User talk:Raidarr

Drop your comments, inquiries, etc. Please fill from the bottom of the page.

Please forgive me if my responses are a little brisk; reading this I realize I've come off too strong, and I'll try to improve that. --Raidarr (talk)

Criminal wiki
Hi Raidarr, how are you? The criminal wiki is still available if you wanted to edit more? Thanks. Sperosdurell (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe I left you a comment regarding organization there, and that is what I would likely start with. Bear in mind that two other wikis are my creative focus, although actually focusing on them is a tricky business and the only reason I try to 'muse up' looking elsewhere. So your mileage may vary, and unfortunately it would not be daily. If you have a platform like Discord we could discuss things all at once to come up with a creative direction using whatever you have in mind and what I can manage in offshoots of my ideas. Thank you. -- Raidarr (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Shaw's Nightmare
Hi Raidarr, how are you? Shaw's Nightmare Wiki needs some help, so maybe try to edit it more? The levels articles in particular need some love. Thanks. Mickey96 (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited at all, and that is because I have little interest in the wiki subject. But if you would like advice or administrative work, feel free to specify what you'd like to see and I can give it a look. For content itself - the stuff that requires most familiarity with the material - I'm afraid I am not useful for. --Raidarr (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of the Home Page and how attractive it is to newcomers? Mickey96 (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Stark average for Miraheze, which is essentially no real draw to outsiders. If people are pulled in I think it would be strictly out of interest in the game. There's nothing particularly advanced on it, which isn't necessarily a bad thing; however, it is not in any way designed, and I consider design to be something like this. Of course how you'd have it would be whatever fits the game - frankly, you couldn't do too much and still offer an accurate impression of how the game itself is - but the point is that it's distinct from a default Vector skin, which is stereotypical on Miraheze and doesn't do favors in the question of design. Though there can be design through Vector as well (see the Miraheze front page for a basic example), and what you have going I'd consider fairly simple. Still, that can work, so I'll move to content. It's also worth noting that some front pages on Miraheze actively hurt the wiki's cosmetic appeal, and yours does not do that (imo).
 * The official site link could be built into the wiki's sidebar for ease of access. The news layout is not too shabby, but perhaps could be done in a box, and the user page notice could be a part of it as well since they're both announcements. Alternatively you could blend one or both (user page + looking for staff) into a MediaWiki:Sitenotice block, which would appear at the very top of the page and also appear on every wiki page until dismissed so you can snare people coming in from any page. Important Articles is not too bad, clean enough to work fine. If you want to get fancy, I'll suggest possibly duplicating an information layout that's something like these (any particular way, don't mind the mediocre color of the examples). Only if it appeals to you of course, but the extra advantage being that you can put the box(es) into relevant pages as well if you use templates. The file links may perhaps carry descriptions or even dedicated pages about their function, troubleshooting and so on, even if they seem relatively self-explanatory at a glance. While people can pretty much get all they need out of the current screenshots listed (and I think having them was a good idea), perhaps a few more can be used. But per some of the examples above I'd try to leverage the horizontal space of the page as well. Much of this may include digging a little into the interface, the CSS, and templating, so only take this as far as you'd be able/want to do/need.
 * I should also note (slightly off topic), you can actually make a talk page for any username and it will ping that user (although if it pings them globally depends if they opted into that, but that applies with or without a user page). Hope it helps ^ --Raidarr (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Not to be a pest...
I do have a lot of stubs. My mind works in weird ways sorry. If your around sometime easypedia is there. Thank you talk to you later. Sperosdurell (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend to be mean, personally. However, I do worry a little about the long term future. You have an account that appears to be an alt that requested the wiki, which seems odd. Previous projects seem to be left behind with nothing more than the stubs. To contribute to a place, I need to know that it will last, and that its leaders intend more for it than hoping that someone else (ie, me) will be the ones to give it depth. One-line promises cannot do this. If you have more ideas for what the wiki will do, please share. In particular I need to believe that the wiki stands for more than just being an alternative wikipedia with a lot less stuff and no content curation.
 * I give anything with a clear idea a chance, but there at least should be proof to more in the idea. A passion if you will. Evidence that this is 'the one' that won't be what I have seen before. --Raidarr (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I live in a hard environment to do miraheze or any wiki project for that matter. Saying that i will try and edit every day so the wiki doesn't go stale. I hope you can work with me and the Wiki. Sperosdurell (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can respect not having much time. I'm not sure when I will go back to EP, but I'll give it another look and try to see if there is something structural I can offer. --Raidarr (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Much appreciated. Im sticking with it!!! Sperosdurell (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, i hope you can accept my apology. Sperosdurell (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * hi raidarr, apologies for bothering you, news you visited, any chance you coming back? Sperosdurell (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well frankly it depends on a question. Is that wiki going to get more than a week's attention, or will it go the way of every other? 'sticking to it' didn't age well when your talk page and logs indicate you then went on an unsustainable creation spree for seemingly every other topic to exist. --Raidarr (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Patroller granted - 2021-08-30
Hi, Raidarr. An administrator on Meta has granted you the  user group permission, which gives you the ability to   recent changes and new pages of other Miraheze users (both registered and anonymous) who are  not either autopatrolled or an administrator. In addition, this group also means that your edits are, so other patrollers or administrators don't have to patrol your edits. You should also be aware that the granting of this user group is at the discretion of Meta administrators, so different administrators will have slightly different criteria for granting. Likewise, just as it is a discretionary appointment, revocation is also at the discretion of Meta administrators and, again, each will have their own criteria for revocation.

In the medium-term, plans are in the works to develop a Meta Patrollers School, likely led by one or two active administrators, that will provide a comprehensive set of guidelines for patrollers and answers to commonly asked questions.

Nevertheless, the following are some of the main guidelines for patrolling. If you follow these guidelines completely, it is unlikely your patroller user group should ever be revoked. In technical terms, even when you find content that requires deletion by an administrator or otherwise requires remediation, undoing, reverting, or rolling back (if you are also a, of course), you should always first mark as patrolled any revisions regardless of whether that content is destined to remain extant to the page or even on Meta entirely.


 * 1) When patrolling talk pages, user talk pages, and noticeboards (in Main and Meta namespaces), you should first check to see whether the user properly signed their posts using four tildes . If they have not, you should add unsigned by substitution, where username is the user's username or IP address and the timestamp is the full timestamp from the diff page. As a best practice, you should also link to the diff in your edit summary, so other administrators and patrollers can easily tie your modification to the original edit being modified. To speed up this process, you can copy the   user script from line 5 of this page into either your (a) common.js or (b) global.js page (the latter applying globally on all Miraheze wikis);
 * 2) When patrolling the noticeboards, ask yourself whether this topic is on the correct noticeboard. If it is not, you should move it to the correct noticeboard, by either undoing the edit or manually removing the topic (if there have been intervening edits), again linking to the original noticeboard of the topic and the new noticeboard where it was moved in your edit summary. On the new noticeboard, you would simply paste in the topic (including the section header), linking to the diff page as in the first step. An example edit summary might be , where  ######  represents the numeric revision ID of the originally posted topic;
 * 3) Also when patrolling the noticeboards and talk pages (including user talk pages), as a best practice, take care to kindly fix any formatting mistakes (such as excess line breaks or incorrect wiki code), per WP:LISTGAP;
 * 4) If something requires deletion, you can add delete to the top of the page in question, taking care to follow the instructions on that template page;
 * 5) If you come across a user who repeatedly makes the same mistakes, send them a guidance note on their user talk page, informing of the steps need to edit and post constructively on Meta; and, finally,
 * 6) If in doubt whether something requires remediation or not, patrol it, and then ask any administrator via their user talk page or at Administrators' noticeboard if any further action needs to be taken.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you! --Dmehus (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I believe I'm good right now, but I'll let you (or at least someone :p) know if something comes up. Thank you. --Raidarr (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

To Raidarr
I left a message for you on sixsentencespedia, thnx 😊 Sperosdurell (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Morning Sperosdurell (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. I have replied there, but is there more you wanted to discuss? --Raidarr (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just saying hi and im working on the Wiki as best i can. Ttyl. Sperosdurell (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I also sent you a message on my new wiki. Tootle-loo! FreezingTNT (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Responded there as well. --Raidarr (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

So I finished my response on the wiki, had some personal-related issues in IRL which prevented me from finishing the comment. FreezingTNT (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Morning.
It's me, Speros. SperosDurrell (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello? --Raidarr (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A bit of background about the Rebrand

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Further edits will be reverted.
 * You are ignoring my points, my suggestions for due process, and the simple facts including:


 * Your arguments lack a proper community concensus to stand on; the primary source is a lengthy back and forth exchange unilaterally composed and imposed by a small handful of users on behalf of all of the wikis
 * Your case has no backing or interest shown by bureaucrat members of Qualitipedia's administration
 * There is no demand, indeed a snowball response to the many things you have proposed in pursuit of a rebrand only you are pushing
 * Said rebrand has done nothing to administratively stabilize an inherently unstable leadership structure, in other words, what you are proposing I don't care about because it does not solve actual problems
 * You have no authority based on the above to tell me, the Qualitipedia staff, or the Miraheze Sysadmins and Stewards what to do, and you certainly cannot demand technical changes be done or not done because you're singlehandedly pushing a rebrand
 * The primary engineer of the rebrand is not in good standing and has in fact entirely abandoned Qualitipedia to pursue his own vision per his right, but that does not mean the ideas that became a part of the wikis are in any way his to change now

If you want to discuss this topic, take it to a sympathetic Qualitipedia bureaucrat or use due process to suggest its implementation on Qualitipedia Meta when you are able after the unblock (such as by Request for Comment). I am not interested in what else you have to say about this and I will refuse any further discourse via my talk page on any wiki. What you do with other users or due process in community is your business, but I strongly suggest avoiding the bossy imposition of your positions as 'the only options' both for the sake of your case being respected by anyone and to avoid trouble that comes with that behavior. It's become easy to understand why Mario and Duchess were frustrated with you. Though my temper is somewhat longer, it has run its course. There is nothing more to say. --Raidarr (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to not know much about the rebrand, I will catch you up. In August 2020, a user named FreezingTNT came up with the idea to reform what was known at that time as the Triangle of Opinionated Entertainment. It went through a few name changes, however. The rebrand was originally known as Operation Phoenix. The plan was to group all of the entertainment wikis existing at the time into one big network. After September, the plan mostly went stale. However, in December, I discovered these plans when I searched up Triangle of Opinionated Entertainment to see what would come up. I left a message saying that I liked the idea, given that the Outcast Network had fallen just three months earlier. Then, me, FreezingTNT, and a few other users discussed ideas, including name changes and some merges. First, the logos were changed to logos inspired by those used by MatPat. Then we decided to merge Horrible TV Show Episodes Wiki with Terrible TV Shows Wiki to form Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki, and merge Marvelous TV Show Episodes Wiki with Best TV Shows Wiki to form Best Shows & Episodes Wiki. We then renamed some of the wikis to new names, but only the actual wiki names and not the domain names/database names. We then did main page redesigns for all of the main pages, to what they are now. Even though we were almost finished, FreezingTNT unfortunately got blocked, and MarioMario456 and DuchessTheSponge then steered the rebrand way off course by changing the logos, closing the characters wikis, and creating Worst Music & Songs Wiki and abandoning the election on Horrible Music & Songs Wiki. They both had a clearly different agenda from FreezingTNT's vision, and they used his block as an excuse to set back a lot of the progress. Now that Duchess is locked and Mario is retired, we may be able to set things back to normal. This rebrand is not optional: It is for the future of Qualitipedia, and it is to unify the entertainment wikis following the fall of the Outcast Network. There is an entire thread on Awful Movies Wiki discussing the rebrand, which bumped my contribution count on that wiki from about 50 to over 400, though I have done other edits. This rebrand is what invested much of my interest in Qualitipedia and is why I started becoming much more active. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is the thread which basically provides most of the background: mh:awfulmovies:Topic:Vslpo86sxynoddjn. It is actually on the talk page for FreezingTNT's sandbox which gives even more background. Warning: The thread is very long and may take a while to load. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the attempted rebrand, and considering its original engineers are gone and the current admins have no apparent desire to continue it, the only rebrand I think will happen is the kind I personally try and execute since there is nothing binding in the content you state now. FreezingTNT is still gone. Need for change is not optimal. The methods including what you state is. It is merely your opinion that your method described is mandatory. I invite you to contribute to the current discussions and efforts, including my latest regarding policy review. This aspect along with zero effort at a staffing-first approach to fixes I suspect are critical to why the rebrand had severe issues in the first place, more than individual users being an issue. It should have considered their problems in behavior in the first place. Know the current environment. Being inflexible in this is what will result in failure. --Raidarr (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa whoa, you can't just suddenly undo months of progress. I am one of the engineers. You can't just randomly go and change everything that took months to build. Nothing is wrong with the rebrand. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't personally undone anything. The progress, however, has clearly not been done for quite a few months straight (certainly not since I've been here), and a good portion of what you describe was already undone. The full details of what to do were not even fully concentrated into a final plan and the actual engineer with powers has long since been demoted; you were not an engineer with authority. Said plan is clearly not successful. If you want to propose an actionable plan to the people actually responsible with the power, do so with the bureaucrats - probably DarkMatterMan who you are already in contact with. But do not presume you can order people to follow a plan that was never definitive (if the best you can provide for it is an incredibly lengthy thread with disagreements + back and forths) and a position of authority that never existed, because you remain unpopular today for this impression among influential users of QP. --Raidarr (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately yes, it does seem like some of it has been undone. I would not call the rebrand "failed", however, because the wiki merges, wiki renames, and main page redesigns are all finished. Also, the wikis are now known as Qualitipedia because of the rebrand. Also, the plan is definitive. The rebrand, or Operation Phoenix as it was originally called in early stages, has been mostly successful. The only reason that Operation Phoenix did not completely succeed was because of FreezingTNT's demotion and Trevor807 and Masson Thief leaving the wikis, thus resulting in MarioMario456 and DuchessTheSponge usurping the throne and undoing a lot of the progress. Operation Phoenix is already complete. Other than the logo changes and the characters wikis being kicked out of the network, Operation Phoenix has been successful. So it is not the "failed experiment" that you claim it is. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will ping here so he can give his two cents, since this whole rebrand was his idea and he may have more to say. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Believe as you wish, the conditions I noted remain the same. Also, for the record, I don't hold much faith in it if those main pages were the intention. They are due for a further redesign so they can actually be responsive and have less wasted space. They are not something to unilaterally impose as your near flooding of the noticeboards with largely your own issues would try, whether you see it that way or not. If you want to discuss it further, heed the above or take it to the bureaucrats. I shall not enter yet another prolonged argument about your opinion verses mine with little progress in each exchange. --Raidarr (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not change anything about the rebrand. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please leave administrative work to administrators and use the proper functions to influence them. --Raidarr (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The rebrand is complete, and there is no need to revert anything. Things are fine just the way they are right now. All that needs to happen is Worst Music & Songs Wiki needs a main page redesign. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know I said I would not bite further, but I note the change from 'don't jeopardize it' to 'it's already done don't change it'. Rather contradictory since hardly anything has changed between statements. Regardless, if this is the final result, it deserves to be overwritten. It is a small step towards civility from before in some parts, but it has a long way to go. The main page templates are poorly designed and the 'rebrand' has hardly improved anything from a staffing and policy perspective. This 'completeness' continues to leave Reception Wikis an inconsistent disaster and a drawback to the reputation of Miraheze as a platform from a design and content perspective. What I see in the wikis is the small sliver of a chance they can be constructively focused and improve this reputation, not just ego circles for a few users of influence or sullied with a total lack of standards or traffic and far too many wikis to be useful or manageable by administrators. Frankly what you are purporting now is a threat to this idea. Forgive me if I act to mitigate a threat of that nature in my actions going forward.--Raidarr (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have problems with the rebrand, talk to FreezingTNT. But this was his idea, so it is either this rebrand or we go back to the Triangle of Opinionated Entertainment. We are not just randomly reorganizing the wikis. You will need FreezingTNT's consent before you can do anything with this. This is meant for unification. That is why we incorporated the music, literature, and character wikis into the network (before the characters wikis were kicked out). Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FreezingTNT is not an administrator on Qualitipedia. In fact I believe his block still stands across Qualitipedia, which he is free to appeal through an actual appeals process that came into existence outside of your barely tangible rebrand. You have no legs to stand on. Desist. --Raidarr (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry
I’m sorry about that argument, I just got frustrated because you were talking about reverting the rebrand. I asked DMM to redesign the main page of Worst Music & Songs Wiki and that should be done soon. In the meantime, I feel it would be safest to leave things the way they are on Qualitipedia for right now, and improvements can be discussed when improvements are needed. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi
i decided to come back. SperosDurrell (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok. --Raidarr (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * just letting you know no hard feelings. SperosDurrell (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Likewise; by all means, feel free to come and go. --Raidarr (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. SperosDurrell (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * if ever, dict could use some help. Thnx. SperosDurrell (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm only looking, no current interest as a contributor. If you have questions though, I can try to answer. --Raidarr (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki creator helpful tips
Hi Raidarr,

First off, I will just start by welcoming you to the wiki creator team. Thank you for volunteering. As you are no doubt aware, Content Policy is our key global policy that guides us in creating wikis for customers. Essentially, every wiki needs to have both a clear purpose, some sort of scope (broad or narrow), and a topical focus. This is the main criterion that helps us to determine whether a wiki will have any potential Content Policy problems.

Second, I wanted to share with you a few tips that I found helpful when I first joined as a wiki creator:


 * 1) "Request comments" tab. Intuitively, one would think to use this tab when requesting more information, but as Amanda Catherine (and others) pointed out to me shortly after I joined as a wiki creator, there is currently a known issue with this in that the requestor isn't notified via e-mail unless their wiki is either (a) approved or (b) declined. Thus, when requesting more information on a wiki request, you really either (a) use the "decline" tab, referencing your follow-up comments in that text box and telling them to back into Special:RequestWikiEdit/  in order to add to, but not replace, their existing description with the needed information or (b) use either the "request comments" or "decline" tab in combination with a message on the requestor's user talk page on Meta. The approach you use is entirely up to you. I personally prefer option A, but either one is fine;
 * Note: this was prior to RequestWiki changes made since last fall, so this one no longer applies, but I included it, albeit with strikethrough text for posterity
 * 1) Private wikis. Private wikis can generally have a shorter description and a less specific purpose, scope, or topic, but they do still need one. If you have some reservations about approving it as, say, a public wiki, due to that vagueness, you can tell them, in your comments prior to approving it, that you're approving it only as a private wiki and remind them to ensure their wiki complies with all aspects of Content Policy;
 * 2) Eurovision song contest and fictional worldbuilding wikis. These are two types of wikis that have few, if any, problems with them. So, as long as there's a clear sitename, URL, and at least a few words in the description that indicates this as the purpose, it's fine to approve them;
 * 3) Reception wikis (positive and negative). Many of the Reception wikis tend to give us the most the grief, especially in terms of content that is very negative about users. If it's a Reception wiki that focuses on terrible fast-food restaurants, that's usually less problematic than, say, one that focuses on gamer or YouTube celebrities, mainly because you're not dealing with content about real, living people. Please don't hesitate in asking follow up questions, sometimes multiple times, of these wikis, trying to narrow down whether the wikis will write about real people in some way and, if so, how they will do it. And, at the end of the day, if you are still not comfortable approving, you can write "on hold" for review by another wiki creator in "request comments";
 * 4) Chinese language mini-world wiki requests. These ones are tricky, but cause us arguably the most grief, particularly when they publish personal information of real people without their consent. Stewards have recently closed a swath of them following a detailed report on stewards' noticeboard, but some of the tricks I've observed them using are odd descriptions like "anti-dog wiki" or to "expose the truth and scandal". Somewhat less common, they will use a completely different, but vague, description, then change their tune when you follow up with them and use some of those key phrases I mentioned in the previous sentence;
 * 5) Google Translate. Don't hesitate to use Google Translate to review non-English public and private wikis. Notwithstanding the above point, most of these wikis' descriptions translate surprisingly well. As you've probably already noticed, I like to copy and paste the translated to English description into "request comments," so other wiki creators can see it easily. This is optional, but it's a good practice, I think; and,
 * 6) Don't hesitate to reach out on Discord and ask for a second opinion. If you are still unsure about approving a wiki, or just want a second opinion, don't hesitate to reach out to any wiki creator on Discord. This might be the most important guideline.

There's probably some additional tips I could include, based on more contemporary types of recent wiki requests, notably recent 4chan- and Polandball-type wiki requests, which will possibly require sending back to the requestor for additional clarifying information at least once. Feel free to share suggested additions to these tips, and let me know if you find them useful. :)

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the assorted notices; some bits I knew from observation and others are helpful to fill holes in the gaps. I'd like to have a small discourse on some what-if scenarios I've either seen or that might strain the precedence I know to make me defer the listing.
 * Theoretically from what I understand the principle is not so much wikis about or including people in a negative light, so much as the fact they are consistently unsourced, tend to be subject to wild accusations and politically partisan 'common knowledge' and are irregularly considered by the local administrators or even contributed to by them. Is there a scenario where a reception wiki say, regarding youtubers (negative or a combined premise) may offer a proper explanation of its techniques and offer a plausible guarantee that it will curate the quality of its pages so as to not result in systemic Content Policy violation? Namely I'm exploring any boundaries you might consider to have precedence where a wiki might offer a description that toes the line or is made by an unknown or even a well established user without the usual reception wiki record of bungling these topics.
 * Also relevant to above, there is a common trend on the reception wikis as well to now entirely block references to people, communities, and sometimes controversies in page matter. While it is reasonable as local policy to do this (and on most wikis where this is done, they had little business having pages about people anyways), it is often justified as them being automatic violations of the Code of Conduct and otherwise an automatic violation of Miraheze global policy. I'd like to clarify if they're onto something, or if my assumption is correct that they should be more worried about the Content Policy instead, and the rules aren't so much because pages on people and fandoms are automatically restricted, they just require a certain level of care so they don't at minimum potentially create problems for other wikis as well as count negatively in a legal sense that would violate CP and in particular, describing controversy is not a problem as long as it's done in a neutral way and puts some time into offering sources.
 * URL is a relatively less frequent issue to encounter, but still a relevant portion of the process; I believe I have a good idea of the sorts of URLs that are not desirable for a wiki to have at all and how to judge URL association with wikis, but I wonder if you have additional advice regarding this and where to spot fringe cases as well.
 * There may be other thoughts as time goes on since this is more of an 'early morning' list; no need to consider this a priority, since if any case does strain my judgement you've already noted the two most critical tools, deferring and second opinion (I'm particularly fond of the latter). In any case, thank you again for both these messages and for approval. --Raidarr (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Basic help
Hi Raidarr! I'm recently learning English and I intend to improve. However, it's not good as far as I can understand things. According to your userpage, you are a native English speaker. You are able to help me by listening to this audio:. What she said? It was posted in a group on a media, but I didn't understand this "joke" (only the ending). YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 02:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)