User talk:Robertsky/Archive 7

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

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 ChristieBot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk

Sorry! I reviewed the wrong article. I got confused with a different law article. I speedy nominated my review. The nomination remains in the same spot. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 no worries – robertsky (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lixinsha Bridge, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

@Saishna96 it will be reviewed in due time, if not be me, by the other AfC reviewers. – robertsky (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool, Thanks for the response! I will be waiting.. Saishna96 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

how do you edit --Esfhsf (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Esfhsf like how you edit here! On articles, just click on the Edit link at the top right side of the article. There is a welcome message on your talk page. In it there is a link to The Wikipedia Adventure. It is tutorial in guise of a game. Go through it to understand how you can contribute on Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

On 5 March 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Eugene Wijeysingha, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meaningful Broadband, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaningful Broadband until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

		The Closer's Barnstar
		In recognition of your thoroughness and attention to Wikipedia's policies when closing the discussion on moving the Flour massacre article. This was an extremely contentious move discussion, with dozens of impassioned editors arguing about the necessity of moving the original article and debating the proper title to be used. Adding to the difficulty of this move discussion was the high level of attention that the discussion received off of Wikipedia. All told, Robertsky's thorough explanation in closing the discussion demonstrated clear reasoning as to 1) why the discussion among editors had coalesced around a consensus to move the article, and 2) why a move to Flour massacre was warranted at the time of the move even in the absence of a clear consensus on a target title. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 16:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky, I request that you reconsider your move of Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident. Many of the support !votes were brief and perfunctory, and above all I am very concerned by outside canvassing---a Twitter post that achieved over 570,000 views [37], as was noted in the move discussion (albeit, counterintuitively, as a reason to end the discussion) [38]

That tweet, from a user with 24,700 followers, stated as follows: The Wikipedia page for the Flour Massacre euphemistically calls it the “Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident”. This is straight up Holocaust denialism.

This tweet was posted at 6:25 pm March 1. It you examine the page view statistics for the talk page where the RM was underway [39], you can see that page views went from 193 on Feb. 29 to 2252 on March 1 and 3374 on March 2 and remained at high levels, coinciding with a surge of support !votes, as was noted in the closure request discussion [40]. The spike in talk page views subsided in the days subsequent to the canvassing on Twitter, most recently to 718 as of 3/7.

The replies to the tweet linked above actively discuss the article move discussion.

I believe the process was tainted by this outside canvassing and I request that you reconsider this action, and let the RM remain open for a meaningful additional period of time.

One other point that bears mentioning, which is somewhat obvious, is that you changed the title to a name that is completely non-neutral and is in breach of

@Coretheapple:

While there is the tweet, it cannot possibly explain all of the page views on the talk page. During the course of the discussion, there is also a similar page views pattern on the article itself [41]. Given that there is a RM banner on the article as well, the traffic to the talk page can also be attributed from the RM banner. If there is canvassing going on, we would expect that much of the talk page traffic come from mobile devices/app, given that 80% of Twitter users access Twitter via mobile (widely cited on the net as early as 2015. not sure what's the recent numbers). However there are many more viewers to the talk page from desktop devices, and despite an obvious spike in mobile traffic on day 1 of the tweet, the traffic from desktop is still much higher. A more definitive assessment on whether the traffic came from the RM banner can be made if we have the clickstream data for March, but that would be another 3 weeks before the data is being produced.

As the talk page is under ECP, the effects of canvassing is lessened, or hopefully non-existent, as many of those coming through the tweet who would have voted in favour of the move would have been anon or newly-registered accounts. EC editors who have joined the discussion may have visited the article, then the talk page by the virtue of the event being in the news. And those who have simply put 'Support/oppose per X' without much explanation of why so have been discounted in the assessment as consensus isn't poll voting. I evaluated at the strengths of the arguments against policies and guidelines instead.

As for the use of 'massacre', while it is seen as non-neutral in some quarters, it is recognizable and widely use in reliable sources, especially as 'Flour massacre' for now, and this is afforded in

WP:NPOV. I did consider 'killings' or 'disaster', but there's limited evidence of either of their recognition presented and have relatively lesser support as well. – robertsky (talk

) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide a rationale to explain your RM closure of Talk:Lusitania#Requested move 29 February 2024? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof, that province is the primary. but upon relooking at this, I will have this relisted. Thanks for reaching out. – robertsky (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Where could we find the page that need to be edited? Is it manual browsing? --Wenly99 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors as well where they receive requests to copyedit articles. Alternatively, you can monitor edit requests at Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Monitoring_new_requests. For a start, I have placed a welcome template with tutorials for you to get familiarised with the user interface and editing norms. – robertsky (talk

) 09:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robert, what do you see that is broken on [49]? I can't see the error. Best, CMD (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

your version has [restore this version] and a repeat of the infobox etc... likely a slip in copying a previous version in diff view? – robertsky (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I see it now. Likely as you say a mixup when trying to restore intermediate edits. Will get on it now. CMD (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you move the page to (dog breed) when only two comments supported that and three including the nomination supported appending dog? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

three comments of the four including Roman Spinner's (as a secondary support). – robertsky (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of SPH Media Trust.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would appreciate any feedback on this article: Chinese New Year customs in Singapore. Thank you in advance for your time! -Alexistang (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alexistang edited. thanks for the article. – robertsky (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! -Alexistang (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky could you explain why you !voted and relisted

@

WP:NAMECHANGE request. I didn't feel comfortable closing the discussion as it is and register it as an oppose instead, which other editors may respond to, and at least one other editor had done so. It didn't register to me that it would be seen as a supervote when I commented on the discussion. – robertsky (talk

) 11:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay please be more careful and don't relist and vote in a move discussion again, thanks. Lightoil (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Robertsky - I can't find any reputable sources for this wiki page. Also, the subheader titles lack clarity. I could probably add their station logo and change their subheaders - or do you suggest I just move on? --Deirdre A. Lopian (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Deirdre A. Lopian there's one more option for you, if you have done the work of verifying if the article, feel free to remove the unsourced text. Do clearly state in your edit summary that you were unable to find sources for these statements. It will be the onus of the person reverting you to present sources for these unsourced statements. About the station logo, there's no harm in uploading the logo. Just remember to upload as a non-free file. – robertsky (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Im having trouble creating templates, how do i do? --Tinkaer1991 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tinkaer1991, see Help:Template#Writing templates for creating a template. If you have a specific template in mind and you have come across similar ones in other articles, use these existing templates as a base, copy them into your sandbox and modify from there. The setup can be, template under development: "User:Tinkaer1991/TemplateTest", and in your sandbox or draft, just tranclude {{User:Tinkaer1991/TemplateTest}} to verify that the tranclusion works as expected. Once your template is done, you can have it moved into the Template namespace. – robertsky (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we really going to use mapa-metro.com and belarusfeed.com (dead link) as evidence of strong RS to the point it is not "no consensus" but "not moved"? Mellk (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk, are there any indications of these sources not being reliable ones? belarusfeed.com being dead does not mean that it cannot be used still, especially not when it has been archived. i.e. [61]. – robertsky (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned that if we were going purely by what name appears the most in sources, then in this case it would be "Moskovskaya" (another example [62]). The current title neither follows

WP:BELARUSIANNAMES. Mellk (talk

) 04:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the purpose of editing wikipedia ? --Rokokiropo (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you know why What the Dead Men Say (album) was not moved? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@

WP:RECENTISM

for a start, a 4 year-old item vs a 60 year-old item (what's the long term significance of the book vs the album)?

Looking at the pageview data of both article (since you are basing your rationale to move on it), the book could still draw in a steady stream of pageviews (and even a 2x uplift for 2 years prior to the previous RM) after 60 years of its existence, can the album also draw in the same steady stream of pageviews? Was the uplift due to the book or some other factors? The difference in pageviews itself is not the only factor when evaluating for primary topic take over in general, but it generally does help in vacating the primary topic as it did in the early RM. I suggest that a delay renomination for about four to six months for the dust to settle in relation to searchability and reachability of either articles. By then with wikinav and the pageview tools, one would be able to tell if the steady stream of pageviews for the books was because it is the book that people are looking for or because it was for album, and they had limited choices and landed through the book to go to the album; or that the drop in daily traffic for the album has improved or reversed. – robertsky (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the request, but it should be Teatralna Metro Station (Sofia Metro). I apologize for the typo in my response, which I only noticed now. The city is Sofia. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ymblanter thanks for following up. – robertsky (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Does

Immediate follow-up: I've done it and I want to clarify—I did it not because I assumed silence on a 20 minute-old talk page question meant approval (I hate when people do that on my talk page), instead I did it BOLDly because it seemed inline with policy and the overal consensus on the discussion would have leaned to do it. I also assume it could be undone as an undiscused move, of which I wouldn't have a problem. In doing the move, I left an {{

old move}} template and my new question is is that propper, given the context of my above question. Thanks in advance for the guidance. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths}

] 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@MicrobiologyMarcus that's interesting. I always thought that such additions would have trigger the bot to add the necessary notifications on the corresponding article and talk pages. @Wbm1058 is this supposed to be the case for the RMCD bot or was there something that changed? – robertsky (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Since 15 November 2021‎ (v 7.67), the bot doesn't post notifications more than one week after the RM was listed, to mitigate potential edit conflicts with closes in progress; issue reported here. Since then, a newer enhancement made on 17 February 2024‎ (v 8.40) limits the bot to three recent edits in subject-space, to stop it from edit-warring over changes to sync modified subject page notices, but that won't stop the bot from re-posting notices after a closer has removed them. Some day I may make the bot even smarter regards to these; better cleanup and reporting/record-keeping after closed RMs still on my back burner. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 I see. Maybe an additional switch in the template on the talk page to force update the notifications if there's any significant changes like this case? I.e. |update=1 after the bot is done with the new notifications, it can reset/remove the parameter. – robertsky (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Heck no, I wouldn't want to further complicate the template by adding a new, obscure parameter to it. I might could change the limit from the original list date & time to the current listed date & time, which would be the date that the RM was relisted, if it was relisted. That would extend the window for posting notifications another week, which would be fine if the relisted RM were allowed to run for another full week. But that would open the possibility for edit conflicts with closers if the RM were closed during its relist week. Of course, the current algorithm has the potential for conflicts with "speedy" closes, but we shouldn't have very many of those, theoretically. I've already added two functions to the bot's framework that look into a page's edit history, to serve two different purposes; I suppose I could add a third function to serve this purpose, by reporting how many edits the bot has made to the page since the RM opened, and allow the bot to post notices as long as the bot had not previously edited the page since the RM opened. We're getting into an area of diminishing returns here, where to accommodate ever more unusual and infrequently occurring scenarios, I need to spend ever increasing amounts of time working on coding workarounds. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 Noted. I will try to remember to manually place the banners then if such a case happens again. – robertsky (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello I want to upload a new wikipedia page about myself, Lara Smith, CEO of listed Antimony Company and written several articles and given key note addresses on critical metals.

Please advise how to get started. --Larajt.smith005 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@

conflict of interest. I have dropped a bunch of links on your talk page which can guide you through your editing journey. – robertsky (talk

) 00:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi how do i save as draft? --Minhuaty (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ther --Laxmi Rana (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Robertsky,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for helping Pollini to the Main page! - I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), and I listened to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a question, regarding talk pages of Classical music and Opera articles: Classical music has no article classes, such as "stub" (only GA and FA). The template "Vital article" doesn't exist, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That's because the WikiProject Classical music apparently does not do article assessment. You can however add its banner on the classical music related articles' talk pages if it is relevant, like what I just did at Talk:St John Passion structure. The new project banner shell design does not differentiate the article classes, giving it an appearance that the classical music project has done its (non-existing) assessment. – robertsky (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky,

I created an article for Farisha Ishak, a singer-songwriter who won the first season of the Final 1, and was signed to Hype Records. She then did hosting, acting, and advocacy work.

I created the article in January and it was quickly rejected. However, I made changes a few days later, but it has not been reviewed again since.

I cam across your username on the Wikiproject Singapore page, so I was hoping you may be able to help with getting the article reviewed?

Here is the link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farisha_Ishak

If you have other tips or think another wikiproject page is better to ask for a review, please let me know.

Thank you!

Best, Anilorac207 2603:6080:5802:4B07:1D5E:1C2A:8927:EC46 (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Mmamatlakala_bus_crash. It was my first time taking such an action, and I'll keep it in mind for the future. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn No worries. While it is out of process, the consensus is already building in the direction and thus may be closed early. However, if there's someone coming out to ask for the discussion to be reopened in the next few days, I may just have it reopened. – robertsky (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this request; generally, we should not be working back-to-front; if a bold move is contested what needs to happen is the move is reverted and an RM opened. Yes, things are made more complicated here by the existence of an already open RM, but that doesn't justify keeping the article at the new title after the move has been contested - per

@BilledMammal If the discussion is just a couple of days old, and there has yet to have a lively discussion, I would have closed the discussion procedurally and reverted the move, and leave it to whoever is interested to reopen a discussion for the article to be moved in the other direction. However, it has been 5 days with 35 participants. A revert at this point in time is disruptive to the discussion. – robertsky (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What can be done is revert the move and leave the RM open, with a note that a bold move was reverted. It's better than allowing the bold move to stand, and inevitably causing issues if the RM is closed as "no consensus" - which is what appears to be likely to happen. BilledMammal (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A

nocon at this stage reverts the article back to the original title. – robertsky (talk

) 17:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi I wanted to add a new entry, I have the news article to cite (https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/nivin-paulys-malayalee-from-india-gets-a-release-date/article67975698.ece) but I don't know how to add "access-date, archive-date and archive-url" --Akashsanthosh00 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Y’all don’t need a page for Acta non verba? --Chasehilll (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have another one for you. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@ZLEA, well... it never ends, this wack-a-mole VPN/proxy hopper. – robertsky (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)