User talk:Rusalkii

Archives

2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2025: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hey, you deleted First fire that I had tagged as {{R from merge}} which says redirects tagged as such should not be deleted. If there were arguments in favour of deleting a page that had merged content, I am good, but there were none. Jay 💬 02:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it's important not to delete the merged content where it represents the history for something actually in the article, but none of the content was preserved. All commenters should have been aware there was previous content at the redirect, since that was prominently mentioned in the non and the first few commenters. I could relist again to see if the consensus changes given the information that it was a merge rather than just a BLAR, but I would not expect so. Rusalkii (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content of a page is not just the current version, but content of the page history as well. Any content that was present earlier but not in the current version, may be brought back any time. But I would like to know where your understanding that attribution of merged content that was removed needn't be kept, stems from. Jay 💬 08:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I distinctly remember reading it somewhere but I can't now remember where, and I've reviewed the most likely pages and can't find it there. I'll avoid closing any RfDs with merged content, deleted or otherwise, until I've figured out where I got this from and whether I think it's reasonable.

I can revert this close, though I am confused at what the correct thing to do if it is relisted and gets no further comments or further deletes that don't make an argument specifically saying that the history does not need to be kept for attribution reasons. I've asked this a few times and the best answer I've gotten is "relist again", which at some point stops being viable. Do I close as keep in the face of the consensus to delete? In that case we may as well procedurally close them immediately. The admin instructions for RfD say you can archive an unwanted redirect by moving them to a subpage of the target's talk page, but I've never seen that done before. Do a dummy edit at the merge target with all contributers to the deleted page? Rusalkii (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen 2-3 cases where Tavix archived the attributions at the target talk page. Jay 💬 07:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rusalkii's understanding is corrrect, if there's no content preserved then there's nothing that needs attribution. That said, it doesn't hurt to record authorship on the talk page when attribution is requested. It is one of the solutions described at WP:MAD and I call it the "Qantas Flight Numbers solution" because it was a nice compromise on the RfD for that redirect. I recently employed it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 16#DuPage 3 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 8#Wirtland (micronation). -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix, do you know if this ("if there's no content preserved then there's nothing that needs attribution") is explicitly documented anywhere? I do take Jay's point that any merged content no longer in the target page could, theoretically, be reinstated at any time and is in any case available for people to view, in the same way that we revdel copyvios even if they are no longer present in the current revision. Rusalkii (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page when viewing old history that states (with my emphasis added): This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. That explains that not all history is required to be attributable due to the fact that attribution is a licensing requirement. The issue that the material can be brought back at any time is the same issue for any deleted material, and that's explained at WP:RUD: its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted). For redirects, usually the rationale for deletion is a lack of mention, and if someone wants to go back and reuse history to add a mention, then the redirect needs to be undeleted to resolve the attribution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay reverted and relisted, sorry for the delay. Rusalkii (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think I would need your help again this soon, but this one is a doozy. User:Nidayefu on several articles Huawei, Avatr Technology, Avatr 06, Avatr 07, Avatr 11, and Avatr 12. They continue to change the information on these articles without proper sources and it appears to be based on original research. I've warned them twice for disruptive editing and asked them to discuss on talk before further edits. I'm not sure if I should do disruptive warning 3 or edit warring or maybe even it warrant an admin report at this point? Appreciate your help again! Cheers! --S1mply.dogmom (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this, where the person seems to probably be operating in good faith, I'd try at least one personalized, non-template message explaining the issue before trying to report it anywhere. The template messages are scary and I suspect some people don't necessarily even realize they can or should respond! It looks like they've never edited a talk page, so it's possible this is a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue or the editor otherwise just doesn't understand talk pages, in which case an admin could issue a main space block just to make them find the talk page.

(I'm on mobile myself at the moment so I haven't carefully looked at the details of their edits.) Rusalkii (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to revert again as it would count as edit warring. I will ping them on their own talk page and see if that gets their attention. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, would you mind reviewing the history from these articles for the last couple weeks? They've improved the sourcing when restoring their previous statements this time so I would like a second pair of eyes to see if all is well enough to be left alone? S1mply.dogmom (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S1mply.Dogmom sorry, missed this. Okay, so looking at this edit on Huawei: the actual content seems basically unobjectionable to me. Removing "premium" is reasonable, that's usually a marketing term. The different between "technical support" and "in cooperation with" strikes me as kind of arcane -- I'm not sure if these are specalist terms in the field with specific meanings? On the other hand, all three sources they added in this edit seem to be the exact same press release, republished in different outlets. It replaces a carexpert.com article by a "contributor", which admittedly also doesn't inspire that much faith, but I'd prefer the original source over the new one, overall. The new sources on Avatr 12 and Avatr 06 seem to be the exact same three identical copies of the same press release, which I am not particularly impressed by. On the other hand, I don't this is disruptive editing, or even necessarily edit warring (since they changed the content in a way that seemed like it was at least plausibly an attempt to address your concerns). This is a basically reasonable but not particularly good edit by a new editor, which it is also totally reasonable for you to object to and ask to discuss on the talk page, though it's not so egregious I'd feel the need to push the point if you want to go do something else instead. Now, they don't seem to actually be responding to talk page messages, and if that continues it will become a serious conduct issue. Rusalkii (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't begin to thank you enough for your help on this. I guess, my primary concern is the removal of the source that has contradicting language they have put quite an effort into removing. Their edits have a common theme, to lessen or remove Huawei's involvement in the development of the vehicles. In the source they removed, it states "Avatr was founded in 2018 and exists as a joint venture between Changan Automobile – one of China’s big four car manufacturers – and tech giant Huawei and battery manufacturer CATL." In the sources they added, Huawei isn't mentioned. I know as it stands its "acceptible." The sources don't contradict eachother. In your humble opinion, how would you proceed here? S1mply.dogmom (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked this up to see what any other sources say? I agree this is slightly weird behavior, but it's also the kind of thing you might do if you knew something about how this car was being funded and didn't understand how Wikipedia sourcing worked.

I'd leave them a personalized (not template) user talk page message with your concerns and/or questions about their interpretation of the sources. They don't edit that often, so I'd give them at least a week, and then if they don't respond revert with an explanation and tell them to take further discussions to the talk page. If they revert you back without addressing your concerns and don't engage on the talk page after that you can report them to ANI and make it clear that the issue is failure to communicate rather than direct problems with their edits, which are non-ideal but obviously not blockable. (To be honest, I would probably have just dropped it before it got to ANI, because I find it exhausting to make a big deal out of this sort of thing, but it's not something where you wouldn't be within your rights to push the point if you're concerned). Rusalkii (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I did today was remove the duplicate press release citations. Their addition to the Huawei article did not pass verification so it was removed and replaced with the original one that was there prior. I did as you suggested and posted a personal note on their talk page explaining why I did what I did and invited them again to talk out future changes if there is further disagreement. I did a brief search trying to find the consensus from sources in reference to how Huawei's involvement with the project is described. Its described as a joint venture between all 3 in some places, but not in all. I have left the changes in the wording alone in these cases. I did also notice the editor's user name is suspiciously similar to the designer's name that is listed in the infobox on the model pages but not enough to really do anything with. I admit I am probably looking more in to this than is necessary. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Nothing wrong with getting into the weeds with this sort of thing, to be clear. Just didn't want you to feel like you have to chase this all the way to ANI or wherever else. Rusalkii (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The winners of the 2025 Core Contest are announced 🎉. An great turnout with a impressive variety of articles and laudable improvements. The judges (Aza24, Femke and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners.

• First place (and a prize of £120) goes to Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) for his systemic overhaul of the Political Philosophy article. What was once an unwieldy entry—dominated by a sprawling history section of nearly three dozen subsections!—is now an accessible and well-structured survey of a complex and often polarizing subject. We particularly commend Phlsph7’s global, inclusive, and comprehensive approach. He has once again demonstrated exceptional skill in handling core topics with clarity and balance.
• Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) for their outstanding work on both Trunk and Flower. The former was reimagined from a ~200 word stub into a richly detailed and impeccably sourced overview—an effort truly worthy of its dedicatee, the late and much-missed Vami IV. Meanwhile, their improvements to the Flower article transformed an already strong entry into an exceptional one, now well on its way to passing FAC.
• Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) for his major development of the Niamey article. The entry now proudly stands among the finest city articles on Wikipedia—from thirty scattered references to nearly 400 high-quality academic sources. We particularly commend his inclusion of numerous French-language sources and thoughtfully comprehensive approach to the topic.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. – Aza24 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 700 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, I'm sorry to bother you with this again but I would like to be double checked here. I reverted an edit that removed "notable residents" from this article Hiram Clarke, Houston, because the reason given for removal was that they didn't have a linked article. Each was accompanied by a citation. Was I in the wrong here? --S1mply.dogmom (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article is the usual criteria, yeah. Keeps us from-relitigating whether X or Y is notable or not, when we already have such a process for articles, and allows people to learn more about them than just the brief blurb the list allows. Rusalkii (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you! S1mply.dogmom (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kindly can you give me your email I would send you a question and know your idea about person Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there any reason why you can't ask me publicly? I prefer to have these kinds of discussions on my talk page. Rusalkii (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes please Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can email me using the "email user" button in the left sidebar. If I end up deciding I do not think the conversation should be conducted by email, I will let you know here and you can decide if you prefer to continue. Rusalkii (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the option, and my email is already confirmed here. Could you please send me an email or let me know how you'd prefer to receive the details? Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see the button at ? Rusalkii (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can't see the Button at side bar Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's very weird. I generally prefer to keep my email private without a good reason. Could you please explain at in general terms what the issue is, or at least why the issue can't be discussed in public? Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I completely understand and respect your preference for privacy. I'm happy to clarify the matter here in general terms.

The issue relates to a page draft that was previously declined based on concerns of “self-promotion,” despite the article being neutrally written and supported by reputable sources in multiple languages. I was hoping to understand more about the specific criteria that led to that decision, and whether there might be a way to revisit or improve the draft for reconsideration.  

If there's a more suitable channel you'd prefer for a deeper discussion, I'm happy to follow your guidance.

Thanks again for your time and attention Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I kindly requested your email is because subject’s name is currently restricted on the platform, which means I’m unable to create the page or even mention the sources directly within the draft interface. Since only administrators can override such limitations, I hoped you might be willing to take a quick look via email to fairly assess the credibility and neutrality of the material.  

Of course, I fully respect your desire to keep your contact details private, and I understand completely if that’s your final preference. I’m simply trying to find a constructive path forward within the current constraints Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what your relationship is with the original author of the draft? Without knowing what the article is, I can give you some very general advice. Wikipedia has quite strict conflict of interest guidelines, which you can review in brief here and in more depth here. In short, if content was written by someone being paid for it, who has not disclosed, even if it genuinely is neutral, that is against our policy and will be looked upon quite negatively by reviewers. Rusalkii (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I think you should be able to email my by clicking Special:Email/Rusalkii, and if that doesn't work then I am now even more confused what your email situation is. (Though I'm logging off for the night, so don't expect a prompt reply). Rusalkii (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ahmedhamou (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and for outlining the relevant guidelines.

To clarify, I’m not being paid for this, nor do I have any formal or financial relationship with the subject of the draft. My involvement comes from a genuine interest in ensuring that notable individuals—particularly those with significant cultural contributions across countries—are represented fairly and factually on the platform.

I understand and respect Wikipedia’s policies regarding conflict of interest, and I’ve done my best to follow both the letter and spirit of those rules. The draft was carefully written with neutral language, supported by independent and reputable sources. If there's any portion that seems problematic, I would genuinely appreciate feedback so I can revise accordingly.

I’m happy to engage in a transparent and constructive way to make sure the content aligns fully with community standards. Thank you again for your time and guidance. Ahmedhamou (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

: This now-blocked account is a relentless self-promoting WP:LTA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did sort of figure. How much time do people even have, goodness. Rusalkii (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie found another one for you. Hamouahmed9 just emailed me. Rusalkii (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to your attention a page that, in my view, does not meet the notability standards expected on the platform. The content relies primarily on local sources, and several of the external references are either non-functional or no longer accessible. Additionally, the subject appears to be of limited local relevance and lacks broader significance or coverage.In light of these concerns, I kindly request that you consider deleting the page to maintain the overall quality and notability of the site. Jenanali9 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of policy, I cannot unilaterally delete pages, and neither can any other admin. If you've review the notability guideline and the guidelines for people, and are convinced it doesn't pass, you can nominate it for deletion yourself. See WP:GDBN; make sure to explain how you looked for sources and why you think the sources you've found don't satisfy the notability criteria. Rusalkii (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same sock as above; sour grapes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ,

In regard to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 23#High School Musical: Status Quo, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 30#Rice Purity Test, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Karakasa, etc.:

The plain soft redirect template should not be used in the mainspace (WP:SOFTSP). There are no current invocations of the template in the mainspace (bar one that is temprorary as it is currently under discussion). In all of my years frequenting redirects for discussion, I have never seen the community actively approve a soft redirect to a local target (though I suppose such a consensus is possible but would likely lead to a larger discussion).

I generally monitor these through a pseudo-category, proceeding to fix them as they arise. I noticed a pattern developing as laid out above, so I figured I would leave this friendly note (to hopefully stave off future maintenance).

Warmest regards,
— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I suspect what happened is that I misinterpreted the "soft" checkbox in the XfD closer script - when marking it for deletion it just means "minimally attended, do not treat as a proper consensus", so I assumed it meant the same here. I definitely didn't do that on purpose. I will avoid that checkbox in the future, which I hope should fix this. Rusalkii (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a mistake. Feel free to delete it. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (For future context, this is about the redirect Ernesto Mejía Pérez). Rusalkii (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	June 2025 AfC backlog drive award
	Thank you Rusalkii for participating in the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:40, 8 July 2025 (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/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• July 9–15 - Call for candidates
• July 18–22 - Discussion phase
• July 23–29 - 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 familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, 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 seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus 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.

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) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up to my thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193#h-Serial failed verification from dynamic IP-20250703032600

This editor is still at it. Here's a nonsense source just tacked on to Jewel Thais-Williams: [1] And here's one on Douglas Loeffler: [2] To my eyes it doesn't look like they noticed their previous block. Would you mind blocking again? Thanks. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be at my computer until tomorrow, if it's urgent I recommend asking again at ANI or perhaps AIV (emphasize the continued behavior after block). Otherwise I'll look tomorrow. Rusalkii (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nohomersryan I have blocked the /64 for six months, since they had a one month block expire in April for the same behavior and it doesn't look like there's much collateral damage there. If you see any further issue on other IPs let me know. Rusalkii (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Larries/GA1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I like to create a new page How can I do that --Bala Sugan B 007 (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like you've created and submitted a draft before, Draft:Clumps Bee, but it was deleted for being too promotional. It's usually not a good idea to try to create an article about something you have a conflict of interest with, such as your company or something you're being paid for. However, if you do want to do that, you were on the right track. Create a draft again using the same process, but make sure to write neutrally and following what independent sources, not related to the subject in any way, say about the subject. Help:Your first article has some further advice. Rusalkii (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Lionsgate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 10 § Lionsgate until a consensus is reached.

(Courtesy notification to closer of prior RFD for Lionsgate.) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thank you for reviewing my draft. Draft:Tom Almeida I would like to kindly help me make it match the requeriments so it can be accepted. Tomalmeidapiano (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the review notice said, you'll need to find a couple published sources with independent (not by this person, their employers, etc) significant (i.e. a couple paragraphs about this person) coverage. Newspaper articles or books are usually the best bet for this sort of thing. Searching google news and google books is usually a good first stop. Rusalkii (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Rusalkiii. I have reported them to UAA just in case. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's me, I made an account to see how things looked to new users. Thanks for keeping an eye out, though. Rusalkii (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, never mind then. There's an LTA impersonating admins and closing AfD discussions as no consensus, thought it was one of their accounts. There's also this guy. Glad to know there's nothing to worry about. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 23–29 – Voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to 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 totals 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 vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to 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), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because 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) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]