User talk:Fade258

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 15 hours are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

Third relist

Hello, I've seen your valuable contributions and thoughtful AfD closes, and i appreciate the work you do in this area. I'd like to comment on one of the discussions that was recently relisted. I don't believe a third relist is warranted here. The concerns raised earlier about the article quality have already been addressed in substance. At present, seven editors have !voted keep and only three delete. The nominator has since been banned for sockpuppetry, so their !vote should be discounted. One delete !vote focused on article quality rather than subject notability – but AfD is not a forum for article cleanup, and those issues have since been resolved in substance. Another delete !vote did not provide evidence of missing significant coverage. Given this, I don't see how the outcome can still be "no consensus." Per WP:RELIST, I respectfully request that the relist be reversed. The discussion points lean clearly toward keep, or at worst, no consensus. EmilyR34 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EmilyR34. Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you about it but At this stage, I think the relist is intended to get final substantive input to ensure a well-settled consensus because thoughts is split between delete and keep. I also looking for the source analysis table which will be helpful while closing the discussions. I also aware about WP:RELIST, but I think it needs extra 7 days more to get consensus. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. The discussion isn't split: seven editors have !voted keep versus three delete, which is effectively two once the nominator's sockpuppet !vote is discounted – a clear keep majority. The deletion‑side points were largely about article quality, which have been resolved in substance, and multiple sources with significant coverage – including analyst reports – have been identified addressing notability under WP:LISTED. I don't see a need to run this for another seven days a further relist is unlikely to add anything new and would be a waste of time, similar to the second relist. Per WP:RELIST, i respectfully suggest reverting the relist and allowing an admin to weigh in that would also be a valuable learning experience. I won't mind if an administrator does choose to relist. EmilyR34 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EmilyR34. Thanks for the clarification. I will revert my action. But still source analysis table would be helpful for determining the outcomes of the discussion. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

Fathoms Below

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025 AfC backlog drive award

		Brownie
		This is awarded to Fade258 for accumulating more than 16 points during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process were crucial in reviewing over 9,000 drafts during the drive. Thank you for your participation and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2025

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2025. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]