User talk:Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs: Difference between revisions

Please read this box first! Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic by placing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the very end, and please remember, assume good faith! You can click here to start a new topic.

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

Just another message. I came across some User pages and noted that when you tagged some articles for PRODs, you didn't inform the page creators with a talk page notice. This is an important step in the deletion process, especially for PRODs because editors have the ability to address problems and untag these pages.

In the future, please inform the page creator for every single page you tag for deletion. It's just the considerate thing to do and if you use Twinkle to tag pages, that editing tool will take care of the notifications for so it's no extra work. Please consider this request seriously, especially if you have any other mass-tagging projects in mind. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use Twinkle to tag those pages and FastilyBot will always leave a single PROD notification that includes all related nominations on their user page anyway. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found Fastily Bot to be 100% reliable. It's better for an editor to take care of notifications than rely on a bot. I also thought you should look at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary#Date mismatch which lists all of your PROD taggings. Apparently, you cut and pasted the same PROD tag on all of these disambiguation pages that had a different time stamp (09:41 UTC) than the time you actually tagged the article (17:34 UTC). Again, if you use Twinkle then DumbBOT won't have a problem because the time stamp on the PROD tag will be in agreement with the time you tag the article for proposed deletion. I guess you can take this tagging project as a learning experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you helped previously or were involved in an article and redirect and disambiguation move that i was also involved in. The article title, The Capitalist Manifesto is now ready to be a redirect instead to The Capitalist Manifesto (disambiguation) and the current article that is now going to The Capitalist Manifesto should now instead be moved to The Capitalist Manifesto (1958 book). If i need to do anything to help with this, please just let me know and i will ask at the Teahouse. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may request a controversial move at Talk:The Capitalist Manifesto per WP:RM#CM. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed its format to abide by WP:RMPM. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am not used to making this request, i appreciate your assistance. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by User:Aviram7, so how come the acceptance notice was sent to a non-existent user? I am cofused if it's some kind of malfunction. zoglophie^•talk• 15:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is mistakenly used as the parameter of {{subst:submit|username}} in Special:Diff/1187957102. As you didn't fixed it before you accepted this draft with AFCH tool, the notification automatically went to the talk page of a non-existent user. I have seen this kind of pages created by reviewers many times. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring WP:BRD as well as my stated reasoning. It is uncollegial. I know what G14 says. It should be ignored. The interwiki links on most of those article are helpful and, in my opinion, constitute valid blue links (ad interim). Srnec (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interwiki link doesn't count as a blue link in MOS:DABRED, let alone MOS:DABMENTION (although I generally don't care about DABMENTION too much). Please also refer to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#cite_ref-6 about the valid entry with an interwiki link. What do you mean by G14 should be ignored while even accused me of ignoring BRD? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I was engaged in an old-fashioned attempt to do bot work by hand! --Plumber (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it hasn’t been stressful to you having that weird attack on you by that guy. Your edits were all in the right imo. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the work you do on disambiguation pages, but please consider cleaning up in the future. There is now a massive backlog of "X (disambiguation)" redirects that need to be G14'ed and pages to be moved. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have been discouraged from mass CSD or PROD nominations while I appreciate if an admin would indorse BLANKANDREDIRECT of these PRIMARYRED dabs and delete associated INTDABLINK redirects per G14. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a plan to deal with this? I wonder if one could nominate a few at a time until they are all gone. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the pages you dealt with like Rivnopil and Novodanylivka, there's really a chance for them to be converted to SIA, in which case the INTDABLINK redirects is harmless to be kept. When in doubt, they are never eligible for speedy deletion. I won't get involved in edit warring any more on this and will leave it to reviewers instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for pointing out that redirects shouldn't have talk pages - they're not very discoverable. However, their edit history is even less so.

Next time when you centralize text, I suggest copying it to its new location before deleting it from its original page - this way you're less likely to misplace it by accident. Introt (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know redirects shouldn't have talk pages, but I suppose it makes sense.

I second your suggestion about "copying it to its new location before deleting it from its original page", as someone who has just noticed that the text they added to a talk page was forcibly vanished into the ether.

~ 99.146.242.37 (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that redirects shouldn't have talk pages. However, most of the talk pages I blanked and redirected are actually created from spamming or vandalism. Indeed, if those comments are actually well-formatted and constructive, it's better to tag the talk pages with {{tpr}} instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! What is your relist here trying to accomplish? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a clear consensus there. Thus I will leave it a chance before its close as no consensus. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could see the consensus for the move review was to overturn. Only 1 !vote to overturn was explicitly to return to the old title. The other was for Mike Johnson (speaker), and the third didn't specify. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process. It's convincing that your close is problematic per WP:BARTENDER based on comments in MR: a "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC"-ish disambiguator hasn't been established as a rough consensus in the RM and a participant like Steel1943 didn't have the chance to oppose it explicitly before your close. Besides, only one of the arguments of endorsement actually mentioned the issue of PDAB, which wasn't clarified even in your close comment. A RM without consensus for its target will end in no consensus while a MR without preference where it should be overturned will be overturned to the original title. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm confused as to why you changed the disambiguation into a redirect for this page. Despite not having its own page, the Colorado school of the same name should (imo) still get a mention rather than just redirecting straight to the Arizona school. If anything, a redirect just confuses people looking for the Colorado school.

I'm still relatively new to editing so let me know if I messed something up (I couldn't find anything on WP:DISAMBIG for this specific scenario). If not, I think we should change it back to its previous version. Thanks in advance! Marcus6276 (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuma High School (Colorado) doesn't have any incoming links. To build a valid topic in dab, the entry should at least have a blue link which contains the red one per MOS:DABRED. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the response! Hope you have a good rest of your day. Marcus6276 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

is there a reason you replaced the article on the Samsung Galaxy A21 with a non-functioning redirect? The article existed prior to my edit and I restored it since it's more useful than a redirect. RM12 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason as how it got blanked and redirected previously: it's still virtually unreferenced. You haven't added any reliable sources here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately left those pages as redlinks; they're redundant and unnecessary, as all the styles from them have been incorporated into other stylesheets (primarily Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/master.css) and shouldn't be getting invoked by anything. jp×g🗯️ 01:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm have no preference on it, although their transclusions such as that of {{Signpost/snippet/sandbox/styles.css}} in Template:Signpost/snippet/sandbox should have been fixed anyway. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Why are you labelling pages such as Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) (and many more, I see) as WP:Set index articles?s The items are not related except by sharing a name, but the pages are valid disambiguation pages. I'm genuinely puzzled. I reverted that one as he's on my watchlist, and no-one mentioned SIA in the AfD, but I see a lot of others in your contribs list. PamD 06:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read anthroponymy articles like Morgenstern (surname)? They are undoubtedly SIAs. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But name dab pages like this are not the same as surname pages. Look at the definition of an SIA. PamD 08:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a list of notable items. Please also read Wikipedia:Set_index_articles#Common_selection_criteria. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD is correct. A set index article lists things of a type. It is long-established that this is inapplicable to individual human beings who happen to share a combination of given name and surname. BD2412 T 13:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For given name and surname lists, please replace dab projects with {{Anthroponymy | class=list | importance=NA}} Clarityfiend (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to disambiguation pages are overall correct, but you are making a few too many disambiguation pages into SIAs. Some of them are clearly disambiguation pages for ambiguous titles. BD2412 T 21:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was cleaning up 67 pages filtered in quarry:query/74160, and I had to make a choice since they were categorized both in Category:All disambiguation pages and Category:All set index articles. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I would suggest taking a set of those to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to discuss. There may be cases where an article can have both tags (e.g., where a subset of listed links fall within a set index description). Probably shouldn't be the case, but it never hurts to put things in front of a broader set of eyes. BD2412 T 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this break the redirect. Also, we don't normally WikiProject-tag talk page redirects.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed all 442 instances I found.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I haven't realized that before. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per my edit summary restoring the dab template, whether this is really ambiguous is debatable, but a page that has "(disambiguation)" in the title must be a disambiguation page, and therefore can not be an SIA. This particular page is at this title pursuant to consensus in a previous discussion. BD2412 T 15:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page itself could be a SIA as long as they are renamed as "List of XXXs named YYY", see WP:SETNOTDAB. As for all the SIAs end with "(disambiguation)", please refer to the query. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MALPLACED doesn't give a reason for History of Christianity in Ukraine to be the target of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church redirect; I'm wondering why you think it's a more appropriate target than Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation)? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MALPLACED does give the reason why Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) can't be a target of Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Besides, the recent RfD was closed with no consensus, while the unilateral retargeting is not warranted at all. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made. Could you instead just delete the two page I moved? User:Biz/Old and User:Biz/Interim? Biz (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7 nominated. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

When draftifying an article in main space, it is better to use a script like User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft to do so rather than just reverting a page move. With proper draftification, a message is left for the article creator on their User talk page explaining what has happened and providing a link to where they can now find their article in Draft space. As a page mover, I'm surprised you do not already know about about these editing tools.

If you choose not to use one of our helpful scripts then please take the time to leave a personal message informing the content creator what has happened and, ideally, why you chose to move their articles into Draft space. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I've asked you before to stop moving pages without notifying the authors. Please, listen to Liz. – bradv 22:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and Bradv: I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever noticed the moved page was Wikipedia:Mondsee fragments rather than Mondsee fragments? I reverted a move that unambiguously took the page to the incorrect namespace per WP:PMRC#3, which is not draftifying at all. And I don't know why I need to notify authors when I do PMRC moves as a page mover. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to notify people so they know where to find their work. Your approach is very confusing for new editors. – bradv 00:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can see that you don't do this task a lot. The only pages you have recently moved back from the wrong namespace are User:Af975949/Solitude and User:Cale.Richardson/Red Rovers. You notified Af975949, but not Cale.Richardson (Brianda (Wiki Ed) did that instead). NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I missed one. So are you going to start notifying people when you move their drafts or not? – bradv 01:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do draftifying a lot, but when I draftify an article from main namespace, I always use the script User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft mentioned by Liz. To avoid page move warring, I will leave them a explicit warning {{uw-move2}} if they mistakenly move the same page twice. As user drafts are not articles, I don't think {{uw-move1}} will express accurately in such a situation. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but when uw-move1 isn't appropriate, you'll follow Liz's advice to leave a personal message informing the content creator what has happened? – bradv 18:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, Liz only asked me to do this when I move their articles from main space into Draft space, as the page Wikipedia:Mondsee fragments in the wrong namespace was mistaken for an article Mondsee fragments to be draftified. Of course, as a page mover, I'm familiar with the usage of the scripts like User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft. I'm also surprised that Liz hasn't responded to their mistake since the ping. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NmWTfs85lXusaybq, thanks for editing the Mondsee-Fragments. What do I have to do to publish this article? Can you help me? Thx Karl Kalligrafiemonk (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted Draft:Mondsee fragments for AFC review. If this draft is accepted by a reviewer, it will be published to the main namespace. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polite request... your move of "Niña (disambiguaton)" to Niña created 72 links to disambiguation pages. Is there any chance that you can solve those links? The Banner talk 15:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, there's always a chance for undiscussed move to get reverted. Fortunately, I didn't cleanup incoming links immediately after the move. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I'm a bit surprised at your recent reverting at Joga. The only other topics at the dabpage are a barely-notable village and two PTMs. Jóga gets the quasi-totality of the pageviews [1]. An "R from title without diacritics" primary redirect seems best here - I'll submit it to WP:RM, but would like to hear your thoughts first. 162 etc. (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this move only because you failed to retarget Joga to Jóga or move Jóga there as a page mover. As for the primary topic, I have no prejudice. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made at the EOTW Hall of Fame. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see that you have reverted my corrections of Sançar and Sancar (disambiguation). I don't know if you are familiar with the Turkish language. Sancar is the correct spelling as you can check. We have no word like "Sançar". Please do not revert them any more. Thanks. CeeGee 06:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that Sancar is a SIA rather than a dab. I have moved it to the base name as the primary topic in Sancar (disambiguation). If there's still controversy there, please start a move discussion per WP:RM#CM. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Best wishes. I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to ask for more information about why this edit changing the redirect to a disambiguation was disputed ([2]). Besides the Bolivian party, there are organizations with the same name in three other countries: Movimiento al Socialismo (Argentina), Movimiento al Socialismo (Honduras) and Movimiento al Socialismo (Venezuela), among which the last is still currently active. For that reason, I think it's difficult to determine clearly that the Bolivian party can be the main topic. Many thanks in advance! NoonIcarus (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! According to Massviews, Movimiento al Socialismo has more pageviews than all other topics in Movement for Socialism (disambiguation) combined and thus is a clear primary topic per WP:PT1. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I thought the traffic could be more or less the same and didn't think of reviewing the pageviews. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re [3] and [4]. Let's not edit war. Have you read WP:DABSISTER, in particular footnote f? There was a substantial debate about this on the Talk page resulting in the carefully-chosen words: "There is no agreement on the conditions under which such links are acceptable.". That means ILLs on disambiguation pages are not invalid. You are trying to enforce a guidleine that isn't there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Have you ever read the cited discussion? There is no agreement on the conditions under which such links are acceptable only means that there's a chance ILLs won't be acceptable in the entry even if a blue link is included. However, a valid entry should always contain a blue link which also includes the red link per MOS:DABRED no matter if there're any ILLs. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that, and it doesn't mean that. It just says there's no agreement. You don't agree with me. That doesn't mean you can delete my work. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you failed or refused to "get the point". Those entries could be valid if only a blue link is added to each of them properly per MOS:DABRED. Persistently adding such invalid entries to the dabs is not constructive at all. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice: it is better not to attack editors ("you failed or refused to get the point") but to concentrate on edits and guidelines. You must have regard for what guidelines actually say, not what you think they say or mean, and apply them to make the encylopedia better. To resolve this dispute I created the two new articles Ioannis Papaioannou (actor) and Róbert Gragger by translating the sister versions, to avoid solely ILLs. One of us made the encylopedia better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the guideline of WP:IDHT, but not something that attacks editors at all. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of recent edits like this, this and this made by Boleyn? I'm not quite enthusiastic enough to check that they meet WP:MOSDAB myself. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did have problem with Boleyn regarding such borderline entries in several AfDs which have been finally closed as keep, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27. Given that the query I use to find WP:ONEOTHER dabs is too poor to exclude the entries containing more than one link, I'm inclined to accept such dabs as long as all their red-link entries pass MOS:DABMENTION. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning - Yesterday I left some comments at Talk:Lloyd N. Morrisett about why I thought it was appropriate to have additional information on this disambig page even though we would not do the same thing for most other disambig pages. I see that you reverted that edit; Would you be able to add comments at the talk page as to why we should not include the additional information? Thanks for your many contributions. KConWiki (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

Today you reverted this change by invoking WP:PRIMARYRED. I wonder about the procedure, considering that the two red links were for eligible articles, which exist on the French and Polish Wikipedia versions. First, the guideline page does not say that the disambiguation page is useless for this case, there is nothing to justify your deletion here. Second, what elements did you rely on to determine that the square in Warsaw is so notorious as to overshadow the other two squares (knowing that it was named differently during World War II)? Therefore, could you please either undo your changes or provide me with the attestations and sources that support your decision? Thank you very much in advance.

Best regards — Baidax ^💬 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever created the red-linked articles before you created that dab? If not, the dab won't be eligible with only one extant topic per WP:PRIMARYRED until that happens. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 文化 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 23 § 文化 until a consensus is reached. Remsense诉 01:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Trenkwalder has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 23 § Trenkwalder until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that if you move a page like you did at Villa Mercedes you should check for incoming redirects like Villa Mercedes (disambiguation) and tag them WP:G14. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please fix the links to disambiguation pages that you have created with this move? See Template:2019 Canadian federal election/Scarborough—Guildwood, Template:2019 Canadian federal election/Lac-Saint-Louis, Template:2019 Canadian federal election/Souris—Moose Mountain and Template:2021 Canadian federal election/Scarborough—Guildwood. Thank you in advance. The Banner talk 22:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fix has already been requested in Template_talk:Canadian_party_colour#Template-protected_edit_request_on_25_February_2024. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

I was stunned at your warning message to Formyparty. That editor had made only 32 edits and you gave them a 4th level ("You will immediately be blocked") warning message when they had never been warned before. I think it would have been more suitable to give them a low level message about inappropriate page moves. They probably don't even know what disrputive editing you are talking about! Let them know what the problem is with their editing but provide information to them so they can avoid any problems. I don't see any behavior that would elicit an immediate block. They are not a vandal. Please do not pull out the heavy artillary when the inexperienced editor really just needs information on how to be a better editor.

You yourself have only been editing for a year and a half, try to empathize with how confusing Wikipedia is for less experienced editors. You are a great patroller but you need to be better on educating less experienced editors because we constantly need new editors joining the project. Think of yourself as a teacher and not the police. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not a patroller but a page mover. And I'm convinced that there's at least a sysop got cheated when the redirect left from their disruptive move was requested {{db-author}} by them. I'm requesting the restoration for the redirect then. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]