User talk:CabinetCavers

Feel free to notify me of any wrongdoings or mistakes.

SCAM WARNING

If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Please report it to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

How on Earth are you so fast with getting vandalism undone!

ive been patrolling the recent changes and each time one pops up it will have already been undone by you! i think ive beat you twice maybe but how on earth are you so fast?! Jabba550 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use Twinkle? CabinetCavers (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it feels like the recent changes page is updating slower for me wierdly. Jabba550 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, maybe it's our internet being different? CabinetCavers (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, good job with your vandal fighting! Jabba550 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is that the vandals are stopped, and thank you! CabinetCavers (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well, Maybe you can teach me how to do more better. I did love to always participate in important activities here thanks. Nwa okpanku (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of tools people use to fight vandalism. One of them is listed above. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 13:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi CabinetCavers, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 12:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Oxygen Production - rejected due to suspected LLM usage

Hi CabinetCavers, you recently rejected Dark Oxygen Production due to suspected LLM output. I would like to clarify this is not the output of LLM. I have drafted this over the past few days doing an exhaustive literature search. All references are valid, quotes are real, and it's all my own words except what I quoted directly from the sources. The few uses of the em dash are (I think) quoted directly from the sources. I respectfully ask you take another look.

Let me know if there is any aspect in particular that stands out as potentially LLM generated?

Best,

~~~~ RatSWIng (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you resubmit? CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 14:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just now RatSWIng (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: List of ambassadors of West Papua to the United States of America

Hey I saw that you declined the draft I submitted a couple of days ago. I noticed that the reasoning for your decline was not well explained. I highly doubted if you are well-informed about this topic, which made you dismissed it without any careful thought. In the future, please be courteous and reasonable. I really appreciated. Thank you. HermanWanggai (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your concept was fully rejected by someone else today for not being notable at all. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 12:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:drv2

|page= Draft: List of ambassadors of West Papua to the United States of America

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Draft: List of ambassadors of West Papua to the United States of America

|article=Draft: List of ambassadors of West Papua to the United States of America

|reason= Lack of Comprehension on WP Draft Topic which resulted in wrong outcomes.

}} HermanWanggai (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Without proper reasoning and valid data to disprove my proposal, my message remained relevant. please at least learn about the topic and use a non-bias approach when handling matters that you are not fammiliar with. HermanWanggai (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HermanWanggai Fellow editor here. I think you are under the misconception that reviewers need to be familiar with subjects when they review articles. They do not. It is the job of the linked sources/references to convince a reader or reviewer that a subject is notable. The references must demonstrate notability. A subject might be notable, but if the references do not demonstrate that, then the article should rightfully be declined.

We don't go by personal knowledge. David10244 (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removed G4 speedy deletion nomination

Draft:Luscious Cosmetics does not qualify for G4 because it was only the article that was deleted, not the draft. It is permissible to work on previously-deleted articles in draftspace. It would only qualify for G4 if the draft itself is deleted through Miscellany for deletion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. Thank you! CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 01:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Macrobond Financial Limited

Hi, thanks for your contributions here, but I don't think you have the experience yet to accept AfC articles. I was alarmed to see that you promoted Macrobond Financial Limited. Lots of problems, so I deleted it.

the article title is against policy for naming organisations or companies, should have been moved.
Much of the text is unreferenced, and the references that are there are junk like Pitchbook and press releases. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to an organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management.
Refs are used multiple times without using <ref name=>, you haven't fixed that.
It's all about what the company sells, little about the company itself other than locations. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, management structure turnover or profits funding or expenditure.
The text is promotional Its design reflects a focus on reproducibility, efficiency, and ongoing maintenance of research outputs as underlying data updates over time... Macrobond’s products are used by institutional clients including central banks, investment banks, assets managers, hedge funds, corporations, and academic and public-sector institutions... specialist software provider of macroeconomic and financial time series analysis, not even "See also".
The creator of this long article has made no other edits, and has an obvious conflict of interest, but you haven't queried that. I would have blocked the account if I'd got there before you.

It's good to be enthusiastic, but you need to familiarise yourself with AfC reviewing before you dive in. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you nominate it under G11? CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 14:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just speedied it. Also to add to the above, these days we need to check for LLM created articles that can be deleted under G15 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this was a fluke. Normally, I'm quite good at reviewing, and I am familiarized with policy. I was just rushing to get through. I'm sorry. What can I do? CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 14:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not rush! Use my comments as an aide memoire so that you can check you've not missed anything. I'm not unsympathetic, after 22 years I still get things wrong, just err on the side of caution. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK! That, I can certainly do. Also, somebody opened an RfC accusing me of bias because I declined an article. I would encourage you to take a look and give your input on it. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 14:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the script User:Headbomb/unreliable useful. Do you have a link for the RFC? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was happening on User talk:HermanWanggai, but this and the user page were recently wiped. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 14:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By you, now that I check. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 14:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my error, I've restored the talk page, just meant to delete the biographical user page. I don't think you have much to fear looking at the comments there, including fro an admin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just glad to see that I've at least done something good with my reviewing. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 15:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

new page review: huachicol fiscal

Hey CabinetCavers, i just saw that you declined my submission because of the use of a LLM. Could you please tell me what was the exact reason, since i am indeed new and thought that the use of LLMs is allowed as long as the research of sources is done by myself and if i double checked for any mistakes made by the LLM, which i did. I spent the last week writing and researching since its a topic i'm really interested in and which i came across during a trip to Mexico. So i would be very pleased if you could give me more specific tips for improvement or if you could accept it. Thanks :) Paubus166 (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:LLM. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 20:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mark articles tagged with a CSD as reviewed

The relevant section in the NPP guidelines that mentions this is WP:NPPBIG3. Only AfD articles can be marked as reviewed. I noticed this for North Kigezi Diocese, in case you were wondering. Happy reviewing! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For some reason, it automatically marks them as reviewed when I use Twinkle to nominate. Should I start using the curator for nominations instead? CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 13:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a setting in Twinkle where you can change that. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were not correct

No-one can deny that the writing style of Draft:David H. Guston was not correct. However, as the reviewer who accepted it I found him to be notable, and accepted it. AFC's job is to accept drafts that we believe have a >50% chance 0f surviving an immediate deletion process. This it did.

WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies, and draftification was not available to you. It's perfectly likely that I missed placing a tag for tone, and I think that was the NPP task to pick up rather than draftification. Alternatively AfD was the route forwards. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If so, would you move it back to mainspace? Cabinet G. Cavers ^{DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]} 18:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Page Move

Hi CabinetCavers,

Can you please explain why you moved a page which was created less than 20mins ago into Draft when you're advised to wait atleast an hour for new pages created before considering draftifying them unless it is a clear COPYVIO or G11 eligible articl, also the article had atleast two sources... Tuesden (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which page are you talking about? CabinetCavers ^{DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]} 14:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This page Faruk Dinç. Tuesden (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even aware that you have to wait atleast an hour before moving to draft or tagging for deletion? Unless it is G11 or COPYVIO issues? Please be a little bit more careful next time. Tuesden (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me the policy that says you need to wait? CabinetCavers ^{DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]} 14:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to show you, a reviewer has told me before that pages that are newly created no matter how short as long as it has some sources and its not up to hour should not be speedily moved to draft unless it is a case of Wikipedia:G11 or Copyvio. Do ask someone who is more experienced. Best Tuesden (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe a hard policy would be more reliable and informative to me than a single reviewer telling you something. CabinetCavers ^{DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]} 14:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. WP:DRAFTNO. I'm sorry. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted, we learn everyday and at least now i know the policy page to cite next time. Cheers Tuesden (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good. If anybody unjustly drafifies your articles again, just use that. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Polypheny

Hello CabinetCavers, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Polypheny, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 NPP drive - Phase 2

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

Start patrolling!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources to my draft

I added sources regarding the history of the "Chicken jockey" trend Lemurik the Historian (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to close discussions at AFC/R

When accepting/denying redirects at WP:AFC/R, you aren't closing the discussion. Please use {{AfC-c}} or the script afcrc-helper to close the discussion. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 21:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 12:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Avelandhistorygroup (20:02, 13 February 2026)

Hello, I am from The Aveland History Group, a local community history group that operates across all 32 villages and the town of the ancient Aveland Wapentake. I would like to note in the "modern usage" section of the Aveland page that we are relevant to this page too, along with an online archive Aveland Archive that we manage. How do I add this and attach the webpages for the Archive and History Group? --Avelandhistorygroup (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the article? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 12:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sameer Mohd khan (21:14, 14 February 2026)

Sameer Mohd khan Hasanpur ke Ek mashoor hakeem khandan se tallukh rakhte hai Unke Father Asif khan Manota Gaon ke mutawalli hai Unke Dada hasan khan ne hi mashoor aam niyadar manota unke hi bagh ki den hai aur Sameer Mohd khan Social Worker bhi hai Aur woh Aur woh Congress party ke neta hai aur Nagar Palika Parishad Adhyash pad ka chunav bhi lad rahe hai --Sameer Mohd khan (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, but I can only speak English. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 12:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BooFoons (19:07, 18 February 2026)

Hi, Nice to meet you, I'm Dan.

I've got two questions for you. 1. I've just created a page and put in a table and the top but I want it to be one of those tables that go on the right hand side. How do I do that? 2. The article I've made, I do have a COI to it and I don't know if I've filed the COI correctly. I'd appreciate someone with more knowledge to cast their eye over the page to make sure I've not been bias and ensure it is as good as it could be.

Thanks, Dan --BooFoons (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ABoo-Foons_Mystery_Investigators&oldid=prev&diff=1339050686 BooFoons (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work for the creators of Boo-Foons or are you just somehow closely connected? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the two creators of the Boo-Foons.

I did put this on the talk page, which I hope is correct:

{{connected contributor}} BooFoons (this account I am using) is one of the presenters of the podcast. I have tried my best to be as neutral and unbiased as possible whilst writing this article and choosing the sources. I would appreciate another editor to read through everything, edit as accordingly and help to ensure the page is the best is can possibly be. Thank you. BooFoons (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect recreation

Hi CabinetCavers! You recently recreated the redirect Celsius 233 per a request at WP:AFC/R; were you aware that it had been previously deleted per this disussion?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am so sorry. Please re-delete it. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 23:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. I'm never sure how much deleted history a non-admin can see, so I wasn't sure whether you could see the link to the RfD.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 12:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi CabinetCavers. Thank you for your work on Testament of Francis of Assisi. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources. Please also establish notability as per WP:NBOOK. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: I created that page as a redirect through someone's request at WP:AFC/R. I have nothing to do with this full-fledged article. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 12:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out to me. It appears to have been created as an article by an IP, although the current version has been approved and I'm willing to mark it as reviewed. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You too! CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 13:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion- AQT (Abdul Quam Tadese)

Hello @cabinetcavers, I just saw you tagged this draft with a speedy deletion request. I don't see how the article can be unambiguously promotional when the draft was just created a day ago and edit is still ongoing to populate the page properly. I find it more comfortable and easier to edit in the draft space so I can preview what the draft looks like before submitting for review. Kindly help remove the speedy deletion tag so I can keep editing the draft and populate it with credible content, Thank you. Here's the reason I left in my contest "The page was just created and not submitted as a draft yet, it was to be edited and populated with credible content before submission. It cannot be up for speedy deletion when the article is not done or ready yet. As shown in the edit history, the draft was started a day before, I find it more comfortable and easier to edit in the draft space. When the article is done and properly populated with credible information, it will then be submitted for review. Good faith should at least permit for that to happen first." Olakunle Rufai (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF states that "editors should remember to not disregard patterns of harmful editing, nor should they overlook obvious attempts to deceive, vandalize, or push a biased agenda". I may be wrong, but I believe the promotional aspects of this draft could be taken as pushing a biased agenda. If you can make the article not read as promotional, I can remove the template. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I have looked at the draft and it does not appear to be unambiguously promotional. I have removed the tag. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry, I wasn't trying to cause any issues. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miley Cyrus - Secrets (sample).mp3

I can't help wonder whether "no consensus" was the right result (FFD discussion). Normally or sometimes, "delete" would be the default, right? George Ho (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 4 keeps and 3 deletes. I don't believe this shows any clear consensus either way, which is why I closed it as no consensus. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming arguments of one side neither weigh nor were clearer than of the other, right? —George Ho (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that FfD, it looks like there weren't any arguments to keep, just votes. I suggest reconsidering the close. lp0 on fire () 22:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure

Hello. I'm quite concerned about your non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethan's Rock. You very quickly closed it after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oak Grove, Georgia and I think there might be reason to believe the full discussion wasn't taken into account. As you can see this is controversial and we all really want to put this to rest. I would appreciate it if you would revert your closure and allow an admin to do it with a full closing rationale. Thank you, MediaKyle (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I revert a closure? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like you would anything else -- just go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethan's Rock, Talk:Bethan's Rock, and Bethan's Rock and revert your most recent edits. It would be helpful to leave a note on the AfD explaining what happened, or I can do that. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been reverted now. Would you check to see if my edit summary on the AfD is good? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, thank you very much. Believe me, I hope it does close as keep, but when I saw that I just knew it was going to end up being contested. You really don't want to end up at WP:DRV, from what I hear it's not a pleasant experience... I'll leave a clarifying comment on the AfD. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just here to help as much as I can. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Keep' close seems the correct option here, so you got it right. Not sure if it would have been contested, but if it closes as 'delete' it surely will (that pathway just isn't there). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find your way here? Also, would you like me to re-close it as keep? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn and CabinetCavers, we're all on the same page here. Keep seems like the most reasonable result, maybe no consensus. My concern is that we need this to be a strong close that nobody will contest, otherwise we might end up with another week of this. I really want this to be over already but those with dissenting opinions deserve the certainty that their arguments were at least taken into account... I don't want to sit here and pick apart your close but how swift it was and the fact that there were no comments wouldn't have sat well with some. There's a reason it's sitting there as the only unclosed AfD from that day, someone's going to have to read through all of that and understand the context. I think it would be in everyone's best interest to wait for an administrator, or at least someone well-acquainted with closing discussions like this. MediaKyle (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you shouldn't come back in and re-close something after one round of closing and then changing your mind. One thing about closings is that we all, in a perfect world, would like to think of the closer as an honored role, indicative of a deep read of the discussion to understand all points of view and to only then decide the topic. Some discussions are very long, and contradict within themselves, point-by-point, before sometimes wandering into insults. My favorite discussions for just enjoying the banter, by far, were the AfD and RfC on Barbenheimer. This one on the rock is interesting too, at how wide the differences-arc covers. Closing is a responsibility of trust that often means reading lots of words, which takes time. Thanks again for your initial close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am new to closing, and it's a common pattern in my editing for me to get into something new, mess up and get complaints, and finally get it and start doing some good. It happened when I first got into AfC/NPP and speedy deletion, and I have no reason to believe this will be any different. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for "no consensus" on Template:BibTeX?

What is your rationale for "no consensus" on the TFD for Template:BibTeX? The nomination rationale was "No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists." Those things are still true. The template is used only in one editor's sandbox, and it doesn't work. No evidence was presented that this template is useful or could be made useful; not being useful is a TFD reason to delete. It looks like you are making some questionable non-admin closures; it might be wise to revert all of them until you have more experience participating in XFD discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw 2 people saying keep and 3 people saying userfy, which isn't consensus, and none of the rationales given by other people seemed to stand out as anything special. I stand by my reasoning, but I will go ahead and revert the closure. Also, this is somewhat normal for my editing whenever I go into something new. I mess up and get a few complaints, and soon after, I do much better. I promise my closures should get better over time, and I won't work in TFD anymore for a while. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would, but people have made edits after mine, so I don't think I can revert my closure without reverting the edits after it. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A manual revert will work fine. Click "edit" to edit the section, and remove the top part (up to "deletion review.") and the bottom part (starting with "The above"). As for your closures getting better over time, I strongly recommend that you participate in and follow XFD discussions for at least six months before doing any closures. You will learn a lot and avoid many future mistakes. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. I've done some XFD work in the past, but I've mostly moved on to AfC, NPP, and recent changes, so it makes sense as to why I would be a bit rusty. Also, thank you for telling me there was an issue! CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 00:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I have fixed the closure. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 00:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging in good faith. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And you are welcome! CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 12:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Missmae4 (12:52, 28 February 2026)

How do i create a page? --Missmae4 (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Missmae4 It is strongly advised that newcomers avoid creating articles, but if you decide to ignore this advice, click on this link, click the big blue button, and draft away. If you are in any way connected to the subject, make sure to declare your conflict of interest. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, CabinetCavers. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]