User talk:45dogs

re this - it seems most talk pages automatically add signatures, and there are only a few places it needs to be done manually. My reply to myself there is signed but apparently the original comment was not. Is there any rhyme or reason to it so I know when I need to add it manually?

Posting here as I don't want to clog up ANI with a minor technical question. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If you use discussion tools' features, for instance the add topic/new section button or the reply button, it will automatically sign for you. If you manually add a new section or a reply, it won't. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I used the "Start a new discussion" button at the top instead of add topic at the bottom 🙄 I guess the tool doesn't recognize that one. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Those are from the time before discussion tools. Nobody has decided to get rid of them, so they've stuck. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Why is the requested move RfC limited only to those who are extended confirmed? Many people who aren't extended confirmed can provide useful insights, and in the worst case scenario we can ask a closer to consider it less if they're not extended confirmed. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, its part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. One of the boxes near the top states that You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive), which means its subject to the ECR remedy decided upon in ARBPIA4. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I agree non XC users can provide good insights. But policy states we can't let them in due to the immense amount of disruption. As such, I figure the most 'fair' way of enforcing it is to near universally enforce it with very limited exceptions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		Iseult has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. For thankless and tedious enforcement of WP:ECR in active talk pages pertaining to WP:CT/AI. Iseult Δx talk to me 21:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC) To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you for the cookies! Filter 1339 does help to make the process of identifying non XC users slightly easier, but the process is certainly tedious. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, ive read the arbitration committee thing you linked, it doesnt appear to say that talk pages are included within this (unless its out of the topic area or disruptive), the topic i added discussed specifically the infobox of that article, which i think is part of the topic area, just wanted to ask though.

Cheers! MySalsa22 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

MySalsa22, WP:ECR states that The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed (added emphasis in bold). This means any page on this platform is subject to the restriction, including talk pages. There is also a notice at the top of that talk page that states that You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, i see, thanks for clarifying! MySalsa22 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Mx. Dogs,

One merely wishes to bring to your attention the continuing presence of a couple of, shall we say, "stragglers" on the now-protected talk page, under the section Requested move 1 March 2026, drawing specific attention to the !vote of one TruεRατιο at 16:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC) (to be precise, the very third !vote in the section), whose unconfirmed status you averred in this comment, and to the comment of one ~2026-13698-89 at 18:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC), whose unconfirmed status can be assumed as a matter of course, owing to the nature of confirmation.

One formally requests the removal of the "non xc !vote," and either the "hatting" or, barring that, removal, of both aforementioned comments, citing your own precedent on "fairness."

It must thus come as some relief that this be the last such request for fair moderation — for this particular article — for two fortnights, n'est-ce pas?

One has the honour to be your obedient servant.

Mátyás Rákosi (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've hatted the ECR violation and removed ~2026-13698-98's comment. As for your comment here, my understanding is that removal is permitted by ECR, which states that On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. My understanding is that removal counts as a revert, just one that is manually done. IAR doesn't apply to ECR, since its a decision by ARBCOM. I didn't reply on your talk page since I had forgotten to subscribe to the section. My apologies for that. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

A few days ago you (rightfully) hatted comments I made on Talk:Assassination of Ali Khamenei#Requested move 1 March 2026. I made them while unaware that the ARBCOM restrictions on the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area extended to discussions (although I suspect I simply forgot, knowing that I've looked at the relevant ARBCOM case before). I have absolutely no issue with you doing this—if anything I'm grateful you didn't outright delete the comments—but I have since continued editing and just got an alert telling me I had access to the Wikipedia Library, which made me realize I'd gotten up to 500 edits. That reminded me of my little slipup on that page, and I was wondering if you could un-hat my posts now that I am extended confirmed. I think it's better than if I comment anew as that would leave people who replied in opposition to me hatted. I'm aware I could do it myself, but I'm not sure it's allowed, and even if it technically was I'm not gonna unilaterally undo any action relating to ARBCOM enforcement on principle. My thanks, ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 14:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian  Done unless I missed something. I'm not sure if this is strictly aligned with policy, since ECR doesn't say anything about it, but your request is quite reasonable so I'm willing to enact it. I might have removed some of your comments, I can't particularly remember. I hatted ECR violations that had XC editors reply to them, and removed non-XC comments that were on their own. You may wish to double check if any points you made weren't lost. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and for being understanding of my request. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 15:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

what happen to my post, how to get it done? Thanks in advance Miqasa (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I blanked it, because it appeared to be misusing Wikipedia as a webhost. It was also a completely unsourced biography of a living person. If you intend for it to be an article, please note that it must have sources and also be in English, as this is the English Wikipedia. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

okay.. i need to make article about this person and the rest of his team.. I will make in english and hope you can guide me.. thanks Miqasa (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine helping if you need it, but have you considered contributing to the Malaysian Wikipedia? You may find it more comfortable contributing there. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

yes. Thank for the info, will post there soon.. Thank very much Miqasa (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello 45dogs. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Ld18, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 21:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I removed the speedy deletion tag from that page as user talk pages are not deleted except in very few circumstances. Putting promotional content isn't one. In the future, I would replace the contents with this:

==[month year]==
{{uw-usertalk}} ~~~~

Just an FYI. TheTechie (she/they) 06:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

TheTechie, considering I have tagged user talk pages for G11 before and they have been deleted, that doesn't appear to be the case. See for instance and . My CSD log and archives have more cases. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, the majority of your CSD log for user talk pages have extant ones. It's still better to blank their user talk page or use the aforementioned template. TheTechie (she/they) 18:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

TheTechie, that is because they should have a block notice on them. Just because a thing currently exists in the log doesn't mean it hasn't been deleted at some point. From my check, of the user talk pages that I tagged for G11, only three (ignoring the one you brought up) in my current non archived log were blanked rather than deleted. From my check those are , , and . Unless I missed something, all the other user talks in my current log were deleted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I still think that blanking is a better solution in this case, it allows admins to be doing something else. TheTechie (she/they) 19:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

That is a fine opinion to have! I just think differently :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair. Thanks for sharing your opinion, I think I just got into this practice as I saw others doing the same TheTechie (she/they) 20:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I also noticed this edit for one of the user talk pages where an admin clearly stated that there is no reason to delete the page in the edit summary:

de-spam, no need to delete the page TheTechie (she/they) 19:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

That appears to be just one admin's opinion though, considering most other G11s have been enacted by different admins. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

From my check, it seems like there are 7 admins who have deleted user talk pages under G11 in my log, while there are 2 who haven't. I might have miscounted though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-16853-05 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello ~2026-16853-05. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Betty Tompkins, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, 45dogs. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cyrus Kibet Rotich (athlete), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I edited a page to make it less biased, and my post was taken down for the cited reason of bias. Well, whatever - run your site as you please...the rest of the internet does. Just don't expect any more donations from my end next time you beg for money. FrankMendezCorriander (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi FrankMendezCorriander. I'd like to clarify a few things. Wikipedia editors, such as myself, are all volunteers. Donation money goes to the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than to me or any other editor. You are free to stop donating, of course. On the content issue, the main problem with your addition was the tone it took. The language used was largely non-encyclopedic and placed a lot of Wiki-voice to a single opinion article source. Neutral POV doesn't mean representing all POVs, it means representing the significant POVs. Doing else-wise would risk adding undue weight to the article. Of course, it could be that 'whiteness' is considered to be racist by a significant POV, at which point it should likely be added to the article. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 10:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, my decision to discontinue donating was not based on whether or not the money would go directly to your pocket, but just on the quality of the product toward which it would be put. FrankMendezCorriander (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on renaming AfD, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. FaviFake (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC) FaviFake (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake, signature cleanup is explicitly noted as good practice per talk page guidelines. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but signatures are not required for the brief statements in RfCs, see WP:RFC. My comment was purposefully unsigned. FaviFake (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Noted. I was unaware that RFCs allow just a date instead of a full signature. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries! FaviFake (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi 45dogs,

I would like to clarify that I have not made any recent edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. For that reason, I find your message both confusing and, frankly, quite offensive.

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 16 years, with more than 125,000 edits across multiple projects, and I currently serve as an administrator on two of them. Throughout this time, I have consistently worked in good faith and with respect for community standards.

In this context, I also find it inappropriate and offensive that you attempt to instruct me on Wikipedia’s rules, given my long-standing experience and demonstrated familiarity with them.

Given all of the above, I do not understand the basis of your message, and I consider it to be misplaced. I would appreciate it if you could review your assumptions and ensure that any concerns you raise are accurate and directed appropriately.

Thank you.--Jalu (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jaluj. Talk:AMIA bombing relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, due to the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} notice on the page, and because the page is protected under PIA enforcement. As for the template, it is required by the Arbitration Committee to place on a person's talk page in order to make them aware of the restrictions around certain topics. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to explain why you removed my message from the talk page. Specifically, I would appreciate it if you could clarify what was inappropriate about my comment, or which Wikipedia policy or guideline you believe I was violating. From my perspective, my message was a good-faith contribution to the discussion, and I see no clear justification for its removal. For that reason, I ask that you please restore my message, or provide a clear and policy-based explanation for its removal. Thank you.--Jalu (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Jaluj, I do not doubt that you are in here good faith. The Arab-Israeli conflict has an extended confirmed restriction applied to it, as decided by the Arbitration Committee. Under this provision, non extended confirmed users are only permitted to make constructive edit requests within topic area. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not a new editor and I did not edit the article, I posted a message on the talk page. Please clarify what was inappropriate about my comment.--Jalu (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Jaluj, Per WP:ARBECR, The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed. This includes talk pages. You are not new, but you are not extended confirmed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)