User talk:Golden/Archive 4

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk

The article Fresh Wind. Volga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fresh Wind. Volga for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey man, Being vandalised isnt cool, and Im proud of you for reporting it properly and getting the situation resolved. People can be jerks sometimes, but dont let that get to ya. :) PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Golden, I saw that you rewrote the Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan article which was quite well done, so I was wondering if you'd be interested in rewriting the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and possibly the First Republic of Armenia articles as well? Cheers -

@

Nunuxxx: Sure, I'd love that. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

13:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can do it on my sandbox and discuss it on its talk page. Cheers -

𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘

13:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The article

Hello. I do not really understand these "rv" things . And may i know why was I banned? Are you Azerbaijani btw? Blaxoul (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaxoul: I don't think anyone implied you were a sockpuppet. believe you're referring to this edit with the edit summary "Restored revision 1088136192 by Blaxoul (talk): Rv banned sock". That was simply a restoration of your edit, not a revert of your edit. The "banned sock" part refers to the edits that came after yours, which were made by a now-banned sockpuppet account, not to you. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh,okay.Thanks for clarification.🙂 Blaxoul (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

On 18 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article They Did Not Expect Him, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ilya Repin changed the main character in his painting They Did Not Expect Him (pictured) from a woman because it looked too similar to another painting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/They Did Not Expect Him. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, They Did Not Expect Him), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,111 views (1,009.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

On 22 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fresh Wind. Volga, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it took Isaac Levitan four years to paint Fresh Wind. Volga? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fresh Wind. Volga. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fresh Wind. Volga), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,930 views (494.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

On 24 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Habibi (poet), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the poet Habibi was adopted by Aq Qoyunlu ruler Ya'qub Beg as a child after he was found shepherding? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Habibi (poet). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Habibi (poet)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk

The article Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk

The article

The article Evening Bells (painting) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Evening Bells (painting) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

On 12 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Evening Bells (painting), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Isaac Levitan was inspired to paint Evening Bells (pictured) when he came across a small monastery in a remote village? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Evening Bells (painting). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Evening Bells (painting)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

On 12 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the adoption of the Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan made the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic the first successful republic in the Muslim world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have requested help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. SL93 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Good evening, Golden. After you reverted my edit in Azerbaijan article, shall I remind you what BRD is not?

• BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
• BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by
  common sense
  , the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.

My edit was neither vandalism, nore against common sense or policy and was in good faith, to reflect the terminology used in Artsakh article itself, so why did you revert it (even if you disagreed with it), instead of discussing? In view of your previous history of disregarding Wikipedia policies, I will have a low threshold for reporting this, unless sensible explanation is provided and an apology is offered. See further discussion about the content itself here: Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 3#"Self proclaimed" vs "breakaway"

Kind regards, --Armatura (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't cited BRD as the reason for my revert, so I fail to see the relevance of citing it here. You changed long-standing terminology in a contentious topic area without any prior discussion, and you did not expect to be reverted? Sorry, but if the roles were reversed I would rightly be asked to have discussed the changes before-hand. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what WP policy are you citing for 1) reverting me and 2) not discussing your revert? --Armatura (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

1)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS; 2) I am discussing this revert right here with you. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

17:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Care to elaborate? Which bit of that policy you are referring to? Specifically, where in that policy it says "if someone changes a long-standing terminology in a contentious topic area without prior discussion, reverting should be your primary method of operation"?

2) If you reverted and opened a talk page discussion, I would've counted it as

WP:BOLD good faith edit with a comment that consisted of two parts: A) - "it's not loaded" (while WP:JUSTLIKEIT kind of argument is not an argument and "self-proclaimed" has negative connotation) and B) "it's the most commonly used word" (wrong information about which I can assume good faith, if you care to participate in the relevant content discussion I pinged you to

).

3) Why did you choose to ignore the

WP:DONTREVERT policy which says that For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. and that Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. Kind regards, --Armatura (talk

) 20:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@

☖

03:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message,

WP:AGF towards the user they are trying to "educate", and so on. I could add more if you'd like, but this is enough for me to refuse your mediation services. Thank you for your time and good-faith effort, though. There are plenty of recognised neutral mechanisms such as DRN, or requesting a third opinion, or an uninvolved admin's opinion, and I am sorry to see that all these options have been bypassed to summon a specific "mentor" "to assist". --Armatura (talk

) 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@

☖

19:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this conversation is falling below any acceptable standards, by any wiki or non-wiki measures. It stopped being constructive the moment it started focusing on person instead of content, and when emotions took over neutral reasoning. Have a good day. --Armatura (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You are on a user talk page. That's where you focus on the people and not the content. Article talk pages are for article discussion; user talk pages are for user discussion.
Regardless, if that's the note you want to end on, then that's fine.
@Golden: please let me know if you have any further difficulties with Mr. Armatura. If I see anything you've done wrong on your end, you'll hear from me as always. –

☖

23:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Artem.G -- Artem.G (talk

The article The Great Wave off Kanagawa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Great Wave off Kanagawa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Artem.G -- Artem.G (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

On 18 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article In the Ploughed Field: Spring, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the character of the mother in the painting In the Ploughed Field: Spring is believed to personify Spring? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/In the ploughed field. Spring. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, In the Ploughed Field: Spring), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The article Flag of Azerbaijan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flag of Azerbaijan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

		The Azerbaijan Barnstar of National Merit
		For the time and effort you have put in towards promoting Flag of Azerbaijan, Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan and Mirza Shafi Vazeh to good article status, and improving several other articles such as Azerbaijan. — The Most Comfortable Chair 14:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Most Comfortable Chair: Thank you; I appreciate it. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are being given a formal warning that your actions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area have been disruptive as per this report, and that the next minor infraction will result in a topic ban, block or both, likely without the benefit of an AE report. This warning is a type of sanction, and will be logged in the AE logs.

You have been sanctioned due to the evidence presented at this AE report.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢

21:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Golden. I'm making a different thread (similar to above) because I find your recent revert in Zangilan quite problematic for a number of reasons.

First, you didn't reply to the solid arguments presented on talk page for 20 days. Second, the user Armatura who made that comment was blocked yesterday, after which you bothered to finally reply hours later after their block. Your reply was an irrelevant search result and didn't address the arguments, let alone how inappropriate and problematic it is to wait for someone to get blocked then reply to them. But you didn't stop there, you reinstated your own edit less than a day later with an edit summary "per talk". "Per talk" what exactly? That you didn't have consensus? That you didn't address the arguments brought up on talk? That your comment was subpar for reinstating your edit? That the user is blocked the same day which means they can't reply to you now?

I want to hear your explanation first because I still want to assume good faith even though all of the above is very bad faith any day of the week. I already warned about your

Commenting here to say I saw this comment and will probably give a full response in the morning. In the meantime, Golden, please consider holding off from making any further edits to AA2 until I have completely reviewed this situation. –

☖

05:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I spoke with Golden in private. I expressed pretty great frustration with their recent actions and received assurances it would not be repeated. I'm responding to memorialize this conversation. –

☖

05:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but we are past the assurances part at this point, aren't we? Golden was put under a tban probation after their sock appeal. It was lifted just a couple of months ago, yet Golden doesn't appear to show any signs of change in AA. It is not a single mistake, or even a few unrelated mistakes: I see the same tendentious pattern prior to their socking. I already highlighted one of them to you in the recent past - instead of reporting them I came straight to your talk page as their mentor, out of good faith and courtesy. I didn't yet report for the current incident either, I was willing to assume good faith even in this situation and that Golden must've had some rationale in mind for their recent behavior. I was flabbergasted - there surely should've been some self-reflection after the socking, the tban probation, the edit I notified about on your talk not so recently??? I would expect a serious reflection from someone who has double the age/experience of my account and given all the above context. Yet it's the same old story repeating itself, and the same elusive justifications for tendentious edits/behavior, what are those reassurances worth at this point? I think we reached a point where Golden has to explain themselves directly, in front of a larger community. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@

☖

06:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behaviour rather than the content dispute at hand. I intended to ignore the issue until I had the patience to engage with a user like Armatura again, which is why I didn't respond to him for 20 days. But then he was banned, and since he was the only person in the discussion with whom I was conversing, I wasn't sure what else I was supposed to do. So I just reinstated my edit, explained my reasoning again on the talk page, and anyone new who disagreed could revert and restart the discussion. I can see now how that could have given the wrong impression, and I admit that I could have handled the situation better. I can apologise if that would help? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behavior rather than the content dispute at hand. - they were actually addressing your own comment (about random IP sock speculations, redundant percentage threshold, etc.) and asking valid questions about the article and about your reply? That's a normal reply to your own comment, I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say here. And the rest of your explanation, I'm really not convinced by it. If you were so unsure what to do, you could’ve pinged other opposing users who formed consensus and asked their opinions, you could’ve done a lot of stuff. You can’t just “reinstate” your edit when you don’t have consensus, in fact, consensus was the opposite of your edit. It’s just

tiring that I even have to explain this to someone of your experience. Side note that Armatura’s block wasn't due to Zangilan lead discussion, it was another discussion on a user talk page I believe. Anyway, I'm not looking for apologies, we're past that and it wasn’t my intention in the first place. As I already said, I was looking for a solid rationale for your recent questionable behavior, as I in good faith thought that you must've had one. Unfortunately, I didn't see any. Just some elusive justifications. ZaniGiovanni (talk

) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your removal of Armenian names from historical heritage sites on Karabakh articles [1], [2] [3] is problematic. These names are relevant considering the significant Armenian historical presence in the region, and are useful for people doing research of the area among other things, the source present the names in Armenian script, their description in English-language literature is often limited, and often the case is that searches for the names of the places often only produce relevant results when you search for them in Armenian script rather than in Latin script (an example: [4] [5]), together all of this belies your justification for removing the names that there is "no indication of any connection to AM, so the translation is irrelevant". AntonSamuel (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. The source presents them in Armenian script because the source is entirely in Armenian script; even if it said "Azerbaijani mosque", the text would still be in Armenian script, so I don't really understand the logic of "the source present the names in Armenian script".

Placing an Armenian translation near monuments when the source (which, due to its partisan nature, should have been used with proper attribution) makes no mention of it having any relation to Armenia/ns gives the reader the wrong impression and would actually be more harmful than helpful to anyone doing research about the area (it's also safe to assume that anyone willing to research such an obscure topic would check the source themselves and find the AM script name there). The very example you provided demonstrates the flaws in this logic; the Azeri name for the "Karnakash" fortress, "Qalalı", yields three thousand more results than the Armenian script name.

So, I don't think it'd be within Wikipedia's guidelines to include such a translation unless you have an at least somewhat non-partisan source (i.e., one that wasn't produced by modern Artsakh or AZ officials) demonstrating a link between the monuments and Armenia/ns. A good compromise to such an issue would be to not use any translations for monuments that have no clear affiliation with either ethnic group. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's far faster to find names to search for directly in the articles rather than in the source, there should be no problem including relevant Azerbaijani names too when they're available. Sources that describe the region in detail tend to be local sources, meaning Armenian and Azerbaijani sources, the main issue should be if the sources meet standard requirements of reliability, and that propagandistic nationalist sites are to be avoided [6]. The main purpose of the articles are to inform the readers about their respective subjects, it's problematic to point to Wikipedia guidelines to justify decreasing the quality and usefulness of articles, which I would say suggests

WP:ARBAA2. AntonSamuel (talk

) 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

With this edit, you added {{sfn|Bibliothèque nationale de France|2008|p=216}}, but there appears to be no full citation for "Bibliothèque nationale de France 2008".

I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js installed in my common.js (see the documentation page at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors). This script identifies when {{Sfn}} does not point at an existing citation. With this, I am seeing a message following the sfn footnote in References, Harv error: link from CITEREFBibliothèque_nationale_de_France2008 doesn't point to any citation.

I am hoping that you can still access the full citation for "Bibliothèque nationale de France 2008". If so, would you please add it to the Sources section? Peaceray (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. I've added the source now. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 08:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

On 17 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Great Wave off Kanagawa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Great Wave off Kanagawa (pictured) has been described as "possibly the most reproduced image in the history of all art"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Great Wave off Kanagawa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Great Wave off Kanagawa), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What does the word 'dot' mean to you? This edit is amazingly bad. Even if you are copying pre-existing text, it doesn't mean you just copy pre-existing crap text. Look at the picture again. Does Fuji look like a 'dot' to you? If the original text had said Fuji looked like Hitler's moustache would you have uncritically copied that also?

Oh dear, you said it was a 'dot'. Could you please go back and check that cited text and find how they described it? Even if they said it was a 'dot' you shouldn't just copy that, as obviously they were looking through the wrong end of a telescope. Even if they said a pyramid you wouldn't copy that. What word would you use? Shenme (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I've now changed the wording. You, however, could benefit greatly from speaking more respectfully. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 08:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

On 31 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flag of Azerbaijan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the blue stripe in the Azerbaijani flag (pictured) reflects the country's Turkic heritage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Azerbaijan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Flag of Azerbaijan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Golden. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for The Great Wave off Kanagawa at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for you admirable work on the Hokusai's wave! Since the departure of Curly Turkey, there have been few editors who gave Ukiyo-e art its deserved attention. I recall reading a very interesting analysis (alas I cannot recall where) discussing the painting in terms of death, as the wave depicted will doubtlessly kill the boat's passengers, so we are witnessing their last seconds of life–that put it in a new perspective for me! I do wonder if the creation section would perhaps fit better as a subsection of the context section. Regardless, you have my gratitude for you work there. Aza24 (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Glad to contribute! You're right, it makes more sense for Creation to be a subsection under Context, so I've changed it. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 05:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dallavid (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed. Any disruption at all elsewhere in the AA2 topic area may lead to this sanction being summarily broadened.

You have been sanctioned based on

WP:AN/I, in the context of your previous AA2 TBAN and your recent logged warning

in the topic area. Note that this is narrower in scope than your previous TBAN, but I would urge you to tread very softly if you edit the parts of AA2 not covered by this TBAN.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she|they|xe) 21:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• I would also note that there appears to be a consensus in that discussion supporting the sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)