This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 00:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Would you reconsider this closure? In a week, it only received two comments. I was expecting at least one re-list. Early !votes can sometimes be from editors with some connection/affinity to the article. Relisting often elicits more neutral !votes. Thanks. MB 14:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
internal
. API modules marked as internal were probably internal before. It was easier to miss. You should look for non-internal alternatives.
[1]Problems
Changes later this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete the Ranjini (singer) page? Ranjinisinger ( talk) 08:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jo-Jo_Eumerus See also: Wikipedia:Closing discussions Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
I believe you've made a mistake in determining consensus at DRV and I am questioning your consensus determination judgement at:
( Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_October_11#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love):
Pretty clear here that the sources haven't convinced anyone to modify the AFD close, mostly due to e.g concerns that there is not enough substance in the mentioned sources.
Allow me to remind you that rejecting apparent Reliable Sources are criteria for WP:TE.
Which source(s) is being rejected?
Which DRV argument is being given merit? What was the policy being relied upon to make the merit determination? Sorry for my language here (no disrespect to you) but the assertion that there is not enough substance mentioned in the sources is literally horseshit and on top of that pile, the assertion has zero basis in WP policy. The observation was discussed with with the editor that made the claim right here, and was completely debunked. I also asked him not to Lie. That conversation was linked at DRV.
Now, which of these sources did you determine had local consensus that none had enough substantive content on the subject? * User:Johnvr4/sandbox52#Temporary_citation_LONGQUOTES
Last, not one single editor claimed that another draft could not be written with these very sources however a bogus community determination that these sources don't have enough content would preclude any new draft that uses them.
Please clarify your reasoning and the policy basis for the specific argument(s) that you determined had merit. Johnvr4 ( talk) 15:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
ill-considered accusations of impropriety, since you are being very keen on making thinly grounded accusations, here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Jo-Jo Eumerus: (and other participants in previous discussion) and myself were stuck in a content/policy dilemma that were were trying to solve. Jo-Jo Eumerus asked for a self-review at AN. The AN was opened for approx 1.5 hours. The AN was closed between the time I thanked Jo-Jo Eumerus for opening the AN above and the posting of my message. Other involved editors commented. As I posted my reply in the AN, there was a message about an edit conflict. I backed up and found the AN closed so I was unable to post the response. I left a message on the talk page but he would simply not allow my comment under any circumstance User_talk:Ymblanter#Premature_AN_closure. The AN has not alleviated the concern and there is still an impasse re: closure policy.
I dispute your assessment at AN that my "arguments mostly rely on throwing links to various policies/guidelines/essays that mostly don't apply at all to the situation or at least don't refute the concerns about the sourcing raised in the deletion review." Therefore, My comment is here.
I felt the Jo-Jo Eumerus' comment did not remotely capture my side of the dispute and the premature closure only prevented us from resolving our policy vs content issue. My intended message at AN was (or would have been if it had not been repeatedly deleted) was simply to clarify the actual issue being reviewed at AN and to urge policy adherence. The intended edit at AN:
I am the involved editor and am hereby requesting that all follow established WP guidelines and polices. Wikipedia:Closing discussions DRV closure concerns, WP:Notability (events) for GNG concerns, and WP:CONTN, WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST for Content concerns.
It appears Hut 8.5's vote was given undue weight at DRV. I'm not sure why he is making a claim about carrying on arguing given it is his (and others) inability or utter refusal to answer direct questions. The ambiguity of such absurd complaints requires further discussion--ad nauseum because my very simple questions are never answered! The refusal to answer direct questions, from user:Bearcat (the AfD Nom at Rdu), to user:Hut 8.5 to user:Jo-Jo Eumerus: is the thing preventing me (or any other editor) from moving forward with a new draft. As shown here:
I feel that I have asked legitimate questions about the interpretation of the WP discussion closing policy in relation to the recent DRV closure made. No answers have been provided to my questions that do not violate other policies. It pretty clear that no one is even reading the reason we are here at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Orlando Summer of Love DRV closure Comment. Adherence to WP policy is hopeless with WP:SQS How does one write a new draft if it is alleged that reliable sources don't offer non-trival, indepth coverage?? One cannot have it both ways here: That someone says, "a new draft could be written on the subject (with these sources)..." in the same breath that, ..."these sources have no substantial coverage of the subject", fails all logic.
In response to no rebuttal offered claims at DRV, there were new sources offered. In fact, Four of them made that comparison to counter an entirely bogus JustMadeup claim and associated delete votes at AfD.--end intended comment at AN
I would greatly appreciate answers to my previously asked questions--and those of my attempted comment at AN. If these issues had been resolved in any of the previously mentioned forums or discussions, then these questions would be unnecessary.
Please keep in mind my intent for this article was a completely hands off approach for several years as shown on my talk page and in this diff Assertions to the contrary are devoid of fact and untrue. Every single accusation about my intent and this article was a hopeless misstatement of facts at AFD, RDU, DRV, talk pages, AN, etc. etc and in some cases, apparently purposeful. I still need you to please direct me to the WP policy that requires GNG for WP:N(E) to be proven in content prose rather than sources. In addition, kindly direct me to the WP policy that a WP:N(E) GNG test must be determined by only WP:THREE sources. That is what I need to move on. Johnvr4 ( talk) 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what happened, but when I sent Counter-Measures (audio drama) to AfD, it appeared to create 2 discussions simultaneously, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Measures (audio drama) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Measures (audio drama) (2nd nomination). If you look the time stamps, they were both created simultaneously. In all the years I've been on WP, I've never seen this happen before. I went through today's list in case there was some glitch and it was happening to every new entry, but it only appears to have happened with my entry. I would have simply closed the first, and added the one comment there to the 2nd nom, but did't know if that would be violating some procedural matter. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivegam (soundtrack) as merge. Are you planning to merge this yourself? Thanks, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
As you are the closing admin of the deletion discussion, I would like to request for the Casey Mongillo article to be salted, as some SPAs are hellbent on recreating the article without following our policies and guidelines. They are also canvassed by VAs on Twitter to do it. Please also indef the the recreator, as they are obviously an SPA that does not seem to be interested in the rest of the project other than to "defend" VAs. Their list of contributions are also highly disruptive, and they are likely to repeat the same behavior again. -- Sk8erPrince ( talk) 05:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
px
(pixels) instead of em
(
em) for some specific cases.
[6]
[7]Changes later this week
Meetings
Future changes
wg*
to mw.config
. The old global variables will be removed later this year. You can
know more about it and tell the developers if you want to try this out on your wiki first.Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
ouch! maybe I won't do that again. soibangla ( talk) 23:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleotempestology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Coast ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey Jo-Jo! Hope you're doing well. I wanted to quickly swing by with a question on the AfD closure for the Casey Mongillo article. I was looking at the NGE page earlier this evening and was surprised to find that the article had existed, but ended up deleted. Taking a look at the discussion, there appeared to be a rather fractious debate about the reliability of the sources and whether there was enough there to justify an article. There did appear to be consensus, however, that the actress performed key roles in the dubs of several notable anime titles. Looking at other articles in this space, while the sourcing can certainly be improved, there is a precedent for dub actor notability to be based on the volume and high-profile status of their dubs. As an example, it'd be good to take a look at Bryce Papenbrook or Erik Scott Kimerer. Nearly all sources are Twitter posts or press releases announcing his involvement in a dub, but it'd be rather silly to say he's not a notable actor in this space. Taking that into consideration, the roles Casey Mongillo has played seem fairly easy to fit in the WP:GNG criteria. At worst, my instincts are to say this was closer to "No Consensus," with a recommendation to clean the article up of the non-independent sources.
Let me know what you think! I'd rather not open a Deletion Review since it seemed like a bit of a mess the first round, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Best, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 07:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that 1257 Samalas eruption has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 25 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@ WP:TFA coordinators What is the conclusion? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Changes later this week
MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry
can set the default length to block a user for your wiki. You will be able to use MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip
to set a different default block length for IP editors.
[10]Meetings
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The article Blue-ice area you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blue-ice area for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal ( talk) 07:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly not when it's requested by a sockpuppet. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Since my brother Oon835 is still currently blocked. The good news is he allowed me to take over all his draft pages and sandboxes. Can you remove all the semi-protect from his pages so I can take good care of it.
|
Updates associated with DannyS712's Global watchlist script:
en.wikiversity
exists, and so is valid, but sco.wikiversity
is not valid, because no such wiki exists).entirewatchlist
API option, rather than manually listing the titles. This is being done to simplify the implementation code. This will result in the same functionality as marking all pages as seen via
Special:Watchlist (i.e. even if the page isn't visible due to your filter choices, it will still be marked as seen). If you would like to keep using the current method for a while, please switch to the stable branch.Version 5.0 has just gone live. It includes the new features mentioned above.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates, see the distribution list.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 22:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Technical Psychotronics. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Archibald751 ( talk) 03:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andagua volcanic field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puna ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 00:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Would you reconsider this closure? In a week, it only received two comments. I was expecting at least one re-list. Early !votes can sometimes be from editors with some connection/affinity to the article. Relisting often elicits more neutral !votes. Thanks. MB 14:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
internal
. API modules marked as internal were probably internal before. It was easier to miss. You should look for non-internal alternatives.
[1]Problems
Changes later this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete the Ranjini (singer) page? Ranjinisinger ( talk) 08:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jo-Jo_Eumerus See also: Wikipedia:Closing discussions Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
I believe you've made a mistake in determining consensus at DRV and I am questioning your consensus determination judgement at:
( Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_October_11#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love):
Pretty clear here that the sources haven't convinced anyone to modify the AFD close, mostly due to e.g concerns that there is not enough substance in the mentioned sources.
Allow me to remind you that rejecting apparent Reliable Sources are criteria for WP:TE.
Which source(s) is being rejected?
Which DRV argument is being given merit? What was the policy being relied upon to make the merit determination? Sorry for my language here (no disrespect to you) but the assertion that there is not enough substance mentioned in the sources is literally horseshit and on top of that pile, the assertion has zero basis in WP policy. The observation was discussed with with the editor that made the claim right here, and was completely debunked. I also asked him not to Lie. That conversation was linked at DRV.
Now, which of these sources did you determine had local consensus that none had enough substantive content on the subject? * User:Johnvr4/sandbox52#Temporary_citation_LONGQUOTES
Last, not one single editor claimed that another draft could not be written with these very sources however a bogus community determination that these sources don't have enough content would preclude any new draft that uses them.
Please clarify your reasoning and the policy basis for the specific argument(s) that you determined had merit. Johnvr4 ( talk) 15:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
ill-considered accusations of impropriety, since you are being very keen on making thinly grounded accusations, here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Jo-Jo Eumerus: (and other participants in previous discussion) and myself were stuck in a content/policy dilemma that were were trying to solve. Jo-Jo Eumerus asked for a self-review at AN. The AN was opened for approx 1.5 hours. The AN was closed between the time I thanked Jo-Jo Eumerus for opening the AN above and the posting of my message. Other involved editors commented. As I posted my reply in the AN, there was a message about an edit conflict. I backed up and found the AN closed so I was unable to post the response. I left a message on the talk page but he would simply not allow my comment under any circumstance User_talk:Ymblanter#Premature_AN_closure. The AN has not alleviated the concern and there is still an impasse re: closure policy.
I dispute your assessment at AN that my "arguments mostly rely on throwing links to various policies/guidelines/essays that mostly don't apply at all to the situation or at least don't refute the concerns about the sourcing raised in the deletion review." Therefore, My comment is here.
I felt the Jo-Jo Eumerus' comment did not remotely capture my side of the dispute and the premature closure only prevented us from resolving our policy vs content issue. My intended message at AN was (or would have been if it had not been repeatedly deleted) was simply to clarify the actual issue being reviewed at AN and to urge policy adherence. The intended edit at AN:
I am the involved editor and am hereby requesting that all follow established WP guidelines and polices. Wikipedia:Closing discussions DRV closure concerns, WP:Notability (events) for GNG concerns, and WP:CONTN, WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST for Content concerns.
It appears Hut 8.5's vote was given undue weight at DRV. I'm not sure why he is making a claim about carrying on arguing given it is his (and others) inability or utter refusal to answer direct questions. The ambiguity of such absurd complaints requires further discussion--ad nauseum because my very simple questions are never answered! The refusal to answer direct questions, from user:Bearcat (the AfD Nom at Rdu), to user:Hut 8.5 to user:Jo-Jo Eumerus: is the thing preventing me (or any other editor) from moving forward with a new draft. As shown here:
I feel that I have asked legitimate questions about the interpretation of the WP discussion closing policy in relation to the recent DRV closure made. No answers have been provided to my questions that do not violate other policies. It pretty clear that no one is even reading the reason we are here at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Orlando Summer of Love DRV closure Comment. Adherence to WP policy is hopeless with WP:SQS How does one write a new draft if it is alleged that reliable sources don't offer non-trival, indepth coverage?? One cannot have it both ways here: That someone says, "a new draft could be written on the subject (with these sources)..." in the same breath that, ..."these sources have no substantial coverage of the subject", fails all logic.
In response to no rebuttal offered claims at DRV, there were new sources offered. In fact, Four of them made that comparison to counter an entirely bogus JustMadeup claim and associated delete votes at AfD.--end intended comment at AN
I would greatly appreciate answers to my previously asked questions--and those of my attempted comment at AN. If these issues had been resolved in any of the previously mentioned forums or discussions, then these questions would be unnecessary.
Please keep in mind my intent for this article was a completely hands off approach for several years as shown on my talk page and in this diff Assertions to the contrary are devoid of fact and untrue. Every single accusation about my intent and this article was a hopeless misstatement of facts at AFD, RDU, DRV, talk pages, AN, etc. etc and in some cases, apparently purposeful. I still need you to please direct me to the WP policy that requires GNG for WP:N(E) to be proven in content prose rather than sources. In addition, kindly direct me to the WP policy that a WP:N(E) GNG test must be determined by only WP:THREE sources. That is what I need to move on. Johnvr4 ( talk) 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what happened, but when I sent Counter-Measures (audio drama) to AfD, it appeared to create 2 discussions simultaneously, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Measures (audio drama) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Measures (audio drama) (2nd nomination). If you look the time stamps, they were both created simultaneously. In all the years I've been on WP, I've never seen this happen before. I went through today's list in case there was some glitch and it was happening to every new entry, but it only appears to have happened with my entry. I would have simply closed the first, and added the one comment there to the 2nd nom, but did't know if that would be violating some procedural matter. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivegam (soundtrack) as merge. Are you planning to merge this yourself? Thanks, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
As you are the closing admin of the deletion discussion, I would like to request for the Casey Mongillo article to be salted, as some SPAs are hellbent on recreating the article without following our policies and guidelines. They are also canvassed by VAs on Twitter to do it. Please also indef the the recreator, as they are obviously an SPA that does not seem to be interested in the rest of the project other than to "defend" VAs. Their list of contributions are also highly disruptive, and they are likely to repeat the same behavior again. -- Sk8erPrince ( talk) 05:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
px
(pixels) instead of em
(
em) for some specific cases.
[6]
[7]Changes later this week
Meetings
Future changes
wg*
to mw.config
. The old global variables will be removed later this year. You can
know more about it and tell the developers if you want to try this out on your wiki first.Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
ouch! maybe I won't do that again. soibangla ( talk) 23:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleotempestology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Coast ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey Jo-Jo! Hope you're doing well. I wanted to quickly swing by with a question on the AfD closure for the Casey Mongillo article. I was looking at the NGE page earlier this evening and was surprised to find that the article had existed, but ended up deleted. Taking a look at the discussion, there appeared to be a rather fractious debate about the reliability of the sources and whether there was enough there to justify an article. There did appear to be consensus, however, that the actress performed key roles in the dubs of several notable anime titles. Looking at other articles in this space, while the sourcing can certainly be improved, there is a precedent for dub actor notability to be based on the volume and high-profile status of their dubs. As an example, it'd be good to take a look at Bryce Papenbrook or Erik Scott Kimerer. Nearly all sources are Twitter posts or press releases announcing his involvement in a dub, but it'd be rather silly to say he's not a notable actor in this space. Taking that into consideration, the roles Casey Mongillo has played seem fairly easy to fit in the WP:GNG criteria. At worst, my instincts are to say this was closer to "No Consensus," with a recommendation to clean the article up of the non-independent sources.
Let me know what you think! I'd rather not open a Deletion Review since it seemed like a bit of a mess the first round, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Best, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 07:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that 1257 Samalas eruption has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 25 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@ WP:TFA coordinators What is the conclusion? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Changes later this week
MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry
can set the default length to block a user for your wiki. You will be able to use MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip
to set a different default block length for IP editors.
[10]Meetings
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The article Blue-ice area you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blue-ice area for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal ( talk) 07:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly not when it's requested by a sockpuppet. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Since my brother Oon835 is still currently blocked. The good news is he allowed me to take over all his draft pages and sandboxes. Can you remove all the semi-protect from his pages so I can take good care of it.
|
Updates associated with DannyS712's Global watchlist script:
en.wikiversity
exists, and so is valid, but sco.wikiversity
is not valid, because no such wiki exists).entirewatchlist
API option, rather than manually listing the titles. This is being done to simplify the implementation code. This will result in the same functionality as marking all pages as seen via
Special:Watchlist (i.e. even if the page isn't visible due to your filter choices, it will still be marked as seen). If you would like to keep using the current method for a while, please switch to the stable branch.Version 5.0 has just gone live. It includes the new features mentioned above.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates, see the distribution list.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 22:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Technical Psychotronics. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Archibald751 ( talk) 03:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andagua volcanic field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puna ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)