that only applies to ones you come across on your own, not ones other editors tagged. The idea was that no matter what two people always looked at an article before it was A4'd. Don't know if they still recommend that on en.wiki but I do find it good advice. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, as many of you expect, I believe claims should be expressed in language, not inferentially. For applying this as the basis of A4 I have been much criticised. Of course, I have made some mistakes, but not so many as some think. Unlike En, admins here range across all topics, and cannot possibly know who is notable and who is not. Why is it so difficult for new pages to say in words what makes a person or topic notable? (Perhaps because so many are not notable). And bear in mind that our RfD system does not work well when we get in the region of 20 pages listed. We've been there before, and we know how true that is. Keep in mind the huge number of new pages we get which are one or two sentences long, with no claim or justification. Do you really want all those to land up in RfD? Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If it results in less notable things getting deleted that shouldn't yes. Remember our Rfd, if no one comments in the discussion then it results in a soft delete, so if no one comments that isn't a problem. So the number that might end up there is a very minor issue compared with things getting deleted that shouldn't. You are right we can't know everyone who is notable, which is why it has to go to Rfd. That is the whole point. We aren't evaluating if they are notable with the A4, we are evaluating if the person writing the article put something on the page that could make someone think the person was notable. Determining notability is for Rfd not QD. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The possibility of a community backlog is not an acceptable justification to expand administrator discretion to deciding and enforcing the notability of a subject. Vermont (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I see some improvements that can be made to our A4 processes. The meaning of having a credible claim of notablity can be interpreted as there is something that may make it seems notable (or for me I once thought that the claim itself must be weighty). A4 is one way to get rid of rubbish articles by LTAs and etc which is useful. A RFD may be too heavyweight and makes us focus in typing up the rationale and sending. I have no qualms doing so but sometimes these articles is best dealt with by an A4. This is per DENY / and at times a G3 may not be best. However, the differing standards of A4 between admins is a problem (there shouldn't as admins are set to enforce the guidelines not to be one who set the guidelines via deletion). This cannot be prevented as no one think alike. One way I can think of, and had been suggested is to tag the A4 and not delete it and let another admin delete it. Given our current pool of admins, I think it can be done. However, given future is uncertain, we can also have the allowance of tagging an article as A4 then for a period of time (i.e. 1 day) no one do anything, the tagging admin can delete it. I don't wish to see speedy deletion to be there 3 - 4 days too (as in some of my other projects it can be). Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism / possible socking[change source]

I dont really have time at the moment to straight this out but I think 205.118.22.194 (talk · contribs) and MoltenLead (talk · contribs) may be the same person. It appears that there is some tag team vandalism going on. Nunabas (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nunabas Please make an investigation at WP:SPI. Thank you. Examknowtalk 19:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Cite error[change source]

Any chance we can get the en version copied over? Getting {{Broken ref}} to filter out non-articles would be useful. Nunabas (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: thanks, one more message to copy over(MediaWiki:Cite-tracking-category-cite-error). Hopefully this will be the last one for awhile. Nunabas (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thought I had got them all, done now. -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Increase period before articles here are archived[change source]

I was just wondering if it would not make sense to increase the time that topics here are open for dicussion. After all, many participants are only part-time contributors to Simple and may miss-out on important discussions. Right now topics here are retired after only fourteen days. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We leave it at that so that the page doesn't get clogged up too fast, which it did when he had it set at more than 14. Discussions for official sake only last seven days. If you haven't noticed a discussion in fourteen days there isn't much we can do for you. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

ChenzwBot????[change source]

Just wondering, what happened to ChenzwBot? I have seen multiple edits that contain content that should have been reverted. --Examknow (lets chat!) 22:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

He comes and goes. I have messaged @Chenzw: so hopefully he will be back again soon. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That’s good. We really need it around here. --Examknowtalk 21:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)