User talk:Wretchskull

Welcome to my talk page. Please make sure to sign your comments using "~~~~".

Apology

I understand Wretchskull, I am sorry. Captain MarcusL (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Captain MarcusL

Autism

I want some further explanation on this issue. These sources do not look that bad and I got them in the same manner I find other sources I add to Wikipedia (none of which have been reverted). How is it determined that these are not "secondary peer-reviewed studies"? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thylacinus cynocephalus: No worries, I'll explain. I'd like to first mention that one should, of course, establish consensus before adding information that might be controversial or disputed; Such things should be mentioned on the articles talk page. But apart from that, now about the sources. Your sources were not bad in and of themselves, but they were pretty poor and are outweighed by the rest of the sources in the article. A secondary peer-reviewed source is a source that contains research and also references other studies/journals. It is then reviewed and evaluated thoroughly by non-involved researchers to improve credibility and eliminate possible biases or issues. Of course, not all references have to be like that in Wikipedia articles, but if we are dealing with a Featured article (especially about medicine), then definitely. One source that you added (this one) is decent, but it talks about possible art traits in autistics during the Upper Palaeolithic and not really about whether it was a disability or not. Also, the news references were unreliable because pretty much all of them either referenced that study or was just poorly sourced.

About the text that you wrote, it was fine, but somewhat non-adhering to WP:MOS. By writing that "they may have been seen as having an advantage" was somewhat twisted by the news sources, and another issue arises. According to whom would they have an advantage? If they were grouped as being excellent at art, they would most likely still be ostracised for behaviour and sociability, and thus, not have evidence to suggest that ancient humans categorized them for us to research them one day. Autistic people existed at times where there were communication and cooperation, and it is unlikely that autism then is vastly different from what it is now.

Summary:

• One should establish consensus before making changes to a controversial or featured article.
• Top-quality sources are not always needed but are preferred, especially in featured articles.
• One should be careful with wording as to not cause confusion or possible misinformation, keeping non-weasel wording out of view is also good.

I hope you understand, Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but that one source did talk about whether or not it was a disability (page 266). What should I ask on the talk page? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thylacinus cynocephalus: That source could probably be used, but currently, there are some problems going on. The autism article has to be completely rewritten top to bottom because it no longer reflects the ICD10/11 and the DSM 5 criteria and information. Most sources are from 2009 and older, you can see that there are many tags and maintenance templates regarding these issues, and many editors are gathering to get new studies and rewrite the article (you could also join if you want to). On the talk page, you can see many discussions regarding featured article review and other issues. You can perhaps bring that source up regarding the history section on the talk page. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler edit summary

About this. I realise at 1200 edits you may not be familiar with the editor you directed that comment at, but you should be aware of WP:NPA. To say that it is evident that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia looks rather foolish as well as being a PA. A quick check would have revealed that they are one of our most productive contributors, with 200k+ edits and 170+ Articles created over the last decade. They may not have wanted to point that out to you but I will. DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Apologies, didn't know that. Thanks for bringing this up to my attention. Cheers! Wretchskull (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok - although the apologies are due to BMK not me. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Bike edit as a transportation to mecca

Hi, I can understand it is uncyclopedic...but why however? I am not exactly sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OjuzKiopo (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme

Please tell me exactly why you are reverting my improvements? You don’t need to get consensus for every change made, especially uncontroversial ones. I’ve been editing since 2006 and I wrote the article back in 2009. Don’t revert me again like some vandal or newbie. I’ve improved the article’s main image and added information. Again, explain why I need consensus before making an uncontroversial change to an article (that it’s featured is irrelevant). In what way has the article been been made worse by my improvements? 80.44.193.2 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@80.44.193.2: The reason I reverted is because you changed the lede image without consensus. After looking at the two pictures more and more I honestly don't really mind your new image. I addressed that it is featured because FAs should be stable (though this may or may not fit in this case). Anyway, I'll just let it pass, thanks for the contribution. Wretchskull (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Hi Wretchskull. I've declined a number of your requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Please be advised that only pages with severe ongoing disruption (i.e. multiple reverts from different users in the past 24h) will be considered for protection. Thanks, FASTILY 22:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. They seemed kind of highly-vandalised, as that is what happens with articles about general everyday things (names, items, etc.). Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

See ..

.. this recent : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#Edit_warring_and_disruptive_editing_by_Ddum5347. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to evaluate edits for automatically detecting issues in statements

Hi Wretchskull,

I am reaching out to you because of your experience with recent changes patrolling. We are building an automated system that can suggest specific improvements on Wikipedia statements (like removing bias, clarifying, adding citations) based on editing guidelines.

For that, we need the opinion of experienced editors on the semantic intentions (e.g., point-of-view edits, clarifications, adding citations) of a small number of Wikipedia edits. The evaluation will take place remotely, online over Zoom. If Zoom is difficult, I can also send the link to the evaluation page over email to finish asynchronously.

The evaluation will take approximately 1 hour to complete and you will be compensated 30 USD per hour for the same. Alternatively, we can donate this compensation to Wikipedia on your behalf, if you so choose.

Please let me know here if you are willing to participate in our study. We will be grateful for your participation in helping us assess the effectiveness of our system to improve Wikipedia.

For more information, see the research page. Sumit (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Big Bang

@Blockhouse321: Judging from your time you joined Wikipedia, you might not have been here long enough to understand the important details of Wikipedia, which is fine. A bibliography section (which some articles have) is a list of full references where shortened citations can be clicked so that a person can get what the source is from, instead of just the short citation. When you removed the book, the reference "Asad 1980" could no longer be clicked and is therefore no longer a verifiable source because there is no book to associate it with, it would just say "Asad 1980". Please make sure you understand how to cite sources before making citing alterations to Wikipedia. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: The Quran has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. If someone has used it as a citation, so be it, but it should definitely not be listed in the bibliography. Before you leave messages on my talk page, you should apply your intellect first and think! Blockhouse321 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blockhouse321: See WP:CIVILITY, WP:CITING before you run your mouth at me like this. I know that the Quran has nothing to do with the Big Bang, but I do not care who put it there and what citation it is (as long as it is secondary and relevant), if there is a short citation I said that it SHOULD have a bibliography where the book citation can be clicked otherwise it would just should "Asad 1980" and would no longer be a real source, but you didn't even bother to check if you're wrong. Sometimes one has to learn that one is not always right and that one makes mistakes. I will keep a close eye on your contributions judging from your behavior. If it continues I will have to take this to ANI. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, why did you remove my comment from your talk page and replaced it here? If a discussion is going on your talk page then it should be there. Wretchskull (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Be careful, wiki-stalking me through my edits is called Hounding. Warning, stop now! Blockhouse321 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Listen mate, I have no time for your nonsense. First of all, hounding is where you disruptively annoy a user by joining their discussions and aggressively editing their edits, but the paragraph right below the explanation of the guideline says that it can be done in good faith where an editor breaks guidelines. You have shown your side of incivility and not understanding how to cite sources, burying your head and not listening instead of accepting criticism (and ignoring my argument about your actions and instead deciding to accuse me of wikihounding). Please, read the guidelines and acknowledge mistakes, acting like this will result in consequences in the future, as that is what happens to many stubborn editos. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Methane and life at the surface (The paper by McKay, C. and Smith, H.)

Hey there! I just wanted to explain that the source for my additions to the section about Chris McKay's paper "McKay, C. P.; Smith, H. D. (2005). "Possibilities for methanogenic life in liquid methane on the surface of Titan"" was the paper itself, which was already there as a citation. NixonFan1962 (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

Most influence sections don't have any sources at all. Some editor came along and vandalized it, taking it down. You're all assisting him in vandalizing a perfectly good list that now has sources. If you want to destroy good information, be my guest. I'm out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:C281:79F0:B84C:3A1F:9C7:907F (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reported you to info-en-v@wikimedia.org for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:C281:79F0:B84C:3A1F:9C7:907F (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to just take your word for it that you're doing this in good faith. You're reported. Deal with it.

You are absolutely not assuming good faith, you haven't read a single thing that I said. Also, reporting me for reverting your disruptive editing? That's unfortunately not how it works mate. Report me all you want. Wretchskull (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

When you remove whole chunks of a person's work, even the parts that aren't referencing YouTube when your complaint is about referencing YouTube, it's not good faith. It's vandalism.

It doesn't matter, you must change them. Is that hard? Also by the way, you still cannot add an entire book of influences. Wretchskull (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

When a list (not my list in the first place) is taken down and I'm told it can't be put back up until all influences are referenced, I damn well can. It doesn't matter if I put 15 references for each person, that just improves the quality of the list.

What you are saying doesn't make sense. First of all, spamming more references doesn't mean better verifiability, it is just WP:OVERCITE and shows your ignorance about Wikipedia guidelines while trying to "win" a dispute. Also no, you cannot add whatever you want; Wikipedia is driven by WP:CONSENSUS. Spamming millions of influences is poor MOS as only the most notable ones should generally be mentioned. You also show ignorance about vandalism and good faith. You reporting me is probably a lie because that would just generate trouble for yourself. Trying to win disputes this way with people who know far more about Wikipedia will always backfire. Wretchskull (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You can feel good about removing good information that might've been helpful to people. Good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:C281:79F0:B84C:3A1F:9C7:907F (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're not really trying to learn anything. I have added a request for a third opinion, and an uninvolved editor will judge the situation. I'm just telling you mate, trying to stubbornly win disputes won't work. Sometimes one has to listen. I have dealt with similar people but their responses were fare more respectful and they grew significantly as editors. By the way: you edit was reverted by someone else. This should show you the dissatisfaction of the edits. Please, we are glad to have more editors but when you ignore collaboration, issues occur. Take care. Wretchskull (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the edit of the IP because they are not following Wikipedia protocols and added advice on their talk page. I don't know whether you have reported them to admins but I think they should be given the chance to engage with the Wikipedia processes and see if they will stop edit warring before doing so now that a second editor has reverted them. Robynthehode (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I haven't reported them. I only spoke to them and requested a third opinion, I just hope the editor familiarizes themselves with Wikipedia. Thank you for your involvement. Wretchskull (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for losing my cool. I've slimmed the list down, removed YouTube as a source. I don't have the time to fill out the citations entirely but the links are there. I filled out the citations for each. Also, you guessed right that I didn't actually report you for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:C281:79F0:B84C:3A1F:9C7:907F (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I see the 3rd Opinion request. Bravo! I applaud your spirit. May I be so bold as to recommend you put a section on the article's Talk page, with a civil and (as much as possible) unbiased summary of the issue, and link to that new section from the 3OP page? Someone can then give their opinion there. Perhaps it's not so appropriate for a user's talk page. (Or is it?) To misquote Churchill: WP:BRD, like democracy, is the worst possible system, apart from the alternatives. Chumpih. (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chumpih: Thank you! The situation deescalated and my points have been addressed. I withdraw my request, take care! Wretchskull (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a delight to see an acceptable resolution. The very best to you all. Chumpih. (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson GAN

Hi, regarding your message on Talk:Woodrow Wilson/GA1, I've removed it as I think from reading it it is meant for Talk:Woodrow Wilson/GA2, which is where the most recent assessment comes from, but I haven't added it there as I thought I'd check with you first. CMD (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I did mean to have it at the first GAN. I commented before the second review started. Some editors (most of them are inexperienced) don't seem to understand how to properly review a GAN while adhering to the good article criteria. Wretchskull (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? You commented on 20 March, three days after the second review started on 17 March. CMD (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I was unaware that a second review started so I commented on the first GAN. Anyways, the article has been promoted. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The article has not been promoted, its promotion was undone on 24 March. With this in mind, would you like to shift your comment to GA2? I had already added a comment to indicate the reversal of the assessment, and your comment makes it sound like GA1 is still open. CMD (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Alright, I will move it. The article has been promoted to GA as of today-ish as per GA2 and talk page consensus. Wretchskull (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfounded accusation of Vandalism (Eystein Halfdansson)

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Eystein Halfdansson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -Wretchskull"

With no argument for the reversion you simply claimed this, along with the threat, and reverted the simple correction I made. One in line with other languages' Wikipedia pages (Norwegian especially) -- including previous versions of the English one before the ACTUALLY incorrect change you are defending. The version I changed back from is objectively incorrect, and you offered no justification for how I was possibly in violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism, you simply added a scolding note. Terrible impression of the site's culture. The etymology of the word is not connected to the modern word for speed (of Middle Low German origin). This is not in dispute in any way and it is complete nonsense that someone without using sources can just change it from the correct one. THAT revision is vandalism and makes the article misleading. It doesn't matter if it's a silly byname, it is the actual translation. You don't get to just decide differently.

How can you possibly justify this? I am literally in line with the version immediately preceding this unhistorical edit, and yet it's some out-of-nowhere vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.40.148 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@81.232.40.148: Apologies! I was going through recent changes on Wikipedia and the system flagged it as possible vandalism. I checked the edit and I immediately assumed that changing something like "Swift" to "Fart" is vandalism, but I should've checked the context first. By the way, sorry if the message came harshly. It is an automatic template used when warning users for certain edits. I will be more careful, cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Commas

Thanks for explaining comma rules in your edit summary in the tiger page!! None of the 20 top-most editors ever had the idea in past couple of years that these would be necessary. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: You're welcome! Though keep in mind that there are some exceptions and additional rules to adding/removing commas. This site has some elementary rules on commas. Take care! Wretchskull (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link!! Would you be so kind to check commas + punctuation in Jaguar? ..whenever you have time. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: Sorry for the delay. Absolutely! I'll see if I can do so a little later today. Wretchskull (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Important message regarding you

Hi Wretchskull,

I appreciate your time and efforts in guiding me on citations for articles.Before staring making any editions in wikipedia article I understand the subject,reliable sources,guidance from authors in talk pages for wiki policy.I also noted the guidance and caution suggested by you for future and will adhere to them.Kindly share the specific instances where the policy is missed so that I can learn from it.I thank you again.Cheers.Gardenkur (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gardenkur: It's my pleasure! Regarding citations that didn't adhere to policies I unfortunately saw quite a lot. WP:RS basically lists all types of sources to cite and which ones to ignore. It is quite hard to exactly pinpoint references that are bad as most sources that you add are refgroups. But do not worry too much, you will eventually learn subconsiously. There are some other issues; I see that you often use the same reference at multiple locations (example) which increases the risk of plagiarism. I also see that you often add too many links (see WP:OVERLINK for info on what to link and why overlinking is bad). Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject India's Collaborations of the month invites you

You're specially invited to join the WikiProject India's Collaboration of the month program.

The collaboration will help promote many articles to the good and featured article status, but to do so, we need your help! For further information, see the main page of the collaboration.

Sign up for this collaboration by listing your username under the participants section and regularly participating in the collaboration. If you have already signed, please ignore this message.

You can discuss this newsletter here.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

---

Sent by Hulged ⟨talk⟩ on behalf of WikiProject India. Thank you!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

archiving live links

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit on ‪Elizabeth II‬, commenting "Do not archive live links"—would you mind giving me a source for that? I personally believe archiving live links can serve as a very useful reference for readers and editors (especially with websites that are liable to change article content over time), and can also serve as a powerful prophylactic measure against link rot.
Yours, Yitz (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yitzilitt: Greetings. If archiving all links were good, everyone would do it. The problem with it is that by archiving live links, the corresponding links to sources (not journals, studies, etc.) can never be updated, and so, it will be difficult to tell if the current information on the article is outdated or not. Some vital articles (such as Earth) have had editors revert your archiving because it could probably pose such a possibility. Note that I am not 100% certain of this rule of thumb as I did not read from a real and established Wikipedia guideline but it seems logical. Wretchskull (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your opinion. I would respectfully disagree with you on this, however, as A) many live links are in fact archived throughout Wikipedia (I would have to estimate around 1/5th-6th of live links or so are archived, though that's just a rough guesstimate based on personal observation), so it's not like nobody is already doing this, B) the exact date of archival is alway given and clearly stated with the tool I use, so it should be clear if the archived version is particularly outdated (not to mention the fact that the original un-archived source is given first), and C) the vast majority of my edits of this nature on popular articles seem to be uncontested, which indicates to me that my position is not wildly unpopular. I've stopped edits of this sort since seeing your rollback out of caution, and I'll wait another day or until/unless you respond to this, but if there aren't any further objections, I think I'll continue my archival work after that. I do appreciate your feedback though, and won't contest or edit war with any of your prior or future rollbacks of this nature out of respect for your position. Yours, Yitz (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yitzilitt: Thank you for being candid; I understand your point of view much better now! If you want to archive links, you are free to do so. I am not too informed about archiving so I cannot really judge which articles should and shouldn't be fully archived, or whether these rules even exist. I have seen some editors revert your archives but I doubt if they are fully justified; you probably have to ask the teahouse for an answer. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Yamato People Page

Hello, Thank you for your concern. Please check out the reference he's using. He's hiding behind his ID to distort the article, and writes a totally opposite conclusion on Wikipedia from the reference he is using. For instance, the reference concludes that " although similar in appearance, Han Chinese, Japanese and Korean are different in terms of genetic make-up, and the difference among the three groups are much larger than that between northern and southern Han Chinese." HOWEVER, he writes on the Wikipedia article as if the reference shows "Chinese, Japanese, and Korean" are indistinguishable. He clearly has a mal-intention to distort the article, and for that, he's using multiple IDs. I guess we have to do something about it. Thank you Jejuminjok (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jejuminjok: Thanks for bringing this to my attention upon my leaving. I have requested page protection of the page so that they can hopefully stop. Wretchskull (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles do not require a discussion about notability before they can be tagged

Regarding this edit summary you left on Too Hot (Jason Derulo song), there does not need to be a prior discussion before an article can be tagged for a concern about its notability. Any editor can tag an article with the template if they believe it may not meet our criteria for notability. I have no idea where you got the idea that there needs to be "consensus or prior discussion" to even tag an article. That's particularly silly—"let's have a discussion to even place a template on an article"? That is not a common thing. Besides all of that, there have been concerns about the article's notability, regardless of whether you think it passes—another editor has said twice [1], [2] that they believe it isn't and have even redirected it once, and another editor has restored the article multiple times (both editors are sockpuppets of blocked editors, but anyway). I put the template there as a middle ground between them. It was a compromise on my part. Ss112 20:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: Greetings! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was going through random articles and stumbled upon the tag, confused as to how it could be on a song from a relatively distinguished artist. Apart from the consensus issue, which is just silly on my part, I'm not sure if the article should've been tagged. Anyway, I assume the issue has been solved, cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19 pandemic

you deleted my impact on the article. Please restore. contains very important information on global sanity. The federal agency of civil education is a very reliable source. : https://www.bpb.de/politik/innenpolitik/coronavirus/308483/pandemien-umwelt-und-klima is an official german governement linked website. feel so sorry for you not speaking german. please use translator and check the origin. i already requested the agency to translate the article in proper english. WikiYeti (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)WikiYeti

@WikiYeti: It seemed like a very bold claim in the lead section and the source doesn't cut it for such a claim. Perhaps the studies that mention such things should be there instead. Discuss it on the talk page before adding it back. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comma

Hi Wretchskull. You said in your edit summary here: "Do not try to hide the edit under that edit summary. Again, it is grammatically incorrect. Want me to explain it again? Subordinate - subordinate - main clause means there should be a comma. Removing it makes it grammatically incorrect." I'm not quite sure what you meant by "try to hide". But I'd like to reiterate that I think your use of that comma in that way was simply incorrect. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: This issue has been resolved. I understood what you tried to say, however, the removal of the comma would still be grammatically incorrect. I have simply reworded the beginning of the sentence because removing the comma only introduces more errors. Wretchskull (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The removal of that comma would not still be grammatically incorrect. There is nothing you can say that will change my mind, sorry. Thanks for rewording it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It is grammatically incorrect regardless of what anyone thinks. I can't really change your mind if you disagree with grammatical facts. It is an extremely common grammatical error where people believe there shouldn't be a comma because that very clause already has one next to the date (in this case it was "[...] in 2018,"). It was a sentence adverb (examples: however, recently, also, etc. There are some elementary rules about commas and sentence adverbs here). It is a word that precedes the rest of the sentence. I understand what you mean, though. Putting "also, in 2018" suggests that 2018 was not mentioned already, but it was, so removing the comma might seem logical. It is, but, it would be grammatically incorrect because it is a sentence adverb, which is why I reworded the sentence instead. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether there is or is not a "grammatical error" will depend, at least in part, on the intended meaning. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Franz Liszt revert

I had a question about the removal of the Franz Lizst infobox. The Revision history stated "Reverted good faith edits by Fastrack98 (talk): This has been discussed. An infobox on composers is discouraged", and I am wondering, where has it been discussed? Where should I check to know more? Thanks. Fastrack98 (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fastrack98: No problem. If you want to see the actual debates, here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates. If you want to read a summary of what the main issues with composer infoboxes are, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes. Take care. Wretchskull (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

Appreciate the good faith revert but the source isn't simply a youtube video, it's Hitchens being interviewed. Thus youtube is not the source, only a medium by which we can view the source, in this case the source being Hitchens himself.v--Jamirowikee (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jamirowikee: Greetings. Although I do not necessarily object against it that much, YouTube should generally not be linked as per WP:YOUTUBE. You can see that other editors are dissatisfied and have also reverted your edit. By the way, please read WP:BRD, cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop Wiki-Stalking

Stop Hounding by tracking me through my edits, it is against Wikipedia policy! Blockhouse321 (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blockhouse321: you are yet again not willing to cooperate or improve your behaviour. What you think is "Wikistalking" is allowed if you clearly break guidelines, as you did many times. By me checking on your edits it is obvious that this continues, therefore, I have you on my watchlist. I wouldn't have done that if you were more civil and were willing to improve. Wretchskull (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You have just admitted to Wiki-Stalking, which is harassment and against Wikipedia policy. You have been warned for the last time by me to stop Hounding! Blockhouse321 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blockhouse321: I cannot take you seriously anymore. Keep making these false accusations again and I will have to take this to ANI. The paragraph literally right below the first one says that it is allowed if I track someone who is (along the lines of) clearly new and breaking multiple guidelines. WP:HOUND. I just truly can't take things like this seriously; it is not just WP:OVERLINK but just so mediocre and childish to the point where I do not care. Wretchskull (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Logarithm

Can you specify what spot(s) exactly you are concerned about? Thanks Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. From a very quick glance what I see is by and large still roughly the same it was when I got it promoted to FA. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

P.P.S. Ideally put your concerns directly at the talk page of the article. Thanks! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Atheism

Hello! I was pinged about this article being revised and the editor requesting help. Was that you? And if so, how may I help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

About tagbombing on Sustainability

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I managed to trace down the IP editor who made these changes. Given the large number of tags, I can only go through them at a quick glance. It appears that only one tag was valid (the one about a dead link) and the rest were not. I left a customized warning message letting the individual know. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Grammarly

Hello, Wretchskull,

Thanks for your comment. I wholeheartedly agree. I actually ignore the majority of Grammarly's "suggestions" when I use it for editing. More so lately than in my earlier edits. ORSfan (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Some trout soup for you for your contributions at Chess

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Symptom: According to MaxBrowne2, "one of the worst reverts I have seen on Wikipedia". Potential adverse effects: Experts at their field who are new to Wikipedia, such as Cazaux, being repelled from the platform. Diagnosis: You're in desperate need of some WP:ONLYREVERT treatment.

Huge apologies, I didn't know what I was thinking when I did that. I quickly glanced over the edit and for some reason thought it was worthy of revert. I will also apologise to the respective individuals. Wretchskull (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you took it this way. Thanks for not being stubborn and genuinely trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

User talk:İsmail Kendir

Wretchskull, please leave the user alone. They are indefinitely blocked, correctly in my opinion, but there is no need to pile on--and if they remove your comment, leave it be. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course, cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Chad

Hi there. I can't say you're wrong: after the article became a FA, no major additions were made to it, so the article in some sections, like the one you mentioned, is seriously outdated. Unfortunately, I only edit rarely these days due to work and the latter will be especially intense in the coming weeks. I can't promise anything but I'll see if I can find some time later (the biggest issue here is gathering authentically reliable sources, something that's not easy to obtain a neglected country like Chad).Aldux (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Apology on Among Us.

I am sorry for deleting a red link on Among Us. DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@DinosaurTrexXX33: Oh no problem! It isn't really an obvious error so I won't judge you. If you find relevant red links on certain articles, it is usually best to leave them there, or better yet, create the article. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A request

Greetings,

Requesting c/e and further expansion support for recently updated Pakistani textbooks controversy#Single national curriculum controversy.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AI

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thank you, but I only occasionally visit controversial sites and see what is going on, not really not make major contributions. Wretchskull (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from James W. Fowler into Psychology of religion. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I see, thank you for the information! Wretchskull (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

British Empire

It is exceptionally poor behaviour to revert an edit because it's not sourced and then when the editor sources it properly, to cite another (dubious) reason and revert again. I can see absolutely nothing in the FAR policy that says minor edits to an article unrelated to the gist of the FAR request are not allowed. You say Consensus is required for an edit on a page in FAR, this is nonsense and directly contradicts WP:BOLD. I'd suggest reading the FAR policy before applying it incorrectly. Ecrm87 (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ecrm87: I reverted your edit due to the text being completely unreferenced, but even after you added references, this specific situation is very complicated. The article has been at FAR since October 2020 (the longest that I've personally seen), and people are currently very careful with what to add and remove (WP:DUE). I honestly don't really mind your edit, but I'd say it's best to quickly ask on the talk page and just see if those who are most involved with the article can assess if the text is due. Sidenote: I didn't mean that FARs require consensus to edit, but that this specific article during this period may do. All best - Wretchskull (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Franz Liszt's life rewrite

Hello, Wretchskull. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Franz Liszt's life rewrite, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:RFPP

Please stop making reports to RFPP for pages that clearly don't meet the criteria outline on the page (e.g. [3]). Ultraviolet only had two reverts since the beginning of October. Nearly all of your recent reports have been rejected per "not enough recent activity." Protection is intended to handle chronic vandalism, or acute bursts of vandalism from multiple users, not occasional vandalism, which happens across the board. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia are certainly appreciated, but for simple occasional vandalism, please warn the user appropriately, then report to WP:AIV if they persist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Sorry, I find it difficult to tell when it is appropriate to send a request. The line seems to be blurred between valid and invalid requests as my requests are accepted at times but declined if it is a different admin judging, or will be declined by the same admin who some time earlier accepts one with less vandalism. I will try to be more careful though, cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly the interpretations between different admins can be fuzzy, but can't imagine any admin judging Ultraviolet to be in need of protection given the recent history. What I'm looking for when I look at page histories: are there multiple vandalism hits from multiple users over the last week or longer, or a larger cluster within the scope of a shorter time? Species was given short protection because within a span of 1 week, it was vandalized four times by three IPs. If the vandalism is coming from one user or IP, AIV is a better option. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This is much clearer now, thank you! Wretchskull (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

thank you

I'd like to thank you for reviewing the article Neuroscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJJ4y7 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

reFill

Hi, do you know how I can get access to that reFill tool you used to clean up Environmental Racism in the United States? I looked in my preferences but couldn't find it. Is it part of Twinkle? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@EnPassant: Apologies for the late response! Here it is: [4]. Wretchskull (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Franz Liszt

Just wanted to say I'd be happy to help in a rewrite of Liszt's article, as that's something you seem to be doing (or at least planning for). — Dave12121212 ◎ 00:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dave12121212: Happy to see more editors joining! I believe others like Smerus and JackofOz were keen on rewriting as well, but my effort died down as I had other projects in mind. The rewrite is here: User:Wretchskull/Franz Liszt rewrite. You can remove, add, and alter whatever you want. Feel free to also use the article talk page. Wretchskull (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thankyou. I'll just do a bit of work on Liszt's page whenever I get the time, and if in the future any coordinated effort for a rewrite starts up again I'll happily join. — Dave12121212 ◎ 23:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rück's blue flycatcher

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rück's blue flycatcher you nominated for GA-status according to the 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) 17:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rück's blue flycatcher

The article Rück's blue flycatcher you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rück's blue flycatcher 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) 14:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wilhelm Stenhammar

HI, in this edit you introduced a reference to "Hindson 2019", but did not define the reference. could you fix this please? DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it, thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sei pezzi per pianoforte

Hello! I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article Sei pezzi per pianoforte you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to seven days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I've left a few suggestions on the review page which you may like to consider. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold unless you would prefer me to. The article is in general so clearly of GA standard that mere tweaking is all that may be wanted. Tim riley talk 15:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I Appreciate it! I'll go ahead and quickly address your points. Wretchskull (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me beat the wretched bot to it, and send my congratulations in person. I was absolutely staggered to read your comment in the review that you are not a native English speaker. I'd never have guessed it, and I don't think anyone else would, either. A splendid article, which I hope you will consider taking to FAC. If you do, please ping me and I'll look in. Tim riley talk 20:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, you are too kind! As for bringing it to FAC, I'm afraid the jargon will shine through and make the reviewers fry me alive. I'll try to further improve the prose a little and hopefully, with your help as an experienced FA writer, take it to FAC. Thank you again! Wretchskull (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sei pezzi per pianoforte

The article Sei pezzi per pianoforte you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sei pezzi per pianoforte 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious

pezzi per pianoforte

Thank you for quality articles such as Sei pezzi per pianoforte and Rück's blue flycatcher, for ideas to expand Franz Liszt, for patiently explaining things to fellow editors softly and firmly ("Please, read the guidelines and acknowledge mistakes"), and for good reviews, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2667 of Precious, a prize of QAI, - and best wishes for FAC plans! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Gerda Arendt! You have always been one of the nicest editors on Wikipedia! Wretchskull (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sei pezzi per pianoforte

On 1 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sei pezzi per pianoforte, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sei pezzi per pianoforte were Ottorino Respighi's first published works? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sei pezzi per pianoforte. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sei pezzi per pianoforte), 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.

—valereee (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Beethoven

I just saw your revert on Ludwig von Beethoven. I removed that category because it already exists in Category:German Romantic composers per WP:SUBCAT. I did this for a lot of pages. If I misinterpreted something, I can easily undo them. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: Oh sorry my bad. The category was re-deleted by Aza24, cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

AMH / human

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_evolution#why_rollback_%3F_%40Wretchskull

interested in your answer. greetings and all the best for two oh two two --MistaPPPP (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I've replied, cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I answered again. bed's calling now, though. --MistaPPPP (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship

January songs

in friendship

Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics is on the Main page, DYK? - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda! I see that you are always a beacon for hope, the breathing soul of Wikipedia who lifts everybody's spirit up, and I really appreciate that! Meeting friends has been tough recently due to stricter restrictions, but that doesn't stop me from spending time with family. ;) You are an amazing person and your friends are very lucky to have you!! I hope you have a wonderful year, Gerda! :) Wretchskull (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

blushing, thank you, I try - in case of interest, yesterday's snow and today's music in memory of Jerome Kohl, a friend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Congrats to getting the pezzi to FA (before I even found the time to review)! When should they appear for TFA? Can I help you with that? If you want to do it yourself, WP:TFAR is for the next month (after the last scheduled which is 18 Feb as I write this) and also if there's no specific date to go for (just asap), and there's WP:TFARP for the year following the date mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! I was thinking about July 9th (Respighi's birthday), but unfortunately that date is taken. April 18th came to mind but I am not entirely sure if celebrating a work on the date of the author's death is necessarily TFA worthy. No specific date might be the best, though I am open to ideas. And again, this FA wouldn't be possible without your help; thank you very much! Wretchskull (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Antarctica featured article review

I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Sei pezzi per pianoforte

Congratulations, Wretchskull! The article you nominated, Sei pezzi per pianoforte, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Sei pezzi per pianoforte. — Bilorv (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Re incompetence of the other editors : indeed! Thanks for coming to my defence!! – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about it ;)

At 2nd thought: would you have time to have a look at Red panda? LittleJerry and I have been working on this to take it to FAC, and it would be great if someone has a fresh look at it to check it for grammar flaws. We can chat via that page's talk page. Cheers – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely! I'll go right ahead. Wretchskull (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Queen angelfish

Could you also copyedit queen angelfish? I'm want to get that to FAC very soon. It's much shorter, so you could probably do it first. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Good luck with the FAC! Wretchskull (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Erratus changes

Hi I’ve looked at your suggestions and wanted to know if there was anything else that could be improved Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've responded. I'd be glad to help you out with the re-nomination. Wretchskull (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

c/e request

Greetings @ Wretchskull

I am looking for some copy edit help for Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala where in I have tried to improve the draft content as per feed back received on the article talk page and tags.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR notifications

Hi, I noticed that you added a FAR notification for Borat. In case you weren't aware, those of use who are FAR regulars use WP:URFA/2020 and WP:FARGIVEN to keep track of these notifications. We're ultimately hoping to process all very old FAs such as Borat and either ensure they are up to standard or delist. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to add the notification. Thanks for reminding me! Wretchskull (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We hope there's more people like you

2001:4455:364:A800:9DB4:9E57:540C:7E19 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

For restoring constructive edits back on Russia. While I think its time for me to admit, my IP range 2001:4455:364:A800:0:0:0:0/64 will probably also be blocked tomorrow at ANI for unintentionally causing a drama when I redirected an article with no source at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa. As a non-existing account, we tried contributing as well, since there's no way for us to be unblocked like the guy on who edited Russia. Just because We live in the same country as the LTA, doesn't mean we are like them (Admins thought base on their checkusers). I'm likely to be stressed out if all of my edits were reverted. Hoping you for a better opportunity. 2001:4455:364:A800:9DB4:9E57:540C:7E19 (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!