You just stay around to keep the tools, you just stay around to keep the tools! You think that we're all fools, you just stay around to keep the tools! Making minute edits every year, you make minute edits every year! We can see it's very clear, you make minute edits every year! Users such as yourself who make a significantly low amount of edits just to keep your administrative tools sicken me and many others. Just give up the tools already!!! What are you holding on to them for anyways!! What a selfish thing to do!!
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Wonderful Parliament, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Robert de Umfraville, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, John Minsterworth, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Richard Roose, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Order of Brothelyngham, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between January and March 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Thomas de la More, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Thomas Neville (died 1460), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Act of Accord, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got your way - I won't take part in the GA process or any discussions about the GA process - so why are you twisting the knife? If you don't have the power to ban me from the GA process like you claim, THEN HOW ON EARTH have you the right to demand that I am not allowed to post on my own user page, or to demand that I "get back to work". What "work" am I allowed to do? Who gets to decide it? Are you trying to drive me off the project - if so you are doing a good job of it. I don't want to continue this discussion, so please don't.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although thinking about it, continuing a discussion on someone's talk page is an odd way of 'not wanting to continue' a discussion that Nigel Ish started in by now *checks notes* two other venues, and has now also taken to Users:Kyteto's and Thebiguglyalien's talk pages, ywo completely inoffensive editors who have somehow earned Nigel Ish's ire. Or perhaps not enough people were paying him attention. SerialNumber5412918:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
You made mention of my name on the page of the IP. I like to clarify that my user name is not connected to my eagerness of getting people banned but is connected to the nickname of the county I live in: The Banner County, also known as County Clare. The Bannertalk15:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry The Banner, I get you! I hadn't made that connection myself actually, but it's quite apt dealing with characters like that!That's a lovely part of the world. I used to spend holidays in Limerick, so I've seen a bit of it. And a couple of powerful nights in Ennis. An Contae an Chláir abú, as they say! SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in Special:Diff/1263266684, you may have erroneously pinged me when you meant to have pinged the editor who started the thread (Budisgood).
You're right, how dare I! In any case, I imagine just had my username in your head as the admin who had asked the question, and wrote that down instead of the intended user. Happens to the best of us. :) — Red-tailed hawk(nest)18:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 26th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 August 2024. At press time, over 94% of the world has legally fallen prey to the merry celebrations of "Christmas", and so shall you soon. It's been a quiet 4 months, and we hope to see you with way more new scripts next year. Happy holidays! Aaron Liu (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Very useful for changelist patrollers, DiffUndo, by Nardog, is this edition's featured script. Taking inspiration from WP:AutoWikiBrowser's double-click-to-undo feature, it adds an undo button to every line of every diff from "show changes", optimizing partial reverts with your favorite magic spell and nearly fulfilling m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Partial revert undo.
Doğu/Adiutor, a recent WP:Twinkle/WP:RedWarn-like userscript that follows modern WMF UI design, is now an extension. However, its sole maintainer has left the project, which still awaits WMF mw:code stewardship (among some audits) to be installed on your favorite WMF wikis.
DannyS712, our former chief editor, has ascended to MediaWiki and the greener purpley pastures of PHP with commits creating Special:NamespaceInfo and the __EXPECTUNUSEDTEMPLATE__ magic word to exclude a template from Special:UnusedTemplates! I wonder if Wikipedia has a templaters' newsletter...
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
Andrybak/Unsigned helper forks Anomie/unsignedhelper to add support for binary search, automatic edit summaries after generating the {{unsigned}} template, support for {{undated}}, and support for generating while syntax highlighting is on.
Polygnotus/Move+ updates BilledMammal's classic Move+ to add automattic watchlisting of all pages—except the target page(s)—changed while processing a move.
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.
For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.
Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
@TheTechie: Yeah, sure. No idea when; that's inside baseball stuff. But it needed reviewing, I reviewed it, now it passes to the next stage. This page shows the different processes it goes through; also see WP:QPQ. It doesn't take quite as long as that page might make it seem. To talk to editors who are more... immersed, shall we say, in the process than me (e.g. For timescales, etc), have a look at the DYK talk page. Congratulations :) Serial(speculates here)20:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Sorry, meant to write this last night and my battery ran out just as I was wrapping up. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "entailed in the male line"; the barony of Cromwell was created by writ of summons, so heritable by heirs general, rather than heirs male. The situation on Cromwell's death is exactly that described in Abeyance#History: no account is taken of the relative seniority of daughters, so the title lapses when their are coheirs. (I rewrote the phrase "could not be split between two female heirs" because to me that implies there are circumstances under which a peerage could be split.) Payling just says "elevated to the Peerage as Lord Cromwell, a promotion facilitated by Neville's death four weeks earlier", so I don't feel that I broke source-text integrity on the rewrite (I wouldn't defile one of your articles like that!). Indeed, Cokayne says on p. 554, note "b" that Bourchier "was not a coheir himself", so I'm reluctant to describe him as "remaining heir", as the article does now. I don't want to encumber Neville's article with legal finicking that's rather tangential to the man himself, but I do think the phrasing should reflect peerage law a little more closely; I'd like to hear your thoughts.
As you saw, I spun up a stub on Humphrey Bourchier, 1st Baron Cromwell, which you might be able to pad out from some of the sources you've used, especially Payling. It looks as though Payling is writing his biography for HoP (he must have been in the Commons as well before 1461), which will make interesting reading when it comes out. There's an episode in his history which I don't quite understand: Bourchier becomes chamberlain of the receipt again at Edward's accession in 1461. In 1464, John Leynton, who as the legal mind among Ralph, Lord Cromwell's executors had presumably been sparring with Neville & Bourchier, is appointed auditor of the receipt, and in the next year receives, fide the Calendar of Patent Rolls, "a writing of Humphrey Bourgchier, knight, lord Cromwell, one of the chamberlains of the receipt of the Exchequer, under his seal at arms dated 31 August, 5 Edward IV, granting to the said John for life the said office of one of the chamberlains of the receipt of the Exchequer with the appointment of one of the ushers of the Exchequer and other officers, as granted to himself by letters patent dated 17 July, 4 Edward IV". Apparently Humphrey wasn't supposed to be alienating his office, as the writing is enrolled along with "pardon to the said Humphrey and John of their trespasses in this matter; and confirmation to the said John for life of the said office and all fees thereof." That seems rather relevant to the state of the settlement in the 1460s, and I'm a bit surprised it didn't come into Payling's piece!
Richard Beauchamp, 2nd Baron Beauchamp may also be of interest to you given your recent work: there's an unsourced paragraph there that brings his wife's adultery into the trial of Burdet and Stacy, although the Croyland Chronicle is ambiguous about which Lord Beauchamp's wife was implicated (the 1st or 2nd).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt of malmsey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi there Serial Number 54129, I am trying to initiate a discussion about clarifying the notability criteria mass-casualty transportation accidents for posting to ITN. Because you participated in the debate on the nom for 2025 Guatemala City bus crash which was the catalyst for this proposed discussion, I thought I might notify you in case you are interested. FlipandFlopped ツ07:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience at explaining the policy regarding FA that backs your revert.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Yo 'Zilla, well intoned! It was like finding and old pair of slippers and finding them as comfortable as you remember. Something else... it's a bit garish for me nowadays, but remember the sig... :) MuffledPocketed20:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have your old signature here as well: — [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>''''' semper crescis, aut decrescis'''''</sup></span>]]
On 18 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Burdet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Burdet supposedly plotted treason against King Edward IV in 1477 after he killed Burdet's favourite white deer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Burdet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Burdet), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Pleased to see you've got him promoted to FA. The new title is just the job, and don't forget you can post any number of redirects (as I've been doing today for a modest little article about a musical piece with various possible titles.) Tim riley talk16:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was little point in joining the discussion after all, since it got rewritten as a result of either completely misunderstanding the topic or a personal desire to remove any possible iota or actual interest from the hook. It would have shown more integrity to have just pulled it, but when was that ever an inconvenience! Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi15:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.
Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:
Sammi Brie (submissions), with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
Hey man im josh (submissions), with 816 round points from 5 FLs about sports and Olympic topics, 46 FL reviews, 3 ITN articles, and a large number of bonus points.
MaranoFan (submissions), with 815 round points primarily from 3 FAs and 1 GA about music, in addition to 9 article reviews.
The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 1 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Butt of malmsey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a butt of malmsey was required to make "Tyre that is excellent", as part of a mixture of "fat Bastard, two gallons of Cute [and] Parrel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Butt of malmsey. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Butt of malmsey), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi! From what I read, the discussion appears to be still active, and some users such as User:JayCubby are still working on new icon proposals, so I don't think the opposition can really be described as unanimous. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see where it is certainly available by the case full. They've been twice now final warned. Might want to post to ANI the next time they open up a bottle. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it is irrelevant now, given that the issue brought up is resolved, but I don't see how I was edit warring. I reverted an edit that you went on to restore without discussion, which would seem to go against WP:BRD. I don't get how I would be the one edit warring in that situation. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an admin noticeboard. If an admin places templates then it is common sense to wear it. Whole the board is not the sole preserve of admins, your reverts were not covered by WPO:3RRNO: everything else is edit warring.Incidentally, MASSIVE LOL at the templates having been restored by someone else. Even so, hope you have a grand Saturday night! Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi20:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on the first point, I didn't even think about that. I'll make sure to remember that going forward to avoid embarrassing myself. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - technically TWO refineries in that immediate area. And to be really boring, as it is already refined to a finished product, the Jet A-1 load doesn't require a refinery, but it will benefit us all if it enters the underground pipe delivery system that they surely have access to, saving several thousand lorries on the road.
Don't worry - both locations were already covered by existing sources, once I had taken the trouble to dig past the misleading headlines. BTW there is an edit-war brewing up over allision (not for the first time), and I cannot believe you let it slide so easily, so please enlighten me; what am I missing?
WendlingCrusader, ta. I did wonder how a tanker was going to, err, enter the refinery itself! If we can source the info re. pipelines etc, then it would be good to include it too, as others may also wonder the same thing.Why the fffff are people edit warring over one word. Just change allision to collision throughout, but keep the footnote explaining the technical difference. That way we follow the sources (all of which use the latter except for one trade publication) but demonstrate we are a serious academic project that can deal with technicalities also. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi11:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for your input; I'm still a novice editor (12 mths / <3,000 edits), with a tendency to a nervous disposition, so your words are valuable to me.
Regarding the underground pipelines; I haven't searched in any way yet, but I suspect a security issue will be invoked. In a previous life I worked for a Water Authority, and we were somewhat cagey about where our pipes were buried. However I do recall something to the effect that waaay back in WWII a pipeline was set-up to deliver aviation fuel for the US bombers in East Anglia. The only clue these days is that several domestic heating oil distributors are all located within a few miles of each other around Wymondham, which is a sleepy market town nowhere near any port or refinery!
Pfft - UK oil pipeline network - ok, maybe not as secret as I thought. And Killingholme is on the map (see under "Lindsey")!
To ensure safety and integrity, the pipeline is patrolled by helicopter every two weeks.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
On 16 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Stacy (alchemist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Stacy warned the Duke of Suffolk that a Tower would be dangerous to him; Suffolk was later murdered by sailors on a ship called The Nicholas of the Tower? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Stacy (alchemist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Stacy (alchemist)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thank you for taking action on the Patel RfC. A couple of questions:
1. how much longer should it say open?
2. Should the previous close decision be removed or hidden?
3. Should the RfC tag be added back? Dw31415 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC), edited Dw31415 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you put the edit warring template on my talk page. I see you did not do the same for the other editor. May I inquire as to why? They made the same number of reverts (12) as I did (12).
I do not appreciate being singled out. I do not appreciate your posting two notices on my talk page back to back, in an antagonistic manner. And most of all, I do not appreciate your lack of communication. Delectopierre (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Fortuna, I hope you don't mind me stepping in) @Delectopierre: You received a warning notifying you that biographical articles of living or recently deceased people are considered a contentious topic area. Since you made an edit to Neil Mehta, it was appropriate for you to receive a contentious topic notice. If you had not received such a notice, you might have been blindsided by sanctions against you. You should follow the advice given in the notice Fortuna gave you. It was appropriate, helpful, and not written by Fortuna, who simply applied a template. See {{Contentious topics/alert/first}}. You received an edit warring notice from Fortuna as well. This edit warring notice was, again not written by Fortuna, but a template that was applied. See {{uw-ew}}. I'm sorry you find these standard notices to be "antagonistic", but they are the standard notices. It is clear from your editing history at Lifestance Health that you have been engaging in edit warring ([2],[3],[4]). Fortuna warning you of the consequences of edit warring was entirely appropriate. Lastly, could you please highlight where you attempted to interact with Fortuna and they failed to communicate with you? I'm not seeing it, either here or on your talk page. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Hammersoft. I do appreciate your reply. I know that Fortuna didn't write the template.
I understand the implications of contentious topic editing, and I will point out that I wrote the Neil Mehta article, and the edits I recently made were well received.
Regarding the edit warring: It's not that I think I was in the right here. I was wrong, and I stopped. It's also not that Fortuna placed the template on my talk page. Again, I was wrong here, and I've stopped. But it takes two to tango, and Fortuna only placed the edit warring template on my talk page, not on the other editor's talk page, despite both of us making two edits in our now finished edit war. As I'm sure you know, point 2 on the template is Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. So why not put a template on both of our talk pages? I was hoping that Fortuna had an answer that was something besides 'to single you out'. But I don't know how else to explain it.
That which I just described, in combination with no reply when I inquired as to why the template was only placed on my talk page, is what I find to be antagonistic.
highlight where you attempted to interact with Fortuna and they failed to communicate This very thread. Fortuna made somewhere on the order of 50 edits over the course of two days -- including acknowledging other threads on this page -- but didn't reply to me. That's their choice, but I don't appreciate that my question wasn't acknowledged in any way. Delectopierre (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out here that three different editors were reverting you at Lifestance Health. Usually in cases such as this the person who gets warned is the person who everyone else is reverting. Thanks for highlighting the lack of response. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense; [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=prev&oldid=1280997409 lying edit summaries] are disruptive]. Anyone with eyes can see I did not "remove all the content"; but there are none so blind as those that will it see. I was going to reply to your message below conciliatorily, but there's clearly no point. Goodbye. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to hang your argument on the difference between removing 98.5% of the content of the article vs. 100% of the content of the article and calling that "lying", you are of course free to do so. It will, however, have no effect on the consequences of engaging in such actions again. You were aware of the edit warring issue on the article, as you contributed to this thread before engaging in your attempts to gut the article. Despite being aware of it and the final warning on the article's talk page, despite being made aware of the overabundance of articles that use this sort of format, you decided to gut the article twice [5][6]. This is nothing short of disruptive. There are plenty of admins who would have blocked you already for it. The final warning stands. If you resume this sort of behavior you will be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every version of this edit notice contains lyrics of copyrighted songs. Thus, the editnotice is a copyright violation in all versions and needs to be deleted under WP:G12. Given our recent engagements, you might have thought it petty if I deleted it outright without raising the issue to you. Please request this to be deleted using {{Db-g12}}. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 19 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roger Tocotes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roger Tocotes was suspected by the Duke of Clarence of masterminding the Duchess of Clarence's death, but Tocotes avoided capture until the King got involved? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roger Tocotes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Roger Tocotes), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi! I noticed you made a few edits to a page I recently created for the National Braille Press. Thank you for helping me to improve the page! I saw that you changed a lot of the information to be more concise, but that you also removed the sections about their Innovation Award and Gala entirely. I assume the reasoning for this was the sources because I saw you commented about primary sourcing. If I find new sources for both of these sections, Award and Gala, could I add the information on them back onto the page? Let me know what you think would be appropriate. Thanks! Serenat03 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
""As a Signpost report notes" – assuming you want to take advice from someone who was banned by ArbCom not long after writing that; assuming you think the article endorsed that statement instead of repeating it as something some people sometimes say; assuming you think that an opinion posted in 2013 is generally shared today." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting the close, and thank for mentioning me in the context, - a first I believe. Instead of fixing the link mentioned below, you might reconsider that part of the comment also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how or why you could have seen closing an ongoing RfC in a contentious topic as a non-admin as a good idea. The votes are 17 for, 11 against; while Wikipedia is not a democracy, most of the non-argument !votes are coming from the oppose side. Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a close request open for this particular RFC. Given the closing editor has participated in infobox discussions in the past this close should be voluntarily rescinded. I'm not convinced there's a consensus in that discussion, but a contentious topic should be closed by someone who hasn't been adamantly[7] involved[8] in the past. Nemov (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a formal warning for this comment. Even if the link had worked it did not meet the expectations that exist for a contentious topic and was itself aggressive. I don't think you've been formally introduced to how contentious topics work, so I will be giving you the official template designed to introduce that topic below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "my personal experience with this user indicates they probably won’t budge" met the core expectation of good faith? The fact that you have not left a simlar warning for DB indicates that you do not take good faith as seriously as faux-civility; which, incidentally—although I admit I fucked up the ping—was a direct quotation, and, in the context of a demonstratable lack of good faith, perfectly reasonable, and indeed, accurate. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi16:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully it was the entire comment including its aggressive start I am glad to prove you wrong, not that that's a particularly onerous exercise. The quote you made wasn't of Dronebogus but was of ScottishFinnishRadish who was responding to a good faith question from Dronebogus about their conduct and was offering direct feedback to that question. Context matters and you, as someone in conflict with Dronebogus, saying the same thing is very different than SFR offering it as feedback after being asked about it. My choosing to correct issues when I see them doesn't mean there aren't other issues and it doesn't mean that I have an obligation to police the entire topic area. As a volunteer I do work where I think I can add value, have an interest, and have availability; I expect this to be similar for most of us here and that volunteer ethos is something I really cherish about the Wikipedia community. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider. I respect you as one of our most reasonable admins, but using the volunteer ethos as an excuse for ignoring a provocation (the initial remark by Dronebogus) while rebuking the response is not good administration. Nobody is asking you to police the entire topic area, but you should have looked at the context of Fortuna's edit before you issued the warning. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have sympathy with any editor whose experiences with Dronebogus elicit such a blunt admission, since in my experience he sometimes lashes out. On the merits, Fortuna imperatrix mundi's comment was a foolish thing to tack on, almost on a par with DB's provocation, IMHO. I trust Barkeep49's judgement, so I defer to their BOLD. A warning of some kind is appropriate, even for an editor with 100K edits. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the warning for Fortuna was reasonable. But the lack of consistency is not acceptable, and when the lack of consistency is brought to the warning admin's attention, doubling-down on the grounds of volunteer ethos is even less acceptable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it in the first link, piped "this comment"? Actually, Talk:Satie displays several instances of less than superb "ethos", before and in the RfC. Let's just hope that it will not happen again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna was replying to a comment in Dronebogus concluded by saying my personal experience with this user indicates they probably won’t budge. As Fortuna pointed out above, that comment fails to assume good faith. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not and do not find the two comments equivalent and acted accordingly. However, you're correct that something and nothing was not the correct outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, "probably won't budge" is a good thing. I hope that all of us cling stubbornly to our positions about whether copyvios are acceptable, whether unsourced articles are desirable, etc. More often, "probably won't budge" is a statement of fact; for example, one does not expect a POV pusher to change their POV, so you might as well save your (digital) breath because discussion won't change matters.
A few years ago, I saw an editor say something about the need to apply an appropriate amount of tact. (I can't find it right now.) The "probably won't budge" statement does not apply an appropriate amount of tact. However, the statement about it being easy to prove the interlocutor wrong goes beyond just being tactless. Therefore I am not surprised to see a concern raised here but not there.
To jump to my original thought: People do sometimes choose to provide advice where it seems more likely to be useful. Therefore, if two people post comments of dubious tactfulness or civility, and only one gets warned, that could mean that the two comments were not equivalent. (I have made the case for that above.) But it could also mean that the warner has decided that the un-contacted editor "probably won't benefit" from any advice, to adapt one of the disputed phrases. I don't think therefore that you should feel singled out inappropriately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be transparent here in a way that some might think reflects poorly on me. I had no idea you had renamed. I saw a comment that was "not great but not on its own actionable" followed by an escalation that crossed the line from a user I didn't recognize and had no CT postings (because the filter hits don't come along with a user on a rename). So a "friendly word" with someone who I have no ideas about and who might have no idea of who I am didn't feel like it was going to be preventative. If I'd known who this was I would have indeed chosen a different tact as the best way of getting the outcome I'd hoped for. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 May 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hey there! Appreciate you understanding my situation and lack of Afd knowledge. I do want to explain that usually use Afd for any article discussion related to merging or spliting or the like - though I usually stay clear. Some of my noms were mostly for mergers and went through though I've now been told there is another way for that which is not Afd. I have tried to get a convo started on article pages but, alas, nobody responses there which is quite frustrating.
I am still learning on articles and have mostly familiarized myself with the process but I'd like to play on the safe side more than go ahead on my own for the time being. The "lol", on my end, is just a way of expressing how... embarrassed I am, I guess, as to why I still don't fully understand Afd processes 😅 despite so many tries to. Far more complex that Categories and Lists which is my main area. Hope you are doing well! Sorry to drag you out from front of the fireplace!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) - Thank you for the support on ERRORS! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fortuna imperatrix mundi, would you be willing to review Kočani nightclub fire? I'm planning to bring it to GAN, but I would like someone to look at the flow and tone of the article, the flow especially. I'm also a bit concerned that the article does not provide enough context for those unfamiliar with North Macedonia, but I've no way of verifying this except for asking other editors. You can add any comments at the open Peer Review here. Any help or feedback you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grumpylawnchair (great username and accompanyiing pic btw). Thanks for... singling me out for this :) just to let you know I haven't forgotten it (although apologies for the tardiness of my reply), and am looking through the prose as we speak. It's a hardcore article, and regardless of anything else, you're to be congratulated for keeping it so encyclopedic; it's a difficult topic. Wll pop into PR over the next couple of days if that's OK. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi15:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying really hard to keep my cool over this Tolkien AfD - I have mentioned in other places that I am actually a professional literature critic and I find the suggestion that anyone reading sexuality into a text that isn't *about* sex is somehow Fringe to be highly anti-intellectual and honestly quite offensive. But because I know that this has got me actually quite upset I'm afraid of missing details.... like the canvassed AfD template. So I appreciate your putting it in. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223 no problem, of course. Let me say, too, that I think you've been remarkably restrained! (And by the way, yours at FTN was one of the most neutral messages I've seen at a noticeboard, so no worries there either.) Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi15:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_detail.jpg)
The Banner talk 15:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
_Adoration_of_the_Magi_in_the_snow_by_Pieter_Brueghel_the_Younger_-_Correr_version.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Miscellaneous
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
New scripts
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from User:KMaster888. Thank you. Tarlby (t) (c) 21:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,168 round points, mainly from 4 featured articles and 4 good articles on old military history, in addition to an assortment of GA and FA reviews.
Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, mainly from 2 FAs, 2 featured lists, 8 GAs, and 16 Did You Know articles mainly on historical topics.
BeanieFan11 (submissions), with 866 round points from 20 GAs, 23 DYKs, and 2 In the News articles primarily about athletes.
Sammi Brie (submissions), with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
Hey man im josh (submissions), with 816 round points from 5 FLs about sports and Olympic topics, 46 FL reviews, 3 ITN articles, and a large number of bonus points.
MaranoFan (submissions), with 815 round points primarily from 3 FAs and 1 GA about music, in addition to 9 article reviews.
