|
||
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Per your comment to SchroCat, I noticed a discussion on about a guideline for infoboxes for biographies. I believe the guideline could be short:
The only question might be about what else to put in. - Beethoven - installed by the arb who wrote the infoboxes case as the community consensus - is a good example. - I won't participate in infobox discussions if I can avoid it, so won't go to the discussion, but I felt I had to support the cogent arguments by Voceditenore for Mozart. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
influenced
in the infobox: too many examples, and at that point we're just playing favourites. Notable family members or spouses are nice to have, but if we're just duplicating the first paragraph by removing the sentence structure, what really is the point?My take on the whole thing is that, on Wikipedia, people will argue about anything. Everybody has things that are really meaningful to them, and some people have more hills they're willing to die on than others, but it's honestly a little refreshing to have arguments done properly, where it's clear we're on the same team, just disagreeing on how to improve the project, and people here are thinky types who can read and write! Hope it's as beautiful where you are as it was here today. Perfect day for pressure washing. Be well!
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
my story today |
---|
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Folly Mox,
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. First, thanks for your work on Siege of Yong'an. Sorry I missed your initial ping to me on that AfD. Would you mind taking a look at the above article? It has the same citation issues, and I sent it to draft, but the editor simply moved it back to mainspace. Before I send it to AfD, I thought I might reach out to you first. But let me know if this is a bother, and I won't do it again. We get about 5 of these articles a month over at NPP. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Hate to bother you again, but could you take a look at this one as well? I wish these editors would simply take the time to improve the sourcing themselves. Onel5969 TT me 12:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mandate of Heaven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xunzi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Another one, if you have the time. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spring and Autumn period, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guoyu.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Folly Mox, Just to finish a thought from ANI: I agree with you that a person armed with any decent work of scholarship could fairly easily go through it and add sources to various things. But this is not how the "add sources" task is structured: instead, it presents new editors with a bunch of things tagged for not having sources, and asks them to find sources. In my opinion, this format favors much less promising approaches like the one I described. (And in my experience fixing something tagged as unsourced is often not really about finding a source, but rather about dealing with a content issue like OR or SYNTH.) Anyhow, it is not the most important thing in the world, & I am happy to agree to disagree about it (having now satisfied my compulsion to write one last thing on the topic). Happy editing, JBL ( talk) 17:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chinese noble titles in the imperial period, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 21:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Folly Mox, When creating redirects, please check that the target article actually mentions the redirect term somewhere, as its absence can be confusing to the reader, particularly if it is a foreign language term. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
This is awesome. Thank you so much for giving me something to laugh about. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) |
Hi again. Here's another one, if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 16:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
I can't thank you enough for your tireless efforts to repair citations damaged by ReferenceExpander, and how far above and beyond you've gone to identify issues with the script and explain them in a way that is both easily understandable and considerate toward the script's author. — SamX [ talk · contribs] 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC) |
While I'm here, I'd like to note that I'm thinking about going through everyone whose common.js is listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander.js and posting a boilerplate message on their talk pages alerting them of the script's issues. I'm thinking of directing them to your summary of the script's issues on the MFD page using the {{ noping}} template, but I wanted to run that by you first.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Toll roads in Great Britain, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 04:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
your username Iljhgtn ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Wright brothers, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 21:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
title=
parameter while deleting a bunch of other nonsense.
Folly Mox (
talk) 23:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Hello Folly Mox - in this discussion where you said "Feel free to nuke the refs and we'll deal with it post facto," I was curious about what you found for cleaning up content and sources after the GreenC bot nuked the blacklisted source.
Do you feel it's best to manually remove a blacklisted source (tedious if from hundreds of articles) or deal with sentences having no source after the bot's action?
Do you have any thoughts about whether a nuking bot could add a [citation needed] tag? This would seem to be a common need once blacklisted sources are removed, so may need some Village Pump discussion, for which I could offer a proposal, if you think it's warranted.
Following you here. Thanks. Zefr ( talk) 16:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
hey there, i hope you don't mind this unsolicited message, and i know this isn't necessarily your wheelhouse, but earlier this year i spent a lot of time making a new SVG graphic to replace , but I lost interest after filling it out to a considerable degree. what do you think, if you're inclined to take a look? https://ianremsen.nand.sh/中华/dynasties/ i would alter it considerably more before uploading it to wikimedia, but i'm curious if it's seen largely as useful/viable Remsense ( talk) 23:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I hope your day is better than yesterday.:) S0091 ( talk) 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar | |
For your tireless efforts mopping up after RefExpander, your thoughtful contributions in a wide range of discussions, and your kindness to other editors. Thank you for all that you do! Beccaynr ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
Please, can you also help me to translate from Chinese these Mongols: zh:董狐狸, zh:长秃, zh:长昂? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.96.50 ( talk) 08:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know whether to be upset or amused by this edit summary :-). JBL ( talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Just to check -- are the sections tagged 'uncited' here actually uncited or is the family section in particular using genrefs that haven't been put inline? Have ran into this before, which you corrected :) The page is OTD-eligible if those sections are either removed or cited (well, the length tag...but my opinions of those, for this length range and especially for articles with length from "many sections" rather than "giant section", are on the record), so I'm looking at it with an eye to getting it on the currently partially-but-not-fully-swapped Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 7. Vaticidal prophet 19:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
==In fiction==
. I also undid a lot of 2022 GOCE work by resorting the alphabetic and numeric footnotes into a more standard split, improved some translations, did a bunch of other citation nonsense, and wailed in my heart to the unknowable cosmic mechanism. I believe the article is salvageable, with what music industry copywriters refer to as "deep cuts", by which I mean significant reduction in detail.I have some more source stuff to do
there, but the blockers should be resolved. Let me know if there's anything else I can do.
Folly Mox (
talk) 10:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
==Biography==
and ==Controversy==
. The main organisational problem with the article at present is how much detail there is in the Sima Yi article where there are existing subarticles (like
Incident at Gaoping Tombs,
Sima Yi's Liaodong campaign,
Battle of Wuzhang Plains, etc.) The main Sima Yi article appears to have been subject of copypaste from some of the subarticles, which I noticed when I ran into two sources defined only by author and page number, which had full citations in the subarticles. I'm not sure I have it in me to do the necessary summarising in the main article and citation cleanup in the subarticles at present.I'm not surprised at the difficulty getting early non-Western articles to OTD, given the differences in calendar and less rigorous timekeeping. The Three Kingdoms period is fairly well developed due to its modern popularity, but for me it's more a space I get dragged back into Corleone style than a space that calls me itself. A lot of the biographies are (unsurprisingly, since they were the organisational schema for most historical texts) relatively well-develoloped, but typically endure a non-standard citation style involving direct source quotes cited to an entire book or volume, which is more than adequate for topic area specialists but less so for the general reader. This citation style seems to have been pioneered around 2014, and spread via fait accompli to newer editors working on different time periods, but has received pushback from NPP in particular, which can be seen at threads above on this usertalk page.Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for good enough articles (I've never participated or lurked at DYK) that have strongly supported calendar dates, all of which will be the accession or death of self-important blowhards Replied at Talk:Han dynasty. Folly Mox ( talk) 19:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for answering questions while I was away. It was quite unexpected but I tell you more about that in my email response. For now I'm going to log off and get some much needed rest in my own bed for change. I wanted to log on to let you know I read the email and I think it was sweet of you to check in on me and were thinking of the impact on new editors. I appreciate all you do on the project. -- ARose Wolf 18:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
While we're on this tangent, adding a collapsibility to level three subheadings, defaulted to uncollapsed, would be pretty nice. Some of those get real long, and it would be convenient to collapse them if I'm editing them one after another.
I remember looking at this some time ago for
User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum and it gave me a bit of a headache. It should be doable server-side, but it's rather suboptimal to try and deal with in a gadget/user script, mostly due to performance. At some point I implemented the options (disabled by default) "Arrow in section headers to scroll to the previous section" and "Arrow in section headers to scroll to the next section" which seemed useful for mobile users. See also the "Customize settings to disable/hide on mobile" option on the mobile tab of the in-gadget settings if you're interested.
I had borrowed the idea from another user script but can't quite remember which one. It was a script with various modules that could be toggled and I think
User:Qwerfjkl used it - that's all I can really remember. It might be worth giving a script that adds such arrows a try. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 21:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You might be happy to know, that things got resolved on their own without me having to report anyone or even keep track of it 😅.
One of the accounts was blocked on the 2nd (
block1]) and the other was blocked ~24 hours ago (
block2).
And yeah, both of them were just sleeper accounts of an older evader - although surprisingly enough the block reason of the main account is undisclosed paid editing not just your general stubborn evader (
original account blocks).
Guess I didn't have to worry about it, the admins were on it anyways. – 2804:F14:80D6:E401:E8B6:1355:28C1:D6AC ( talk) 08:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you for fixing up the uses of {{ SSDI rootsweb}}! 192.76.8.91 ( talk) 17:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
Six years! |
---|
I read our thought last year with interest ;) - how are you now? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Which shouldn't be a red link. Sadly I think she's dead, we corresponded quite a bit and almost met up in London. I haven't heard from her since Dec. 2021. She really needs an article. Her last email was sent to someone else as wel, so I"ve emailed them both. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry, I don't understand what you wrote in the MoS section about linking. The idea to link to a list of a composer's works (which is objective and neutral) instead of individual works (subject to personal preferences) dates back to {{ infobox classical composer}} (2008) and has been followed in many articles, in several of those per RfC (Beethoven, Chopin, Mozart). FYI. Can we agree that the link to a composer's works at a glance, in the many cases that it is not within the biography, is desirable? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but do you know if it would be possible for me to add into the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maida of Aukh these articles: Botur, Ors Ela and Battle of Sadoy-Lam? They suffer from pretty much same issues - unreliable sources and crazy claims with a little bit of forgery. Anyways, thanks for giving your insight on the topic! Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 ( talk) 21:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Anne Caroline Salisbury, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 19:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
— Remsense 聊 02:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to understand three things: 1) should 'Pecorino Romano' be written only with a capital 'R' or also with a capital 'P'? 2) if 'Romano' is capitalised, why is 'Toscano' (' Pecorino toscano') not? 3) could you answer the last question I asked in the help desk? I would need it to continue my work; 4) could you please put 'Pecorino Romano' and 'Pecorino Toscano' in italics in their respective infoboxes, I have tried but I cannot do it. JackkBrown ( talk) 13:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
| name = ''Pecorino Romano''
gives you an italicised title Pecorino Romano. HTH.
Jean-de-Nivelle (
talk) 16:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Contact a helpful administrator and WP:Revdel request. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Folly Mox, I've noticed your previous contributions to the talkpage of the Battle of Kosovo. Currently, there's an ongoing RfC on that page with divergent opinions. I would appreciate it if you could share your perspective, potentially aiding in reaching a consensus among editors. Thank you in advance! --Azor ( talk). 16:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Folly Mox, thank you for reverting the error I made on William Messner-Loebs. This was one of those misclicks where I did not remove the removal of citation titles during the AWB run. Apparently even the Bot did not add those titles back. Anyways this time I've done it correctly. Thanks again for correcting me. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 07:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
|title=
parameter from the initial misclick resulted in broken links with spaces in them. I wasn't really sure what to do, so thanks for understanding the revert ☺️
Folly Mox (
talk) 07:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Hi Folly Mox -- Could I ask you to revisit the above AfD, as Cunard has found a couple of Chinese-language sources that could do with an evaluation by someone who is familiar with the topic area (which I think you are?). Cheers, Espresso Addict ( talk) 17:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Folly Mox, as one of the watchers of the Battle of Red Cliffs page, I must thank you and Remsense for your ongoing efforts to save it from being delisted as a FA! (And please accept my apologies for leaving the page in such a state of disrepair since its nomination - I must admit that my interest in the topic drifted away since.) Regarding your puzzlement on the edit summary here though, [1] I believe I have an answer. The mysterious Wang Li refers to Wang Li (linguist), whose placement of the historic Chibi at Jiayu can be found in 古代漢語 vol. 4, page 1319, though he does not elaborate on how he came to the conclusion (and hence, in my opinion, not worthy of inclusion). Thought you would like to know in any case. Happy editing. _dk ( talk) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Individual activators of Citation bot are limited in their ability to do anything about possible errors the bot makes. In the latest case to which you alerted me, I don't know if the bot will repeat the edit now that you changed the template to conference. It is best to bring these issues to the bot talk page. Abductive ( reasoning) 18:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
|date=
to |year=
; the date parameter is preferred because it is more flexible and just-a-year dates often get "upgraded" to more complete information. Probably around 20% of the citation cleanup I do is improving citation specificity, and incomplete dates (on non-books like journal papers, newspaper articles, and webpages) are a very common factor in that. It's obnoxious that I have to manually change it back to |date=
when it began that way on purpose but the bot futzed it to |year=
for no reason at all (
WP:COSMETICBOT failure and then some, since it's actually reducing functionality and is not purely cosmetic). And thirdly, there is absolutely no purpose in the bot changing consistent |work=
to pointlessly longwinded inconsistent aliases of it like |newspaper=
, |journal=
, |magazine=
, |website=
, etc. But I just don't seem to get anywhere with that bot author/operator. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
|work=
parameter is very commonly misunderstood. I don't like that Citation bot unnecessarily changes it to specific aliases, but I could see how it could help newer editors understand what the parameter is meant to hold. I think I've seen almost every field there now: author, editor, translator, publisher (very common, sometimes an artifact of a translation module), title, chapter, location, and even quote. I can't remember seeing volume, edition, or page, but I've also seen it hold miscellaneous bibliographical information. I use |work=
in my own citations because it is the shortest if its aliases, but its name lends itself to misunderstanding.I do also wish Citation bot would stay away from page numbers, and there's another script which is even worse, reporting the total page count of printed materials (a common bibliographic detail) and including that in the citation template, as if everyone citing a book is citing the final page of the index.On the other hand, it's pretty common for people to leave out page numbers when really they should be including them, and I've often wished that |pages=
could coexist with |page=
or |at=
, so a page range for an article or chapter could be provided while also specifying which exact page is being cited, without resorting to {{
rp}} (which moves specificity out of the template and back into the article body), using |quote-page=
(which requires |quote=
, or moving the full citation into a Sources section and converting references to it into shortened footnotes (which is a wholeass process).
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Saw that you liked Cat communication a lot. If you have general interest on the feline side, WP:WikiProject Cats badly needs active participants. It's kind of unbelievable, given the popularity of cats on the Internet, but the wikiproject is rather moribund, and we get a lot of bad drive-by edits, especially to breed articles and to veterinary ones. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Folly Mox, and thanks for your responses to the squirrely footnote question at the Tea house. Not sure if you're subscribed and have seen the aftermath, and I wanted to introduce you to the concept of the XY problem in case you were unfamiliar with it, as it is a conceptual framework that can be very helpful and save everybody a lot of time at venues like the Tea house, WP:Help desk, and so on.
I started to respond to OP in kind, as you did, because the most natural response to a question is to try to understand what they are asking, and then answer to the best of ones ability, because that seems self-evidently the best approach. But sometimes it isn't, and I ended up in the weeds with a lot of irrelevant nonsense; basically correct, as far as it went, but answering the wrong question and therefore unhelpful and a waste of my time and theirs.
The Eureka moment was reframing, and realizing that the OP had an XY problem and that that really wasn't their question at all. I can't mind-read, but I took a guess and either it was right or close enough, and it looks like they are now on track to something that will likely pan out. Had I thought of that at first, I could've saved myself the pointless analysis I did on their original question. As a Tea house responder, it's worth always asking oneself, "Is this really their question, or is it a subproblem of some possibly convoluted approach they've come up with in an attempt to solve their real issue, and if so, what is the real, underlying question?" Just thought you'd like to know. Mathglot ( talk) 22:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
For going far beyond what I expected in helping me source and cite a single sentence at the Hö'elün FAC. Your efforts are much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
BinaryBrainBug ( talk) 21:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
A month without edits!? Hope you're doing well! Your efforts are much missed here. Aza24 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Folly Mox, I hope this message finds you well and you are able to read it even if unable to respond. I have a few minutes left here today and remembered I hadn't seen you about the project for some time. Perhaps it is my intuition or the connection you spoke of last year, which I completely agree is an apt analogy, but I immediately grew concerned and so you are hearing from me now. I will continue to sing songs over you and trust you are safe, only taking time away, a much needed break. You are an invaluable member of this community and your presence is missed when you are away. From one tributary to another, return swiftly, we have more rivers to form. I still see you and appreciate you. -- ARose Wolf 19:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
|
||
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Per your comment to SchroCat, I noticed a discussion on about a guideline for infoboxes for biographies. I believe the guideline could be short:
The only question might be about what else to put in. - Beethoven - installed by the arb who wrote the infoboxes case as the community consensus - is a good example. - I won't participate in infobox discussions if I can avoid it, so won't go to the discussion, but I felt I had to support the cogent arguments by Voceditenore for Mozart. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
influenced
in the infobox: too many examples, and at that point we're just playing favourites. Notable family members or spouses are nice to have, but if we're just duplicating the first paragraph by removing the sentence structure, what really is the point?My take on the whole thing is that, on Wikipedia, people will argue about anything. Everybody has things that are really meaningful to them, and some people have more hills they're willing to die on than others, but it's honestly a little refreshing to have arguments done properly, where it's clear we're on the same team, just disagreeing on how to improve the project, and people here are thinky types who can read and write! Hope it's as beautiful where you are as it was here today. Perfect day for pressure washing. Be well!
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
my story today |
---|
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Folly Mox,
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. First, thanks for your work on Siege of Yong'an. Sorry I missed your initial ping to me on that AfD. Would you mind taking a look at the above article? It has the same citation issues, and I sent it to draft, but the editor simply moved it back to mainspace. Before I send it to AfD, I thought I might reach out to you first. But let me know if this is a bother, and I won't do it again. We get about 5 of these articles a month over at NPP. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Hate to bother you again, but could you take a look at this one as well? I wish these editors would simply take the time to improve the sourcing themselves. Onel5969 TT me 12:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mandate of Heaven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xunzi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Another one, if you have the time. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spring and Autumn period, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guoyu.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Folly Mox, Just to finish a thought from ANI: I agree with you that a person armed with any decent work of scholarship could fairly easily go through it and add sources to various things. But this is not how the "add sources" task is structured: instead, it presents new editors with a bunch of things tagged for not having sources, and asks them to find sources. In my opinion, this format favors much less promising approaches like the one I described. (And in my experience fixing something tagged as unsourced is often not really about finding a source, but rather about dealing with a content issue like OR or SYNTH.) Anyhow, it is not the most important thing in the world, & I am happy to agree to disagree about it (having now satisfied my compulsion to write one last thing on the topic). Happy editing, JBL ( talk) 17:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chinese noble titles in the imperial period, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 21:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Folly Mox, When creating redirects, please check that the target article actually mentions the redirect term somewhere, as its absence can be confusing to the reader, particularly if it is a foreign language term. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
This is awesome. Thank you so much for giving me something to laugh about. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) |
Hi again. Here's another one, if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 16:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
I can't thank you enough for your tireless efforts to repair citations damaged by ReferenceExpander, and how far above and beyond you've gone to identify issues with the script and explain them in a way that is both easily understandable and considerate toward the script's author. — SamX [ talk · contribs] 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC) |
While I'm here, I'd like to note that I'm thinking about going through everyone whose common.js is listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander.js and posting a boilerplate message on their talk pages alerting them of the script's issues. I'm thinking of directing them to your summary of the script's issues on the MFD page using the {{ noping}} template, but I wanted to run that by you first.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Toll roads in Great Britain, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 04:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
your username Iljhgtn ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Wright brothers, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 21:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
title=
parameter while deleting a bunch of other nonsense.
Folly Mox (
talk) 23:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Hello Folly Mox - in this discussion where you said "Feel free to nuke the refs and we'll deal with it post facto," I was curious about what you found for cleaning up content and sources after the GreenC bot nuked the blacklisted source.
Do you feel it's best to manually remove a blacklisted source (tedious if from hundreds of articles) or deal with sentences having no source after the bot's action?
Do you have any thoughts about whether a nuking bot could add a [citation needed] tag? This would seem to be a common need once blacklisted sources are removed, so may need some Village Pump discussion, for which I could offer a proposal, if you think it's warranted.
Following you here. Thanks. Zefr ( talk) 16:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
hey there, i hope you don't mind this unsolicited message, and i know this isn't necessarily your wheelhouse, but earlier this year i spent a lot of time making a new SVG graphic to replace , but I lost interest after filling it out to a considerable degree. what do you think, if you're inclined to take a look? https://ianremsen.nand.sh/中华/dynasties/ i would alter it considerably more before uploading it to wikimedia, but i'm curious if it's seen largely as useful/viable Remsense ( talk) 23:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I hope your day is better than yesterday.:) S0091 ( talk) 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar | |
For your tireless efforts mopping up after RefExpander, your thoughtful contributions in a wide range of discussions, and your kindness to other editors. Thank you for all that you do! Beccaynr ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
Please, can you also help me to translate from Chinese these Mongols: zh:董狐狸, zh:长秃, zh:长昂? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.96.50 ( talk) 08:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know whether to be upset or amused by this edit summary :-). JBL ( talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Just to check -- are the sections tagged 'uncited' here actually uncited or is the family section in particular using genrefs that haven't been put inline? Have ran into this before, which you corrected :) The page is OTD-eligible if those sections are either removed or cited (well, the length tag...but my opinions of those, for this length range and especially for articles with length from "many sections" rather than "giant section", are on the record), so I'm looking at it with an eye to getting it on the currently partially-but-not-fully-swapped Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 7. Vaticidal prophet 19:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
==In fiction==
. I also undid a lot of 2022 GOCE work by resorting the alphabetic and numeric footnotes into a more standard split, improved some translations, did a bunch of other citation nonsense, and wailed in my heart to the unknowable cosmic mechanism. I believe the article is salvageable, with what music industry copywriters refer to as "deep cuts", by which I mean significant reduction in detail.I have some more source stuff to do
there, but the blockers should be resolved. Let me know if there's anything else I can do.
Folly Mox (
talk) 10:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
==Biography==
and ==Controversy==
. The main organisational problem with the article at present is how much detail there is in the Sima Yi article where there are existing subarticles (like
Incident at Gaoping Tombs,
Sima Yi's Liaodong campaign,
Battle of Wuzhang Plains, etc.) The main Sima Yi article appears to have been subject of copypaste from some of the subarticles, which I noticed when I ran into two sources defined only by author and page number, which had full citations in the subarticles. I'm not sure I have it in me to do the necessary summarising in the main article and citation cleanup in the subarticles at present.I'm not surprised at the difficulty getting early non-Western articles to OTD, given the differences in calendar and less rigorous timekeeping. The Three Kingdoms period is fairly well developed due to its modern popularity, but for me it's more a space I get dragged back into Corleone style than a space that calls me itself. A lot of the biographies are (unsurprisingly, since they were the organisational schema for most historical texts) relatively well-develoloped, but typically endure a non-standard citation style involving direct source quotes cited to an entire book or volume, which is more than adequate for topic area specialists but less so for the general reader. This citation style seems to have been pioneered around 2014, and spread via fait accompli to newer editors working on different time periods, but has received pushback from NPP in particular, which can be seen at threads above on this usertalk page.Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for good enough articles (I've never participated or lurked at DYK) that have strongly supported calendar dates, all of which will be the accession or death of self-important blowhards Replied at Talk:Han dynasty. Folly Mox ( talk) 19:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for answering questions while I was away. It was quite unexpected but I tell you more about that in my email response. For now I'm going to log off and get some much needed rest in my own bed for change. I wanted to log on to let you know I read the email and I think it was sweet of you to check in on me and were thinking of the impact on new editors. I appreciate all you do on the project. -- ARose Wolf 18:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
While we're on this tangent, adding a collapsibility to level three subheadings, defaulted to uncollapsed, would be pretty nice. Some of those get real long, and it would be convenient to collapse them if I'm editing them one after another.
I remember looking at this some time ago for
User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum and it gave me a bit of a headache. It should be doable server-side, but it's rather suboptimal to try and deal with in a gadget/user script, mostly due to performance. At some point I implemented the options (disabled by default) "Arrow in section headers to scroll to the previous section" and "Arrow in section headers to scroll to the next section" which seemed useful for mobile users. See also the "Customize settings to disable/hide on mobile" option on the mobile tab of the in-gadget settings if you're interested.
I had borrowed the idea from another user script but can't quite remember which one. It was a script with various modules that could be toggled and I think
User:Qwerfjkl used it - that's all I can really remember. It might be worth giving a script that adds such arrows a try. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 21:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You might be happy to know, that things got resolved on their own without me having to report anyone or even keep track of it 😅.
One of the accounts was blocked on the 2nd (
block1]) and the other was blocked ~24 hours ago (
block2).
And yeah, both of them were just sleeper accounts of an older evader - although surprisingly enough the block reason of the main account is undisclosed paid editing not just your general stubborn evader (
original account blocks).
Guess I didn't have to worry about it, the admins were on it anyways. – 2804:F14:80D6:E401:E8B6:1355:28C1:D6AC ( talk) 08:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you for fixing up the uses of {{ SSDI rootsweb}}! 192.76.8.91 ( talk) 17:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
Six years! |
---|
I read our thought last year with interest ;) - how are you now? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Which shouldn't be a red link. Sadly I think she's dead, we corresponded quite a bit and almost met up in London. I haven't heard from her since Dec. 2021. She really needs an article. Her last email was sent to someone else as wel, so I"ve emailed them both. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry, I don't understand what you wrote in the MoS section about linking. The idea to link to a list of a composer's works (which is objective and neutral) instead of individual works (subject to personal preferences) dates back to {{ infobox classical composer}} (2008) and has been followed in many articles, in several of those per RfC (Beethoven, Chopin, Mozart). FYI. Can we agree that the link to a composer's works at a glance, in the many cases that it is not within the biography, is desirable? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but do you know if it would be possible for me to add into the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maida of Aukh these articles: Botur, Ors Ela and Battle of Sadoy-Lam? They suffer from pretty much same issues - unreliable sources and crazy claims with a little bit of forgery. Anyways, thanks for giving your insight on the topic! Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 ( talk) 21:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Anne Caroline Salisbury, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 19:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
— Remsense 聊 02:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to understand three things: 1) should 'Pecorino Romano' be written only with a capital 'R' or also with a capital 'P'? 2) if 'Romano' is capitalised, why is 'Toscano' (' Pecorino toscano') not? 3) could you answer the last question I asked in the help desk? I would need it to continue my work; 4) could you please put 'Pecorino Romano' and 'Pecorino Toscano' in italics in their respective infoboxes, I have tried but I cannot do it. JackkBrown ( talk) 13:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
| name = ''Pecorino Romano''
gives you an italicised title Pecorino Romano. HTH.
Jean-de-Nivelle (
talk) 16:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Contact a helpful administrator and WP:Revdel request. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Folly Mox, I've noticed your previous contributions to the talkpage of the Battle of Kosovo. Currently, there's an ongoing RfC on that page with divergent opinions. I would appreciate it if you could share your perspective, potentially aiding in reaching a consensus among editors. Thank you in advance! --Azor ( talk). 16:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Folly Mox, thank you for reverting the error I made on William Messner-Loebs. This was one of those misclicks where I did not remove the removal of citation titles during the AWB run. Apparently even the Bot did not add those titles back. Anyways this time I've done it correctly. Thanks again for correcting me. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 07:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
|title=
parameter from the initial misclick resulted in broken links with spaces in them. I wasn't really sure what to do, so thanks for understanding the revert ☺️
Folly Mox (
talk) 07:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Hi Folly Mox -- Could I ask you to revisit the above AfD, as Cunard has found a couple of Chinese-language sources that could do with an evaluation by someone who is familiar with the topic area (which I think you are?). Cheers, Espresso Addict ( talk) 17:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Folly Mox, as one of the watchers of the Battle of Red Cliffs page, I must thank you and Remsense for your ongoing efforts to save it from being delisted as a FA! (And please accept my apologies for leaving the page in such a state of disrepair since its nomination - I must admit that my interest in the topic drifted away since.) Regarding your puzzlement on the edit summary here though, [1] I believe I have an answer. The mysterious Wang Li refers to Wang Li (linguist), whose placement of the historic Chibi at Jiayu can be found in 古代漢語 vol. 4, page 1319, though he does not elaborate on how he came to the conclusion (and hence, in my opinion, not worthy of inclusion). Thought you would like to know in any case. Happy editing. _dk ( talk) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Individual activators of Citation bot are limited in their ability to do anything about possible errors the bot makes. In the latest case to which you alerted me, I don't know if the bot will repeat the edit now that you changed the template to conference. It is best to bring these issues to the bot talk page. Abductive ( reasoning) 18:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
|date=
to |year=
; the date parameter is preferred because it is more flexible and just-a-year dates often get "upgraded" to more complete information. Probably around 20% of the citation cleanup I do is improving citation specificity, and incomplete dates (on non-books like journal papers, newspaper articles, and webpages) are a very common factor in that. It's obnoxious that I have to manually change it back to |date=
when it began that way on purpose but the bot futzed it to |year=
for no reason at all (
WP:COSMETICBOT failure and then some, since it's actually reducing functionality and is not purely cosmetic). And thirdly, there is absolutely no purpose in the bot changing consistent |work=
to pointlessly longwinded inconsistent aliases of it like |newspaper=
, |journal=
, |magazine=
, |website=
, etc. But I just don't seem to get anywhere with that bot author/operator. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
|work=
parameter is very commonly misunderstood. I don't like that Citation bot unnecessarily changes it to specific aliases, but I could see how it could help newer editors understand what the parameter is meant to hold. I think I've seen almost every field there now: author, editor, translator, publisher (very common, sometimes an artifact of a translation module), title, chapter, location, and even quote. I can't remember seeing volume, edition, or page, but I've also seen it hold miscellaneous bibliographical information. I use |work=
in my own citations because it is the shortest if its aliases, but its name lends itself to misunderstanding.I do also wish Citation bot would stay away from page numbers, and there's another script which is even worse, reporting the total page count of printed materials (a common bibliographic detail) and including that in the citation template, as if everyone citing a book is citing the final page of the index.On the other hand, it's pretty common for people to leave out page numbers when really they should be including them, and I've often wished that |pages=
could coexist with |page=
or |at=
, so a page range for an article or chapter could be provided while also specifying which exact page is being cited, without resorting to {{
rp}} (which moves specificity out of the template and back into the article body), using |quote-page=
(which requires |quote=
, or moving the full citation into a Sources section and converting references to it into shortened footnotes (which is a wholeass process).
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Saw that you liked Cat communication a lot. If you have general interest on the feline side, WP:WikiProject Cats badly needs active participants. It's kind of unbelievable, given the popularity of cats on the Internet, but the wikiproject is rather moribund, and we get a lot of bad drive-by edits, especially to breed articles and to veterinary ones. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Folly Mox, and thanks for your responses to the squirrely footnote question at the Tea house. Not sure if you're subscribed and have seen the aftermath, and I wanted to introduce you to the concept of the XY problem in case you were unfamiliar with it, as it is a conceptual framework that can be very helpful and save everybody a lot of time at venues like the Tea house, WP:Help desk, and so on.
I started to respond to OP in kind, as you did, because the most natural response to a question is to try to understand what they are asking, and then answer to the best of ones ability, because that seems self-evidently the best approach. But sometimes it isn't, and I ended up in the weeds with a lot of irrelevant nonsense; basically correct, as far as it went, but answering the wrong question and therefore unhelpful and a waste of my time and theirs.
The Eureka moment was reframing, and realizing that the OP had an XY problem and that that really wasn't their question at all. I can't mind-read, but I took a guess and either it was right or close enough, and it looks like they are now on track to something that will likely pan out. Had I thought of that at first, I could've saved myself the pointless analysis I did on their original question. As a Tea house responder, it's worth always asking oneself, "Is this really their question, or is it a subproblem of some possibly convoluted approach they've come up with in an attempt to solve their real issue, and if so, what is the real, underlying question?" Just thought you'd like to know. Mathglot ( talk) 22:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
For going far beyond what I expected in helping me source and cite a single sentence at the Hö'elün FAC. Your efforts are much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
BinaryBrainBug ( talk) 21:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
A month without edits!? Hope you're doing well! Your efforts are much missed here. Aza24 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Folly Mox, I hope this message finds you well and you are able to read it even if unable to respond. I have a few minutes left here today and remembered I hadn't seen you about the project for some time. Perhaps it is my intuition or the connection you spoke of last year, which I completely agree is an apt analogy, but I immediately grew concerned and so you are hearing from me now. I will continue to sing songs over you and trust you are safe, only taking time away, a much needed break. You are an invaluable member of this community and your presence is missed when you are away. From one tributary to another, return swiftly, we have more rivers to form. I still see you and appreciate you. -- ARose Wolf 19:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.