User talk:Warudo
| This is Warudo's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
Sorry, but I noticed that the article was missing the original sources that for some weird reason a user ImperialAficionado what looked like to me had vandalised, I've restored to the older version, but please don't stop editing to improve the article if you can. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Govvy Those edits weren't vandalism, they were done because ImperialAficionado considered the sources unreliable. Apparently it had something to do with WP:RAJ. You should probably discuss it with ImperialAficionado himself or someone from WikiProject India. I'm not qualified to tell you if the article should stay as is or not. In any case, thank you for at least trying to improve the article. Nickps (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- c'est la vie, don't know, I was wondering if the article was a hoax article or not now. Govvy (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Govvy I don't think it's a hoax, considering that google books comes up with some hits. However, that doesn't mean it should stay as is. I originally thought about sending it to AfD to request draftification but I decided against it, since it's more likely to get improved in mainspace. If you do think it might be a hoax however, AfD would be a good way to determine that. Just, please do a WP:BEFORE search first if you decide to go there. Nickps (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I struggled with this one before, that's why I left in the new page feed last time. And it sat in my watchlist since then. I thought the creator was a bit of a dodgy editor, that's why I put it too my watchlist. I might just leave it for others to deal with! I love history, but I was stumped by this one. Govvy (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Govvy I don't think it's a hoax, considering that google books comes up with some hits. However, that doesn't mean it should stay as is. I originally thought about sending it to AfD to request draftification but I decided against it, since it's more likely to get improved in mainspace. If you do think it might be a hoax however, AfD would be a good way to determine that. Just, please do a WP:BEFORE search first if you decide to go there. Nickps (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- c'est la vie, don't know, I was wondering if the article was a hoax article or not now. Govvy (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Good 2405:3800:863:64A4:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Here's your ping
[edit]As requested. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Page wasn't moved, so I'll take no action. Nickps (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Nice work on your speedy tagging this morning
[edit]I should call it redirect repair, which is important work. Wikipedia's eyes are everywhere! Thanks for your efforts! BusterD (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- You're welcome! I plan to keep going since I'm guessing that my earlier run barely put a dent in the number of X3 redirects but it's always good to see that my efforts are appreciated. Nickps (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
G4 of redirects.
[edit]It comes up every month or two. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 7 although I should have actually said 'categories' so this needed to be reverted anyways. But yes, people G4 things that cannot be changed regularly, and it's been a problem for some months now. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, your wording wouldn't change anything about that even if it said "categories" because, again, category pages are pages. I'm honestly not sure I understand what the bug in G4 you're talking about even is. G4 says that if the deletion rationale no longer applies then it can't be used. So any page that is correctly deleted per G4 would never survive XfD in the first place. If people are deleting categories even when the CFD rationale does not apply then that's not a bug in G4, that's just misuse of G4 and should be overturned on DRV. If such misuse is happening then you should probably raise the issue on WT:SD. Warudo (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's coming up in DRV, and a lot of contributors there don't see it the way you (and I, for that matter) do. You're probably right on next steps. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)