Email this user

User talk:In ictu oculi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This user's email on Toolbox menu (also icon top right hand side) is activated. /Useful


Contents

Reference errors on 31 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your page moves[edit]

Can you not make page moves like you did here. Taking the Hangul of '이달의 소녀', running it through Google Translate, and moving the page based on how it romanizes it is beyond ridiculous. There is simply no justification for such an ill-advised move. You have a long history of making terrible decisions when it comes to page moves and I've often had to revert many that have popped up on my watchlist. — ξxplicit 00:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We all get some things wrong but the problem is there are no English sources for this new music project yet. As per the comment on Talk page. But okay, point taken. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ivan[edit]

Now that Ana Ivanović has retired, do you think it is more likely that a page move could be negotiated at some point? 110.142.225.47 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rather Be[edit]

Hello In ictu oculi. I pinged you twice, but you did not respond; would you be so kind as to comment on said move discussion? Many thanks and warm regards.--Nevéselbert 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lost in Your Love (Tony Hadley song).jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lost in Your Love (Tony Hadley song).jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ryder Scott for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryder Scott is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryder Scott (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Jetstreamer Talk 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:On My Way (Lea Michele song).jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:On My Way (Lea Michele song).jpeg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

At Christmas (James Taylor album)[edit]

Did you discuss this move somewhere? The actual title is James Taylor at Christmas, so I am curious what prompted this.Kellymoat (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Epitaphium[edit]

When you move a page next time, can you do it when I'm less tired? I fixed the links in article space, but many more are now wrong, going to a dab. I'd help but can't keep my eyes open ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I was intending to fix the links myself Gerda. It's often best to leave a few hours to allow templates to adjust. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Learning: which templates? A misleading link in an article is a misleading link the first minute. Nothing wrong with your move, besides the timing. I was already sooo tired, after adding the last pieces, to FP (Poulenc), to be polished. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems to affect mainly bottom of page infoboxes. The "what links here" function continues to show any page with the infobox as linking even if the infobox has been corrected for a time ranging from minutes to hours afterwards. I don't understand why this is the case, but for some reason the infoboxes seem to have some "ghost" input into the What links here function which the system doesn't correct in real time. Odd but real. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Now I understand, you mean you let it sit to tell which links are just from the navbox template. - Graham Waterhouse, - that was my first article, did you know? I wanted to fill a red link, and it was promptly deleted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. As I say I can't explain why there's a delay but there is. I didn't know that was your first article. I guess you've performed his pieces? I confess my ignorance, I only knew the Stravinsky. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm a singer and hobby piano player, and only performed some of his choral pieces and the easier ones of his piano works. I wish I could have been in Wigmore Hall when the siblings played Epitaphium, with a quote from the War Requiem, because their father had been the bassoonist in the chamber ensemble in the premiere. I would also have loved to hear 16 bassoonists + contrabassoon from all over the world play the father's arrangement of a Gabrieli piece in that memorial concert. But London was to far away then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ology (website)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Ology (website) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Short lived website

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Does not have an article listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Does not have an article. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Does not have an article redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of La Colección (Lucero album)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article La Colección (Lucero album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable addition, non-notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jennica / talk 04:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

'Genesis creation narrative'-->'Genesis creation story'[edit]

I am considering creating a move request next month when the moratorium is up over at Genesis creation narrative. I have drafted a proposal, and due to your extensive involvement in RM in general, I was wondering if you could look it over and point out any deficiencies in reasoning, or additional avenues I should consider. I realise that this could possibly be construed as canvassing, but that is not my intention. Rather, I think that with a highly polarised proposal like this, it is very important to get the initial proposal as perfect as possible. I might also ask a few other people about their opinions. InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Chowky for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chowky is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowky until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sattam Oru Iruttarai[edit]

Thank you for being so pessimistic during the move proposal, with the verdict going in favour of you. As if my day couldn't get any better because my iPad screen cracked not too long after I noticed that. Please do me a favour by supporting at least one of my future move proposals? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Soldier[edit]

Thanks for starting this article. :) --USA-Fan (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Organ (film).jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Organ (film).jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aura D'Angelo[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Aura D'Angelo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DrStrauss talk 11:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I´ve got contested the speedy-deletion. --USA-Fan (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2[edit]

Hello In ictu oculi,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
A HUGE backlog

We now have 412 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.


Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Translated page[edit]

Hi! Thanks for putting one of these on Aura D'Angelo. However, it isn't enough just to put the template there, you need to fill in the details. The full deal is: {{translated page|SourceLanguageCode|SourcePageTitle|version=123456789|insertversion=987654321|section=name}} (the "section" parameter is optional). It's pretty obvious, but if you need help with this, ping me either here or at the talk-page there.

So, the big question: have you translated other pages from other Wikipedias? If so, those too will need to be attributed in this way unless you left a detailed edit summary crediting the source (please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects for explanation). I may be able to help with that too. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't translate that one, would have to think if ever have done. But thanks for the info. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move: Using "El Chapo"[edit]

Hi, I wanted to reach out to you regarding a title change discussion in Joaquín Guzmán's talk page. You were involved in a previous change change there in 2015. I'd love to read your input. Thank you! ComputerJA () 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bolero into Bolero (Spanish dance). 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. 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 moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, noted but I clearly stated that I moved the 3 sentences on the Talk page per WP:FORK I would have thought that this would do better than a template. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is not the correct guidance for this. That guidance is what to do if another page on a different site has copied text from Wikiepdia. This is needed so that other editors will know that the text originated on Wikiepdia and was not copied from an external source (See also WP:BACKWARDSCOPY). For examples see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Backwards copy.
The page for guidance for copying text from one article to another within Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Face of Love (1954 film)[edit]

I have closed the move request as no consensus, and started Draft:The Face of Love (1954 film), if you are interested in working that up to article quality. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years![edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections[edit]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lost in Your Love (John Paul Young song).jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lost in Your Love (John Paul Young song).jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Newcomer[edit]

Loving Wikipedia Martin1441924 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3[edit]

Hello In ictu oculi,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 412 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.


Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sergio Leo[edit]

Hi, I noticed you were responsible for changing the subject Sergio Leo to Sérgio Léo. Could you please undone this change, since the real name of the person does nor have those grammatical accents?

Capitalization[edit]

I beg your pardon. I have seen that you have had an influence on the page Capitalization in English. Therefore, you probably would know the answer to this question better than I would. (There was some confusion on the page Mid-Atlantic accent. Are names of accents capitalized? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be "a mid-Atlantic accent" no capitalization of M. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The real question was for "the Transatlantic accent". Anyway, we did resolve the issue. Nonetheless, thank you for your help.LakeKayak (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Juan Vert for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Juan Vert is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Vert until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. South Nashua (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Xavier Sabata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to William Christie, Les Arts Florissants and Francesco Conti
Andrea Jaffe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to PMK
Constantinople (ensemble) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Persian music
Flanagan and Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Underneath the Arches
Hypnotized (1932 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Charles Murray
Luis Quiñones de Benavente (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Toledo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Symphony song (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Continuo and Recorders
Norma Ray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ready to go

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Zords[edit]

Regarding your edit on Zord (diff), I was wondering: do they ever use the term "mecha" on Power Rangers? I don't often hear it on US shows, and was wondering if the pronunciation was relevant. - Reidgreg (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. Does the word even need to be there at all? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Isidro López (musician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Corpus Christi
The prophecy of the White King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to King Stephen
Ángel Infante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Las dos huerfanitas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Kadir Mısıroğlu[edit]

Hi IIO, I'm guessing you know some Turkish and/or have an interest in the topic area of Turkey. If so, help at Kadir Mısıroğlu would be appreciated. Recent POV war, faults on both sides IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

ok. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Move of Tokin to Tokin (headwear)[edit]

Just curious why you moved this page as there are no other pages with "tokin" in the title, so a disambiguation page couldn't be created. Please ping me when you reply. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Because half the book refs are to Shogi In ictu oculi (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Book refs? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Also with en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
What book refs are you talking about, and what do you mean "also with en.wp"? I'm not following. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Books about chess and en.wp articles about chess. I'll move it back if its that important. But it's an unreferenced stub. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it's fine. I just didn't know what you meant since you provided no details. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, no worry I wasn't clear. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't seem fine to me. The so-called explanation, "Half the book refs are to Shogi", explains nothing. It certainly does not explain this move. I've submitted an RM proposal to revert this move: Talk:Tokin_(headwear)#Requested_move_4_May_2017. --В²C 21:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Best Revenge (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Midnight Express and John Heard
Domenico Sarro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Francesco Bernardi
Griselda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Francesco Conti

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite[edit]

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Monica Verschoor[edit]

Hello, In ictu oculi. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Monica Verschoor, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Monica Verschoor to be deleted, please add a reference to the article. If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page. Thanks,RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't create it, please see page history. However I'd say it borderline passes. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

City Without Jews move[edit]

Hello, I was curious - I saw you moved The City Without Jews without an explanation. It still redirects to the film article, so... mind if I move it back? If there isn't another topic by that name, there's no need for the disambiguator... SnowFire (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well there is another topic, the book the film is based on. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough! (I wasn't the one who moved it back, FWIW.) If you can write an article on the novel, that'd be super-cool, although it looks like de doesn't have a fresh one ready for translation... at least not linked on de:Hugo Bettauer. (Oddly enough, Berlin Without Jews, a later novel, did seem to have some English sources & a German wikipedia article when I created that article - dunno why that novel people remembered, but not the earlier one.) SnowFire (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Acte Préalable[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Acte Préalable has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad that was withdrawn. It's probably more locally notable in Poland but still, many awards. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bible Collection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Magdalene (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Eunice Wu for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eunice Wu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eunice Wu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. L3X1 (distant write) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Metahistory[edit]

I think White's book is clearly the primary topic for the search term "Metahistory" - regardless of whether the term has been employed before. IF you want Metahistory to redirect to historiography then I will have to place a hatnote on historiography to note that "metahistory redirects here, for the book by Hayden White see Metahistory (Hayden White)" and that may be a little excessive. So if you insist that the article about White's work should be located at a disambiguation title then I think we will need a disambiguation page and not a redirect.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving the article about the book to the full title of the book and creating a disambiguation page at Metahistory.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

But in fact many of the incoming links were not for the book, other than the author article itself. Most of the other links were mislinking. However I will place it back and start a move discussion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I found one incoming link that resolved to the book and a couple of indeterminate ones.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been fixing them. There are links to the book in See also sections. But Metahistory isn't a book, it's a part of the full title of a book which we have abbreviated. The dab page is a good idea, that will pick up future mislinks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if there are sources to write an article about the concept Metahistory that could include White's usage as well as others without having to resort to OR. Who has written about the history of Metahistory?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The incoming links from articles such as the The French Lieutenant's Woman seem generic mentions covered by historiography, though there is the article Metanarrative (not the same thing). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion about you[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

SEE: Pattern of making controversial title changes without RM or discussion by user In ictu oculi

--В²C 01:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex, Drugs, Rock 'N' Roll & the End of the World, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fred Jones, Mike Griffin and Michael Simmons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

R.P.M. (song) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect R.P.M. (song). Since you had some involvement with the R.P.M. (song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JMHamo (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Your "informal collaborator" move[edit]

Why did you move Informal collaborator to Informal collaborator (East Germany)? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what he does and why I opened an ANI on him (see above). I reverted this umpteenth unexplained/undiscussed move. --В²C 05:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm reading the logs right, but as near I can figure the first move of the page was on 16 February 2017‎ when User:Korny O'Near moved it... It had been created in the fall of 2014 by User:Charles01 and had apparently (if I'm reading the logs right) created under the name "Informal collaborators (East Germany)" (plural on collaborators) and kept that name until 16 February 2017‎ when User:Korny O'Near] moved it... I'm not sure why he did that (liked it better I guess) but possibly should have been a Requested Move discussion; possibly a better title if the parens weren't wanted would have been "Informal collaborators in East Germany" on Recognizability grounds (it's not about people who in general informally collaborate with other people, but about a specific class of people who delivered information to the Statsi in a certain historical place and time, so the present title is arguably confusing).
If WP:BRD applies to page moves, then the move back to "Informal collaborator (East Germany)" (not precisely a restoration, as it uses the singular of collaborator) on 20 April 2017‎) would be valid, and the correct next step would not to be move it back as was done on 2 May 2017‎ by User:Born2cycle, which kind of opens up a back-and-forth type situation, but to open a discussion. (One could say 20 April 2017‎ is two months after 16 February 2017 so too late for WP:BRD... but on the other hand there were no intervening page moves... it's debatable.)
At any rate, that probably answers the User:Korny O'Near's "why" question above: "restoring previous stable version". It would be very helpful if User:In ictu oculi would have said so, though.
User:Charles01 created the page via translation and many edits, so pinging him to see if he has any thoughts on the title. The German version is named just "Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter", but of course the term may be more easily understood in Germany. Herostratus (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On February 16, 2017 Korny O'Near moved Informal collaborators (East Germany) to Informal collaborator and gave the following sound reasoning: "Simplified name - no need for disambiguation". Both using singular form and avoiding unnecessary disambiguation are standard conventions in titles here. This is a perfectly reasonable and understandable move.
  • On April 20, 2017, over two months later, and knowing full well that having unnecessary disambiguation in a title is a controversial issue, In ictu oculi never-the-less moved Informal collaborator to Informal collaborator (East Germany) with edit summary, "revert move". No basis in policy. No reasoning. Nothing. You know why? Because there is no basis in policy or reasoning to justify this "revert" (which as you note - is actually a partial revert).
  • On May 1 2017, about 10 days later, I reverted the April 20 unjustified "revert", restoring the previous stable and justified title from February 16, and left the summary accordingly: "Revert undiscussed/unjustified move - unnecessary disambiguation"
Make sense? --В²C 07:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it makes sense. Lots of things make sense that aren't necessary right. It is at least arguable that "Informal collaborator" is a mediocre title for the article, putting the reader in mind to perhaps expect something like this:
Informal collaborators are workers who form part of a group dedicated to achieving a single objective, but who do not directly affect each others work. For example, magazine writers are often informal collaborators; each writer creates part of the magazine (an article) without reference to what the other writers are creating. This in contrast to the formal collaboration seen for example in business, where workers may view and discuss each other's input into a common output such as a report... etc... In music, members of a improvisational free-form jazz combo are often informal collaborators, in contrast to symphony musicians who are formal collaborators with precisely defined roles... etc... In anarcho-syndicalist theory, "informal collaborators" refers to the relationship between shop workers... etc... }
But that article is not about that, at all. It's about something else altogether different. Since it's about something else altogether different, it should possibly say what that thing is. This is a good thing for titles to do, IMO. "Informal collaborators of East Germany" gives a great deal more information ("Informal collaborators (East Germany)" is essentially the same thing). "Informal Stasi collaborators" gives even more (but depends on the reader knowing what Stasi is, and also breaks the phrase, so not sure about that).
So do you still think that there is "no basis in... reasoning" for the title to be anything other than "Informal collaborator"? Really? No basis?
FWIW, "using singular form... [is] standard conventions in titles here" doesn't seem to necessarily be so, as I just was looking at where a mass of article were moved from "Spanish Canadian" (etc.) to "Spanish Canadians". Yes I get about unnecessary disambiguation, and fine, but if you're hung up on parens then just take out the parens and its not disambiguation anymore -- its just descriptive.
None of this is terrible. Korny O'Near should probably have initiated a Requested Move discussion, is all. He didn't and got rolled back. (Whether 2 months makes a current stable version for moves is debatable IMO; I don't like going on the basis of "didn't notice in time? gotcha!", but at the same time yeah there has to be some cutoff.) According to you he made the move on the basis of "no reasonable person could possibly object to this, so no RM needed" and fine -- WP:BOLD and all. He got rolled back So? That's what happens -- you make a move, you get rolled back, take it to talk and make your case there.
At the same time, I'm sensitive to the argument "Look, as a practical matter, 'Informal collaborators (East Germany)' is going to get voted down, we've seen this many times, so why waste time". That's reasonable. Still, I would recommend possibly erring on the side of caution in these matters. There's no hurry, we want to get it right eventually, not necessarily at once. Herostratus (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been busy as a Bank Holiday weekend and also not wanting to take part in sifting. As above I reverted the undiscussed move because I supported the article creator's title. And marked it as "revert move". I have pinged the article's author on the Talk page, expressing agreement with his chosen title, as it has now been moved again. Thanks Herostratus for the lengthy and correct understanding displayed above. I now have to go back to deadline. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
In ictu oculi - as В²C noted, you didn't actually revert the move; you changed it to a third title. (Are you aware of that?)
Herostratus - it's certainly possible that a reader would expect to see, at an article titled Informal collaborator, something more generic than a discussion of informants in East Germany. It's also possible that a reader would go to the article Friends and be surprised to see that it's about a TV show. I don't think that the expectations of hypothetical readers should play a major part in our decision-making, especially when there lots of explicit guidelines about article naming. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, you make a good argument for possibly moving Friends to Friends (television show) (on the merits; I'm not suggesting this (certainly not without a discussion), in deference to various rules or common practices). Expectations of hypothetical readers should play a major part in our decision-making, maybe. It's a reasonable opinion to think so anyway.
Indeed, Recognizability, one of the Five Virtues or article titles, says so: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize". Only an expert in the details of East German police practices will recognize "Informal collaborators" as being about the Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter. Someone familiar with, but not expert in, East German police practices (like me for instance), will know the term "Stasi" and so will recognize ""Informal Stasi collaborators". Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're making a case for there. Should the article be titled "Informal Stasi collaborators"? That name at least has the advantage of not including nonsensical parentheses. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The main issue here presumes "Informal collaborator" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic, and so it's about deciding between Informal collaborator and Informal collaborator (East Germany). If anyone wants to argue that "Informal collaborator" is not the COMMONNAME, then that's something else entirely to consider, and definitely requires a separate RM. So back to the issue at hand. Almost exclusively we use parenthetical disambiguation for exactly that: disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguation is not a way to clarify what specifically the title is referring to, unless that's necessary for disambiguation. And I wouldn't get too hung up on the familiar/expert distinction. It's very subjective. The guiding principle is this: if someone is looking for a topic, what are they most likely to use to search for it? If it's "Informal collaborator" then that should be the title, not "Informal collaborator (East Germany)", which is certainly less likely to be entered by anyone. --В²C 18:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Right. Well with "'Informal collaborator (East Germany)'... is certainly less likely to be entered by anyone" you make the Naturalness argument "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for" (certainly an example of considering the "expectations of hypothetical readers" recently deprecated above). And fine. But IMO this is not a key issue as long the proper redirects are in place. Whether readers are more likely to search on "Informal collaborator" or "Stasi informer" or "East german informers" or whatever I don't know.
BTW another point for "Informal collaborator" rather than "Informal Stasi collaborator" is that Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter is a term (like "Person of interest", which is not the same as "interesting person") and "Informal Stasi collaborator" is merely a description, and if we're going to go with just a description then maybe "Stasi informant" would be in order. But Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter is not a term in English, and WP:COMMONNAME specifically prescribes "prevalence in... English-language sources" only. A reasonable case could be made for "well, even so, it's common in German [if true -- dunno] and it just makes sense to bring it over in translation" It's a fair case but not overwhelming, and anyway if accepted then "Informal collaborators in East Germany" would also cover that point.
(It's actually not impossible that the article should actually be titled "Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter" if (as sometimes happens) the foreign-language term is treated as a loan term in most English-language sources; I doubt it, since it would have to be quite a strong trend to overcome Recognizability that way. But research might prove that it is.)
So should the article be titled "Informal collaborator" (or plural of that) or "Informal Stasi collaborators" or "Stasi informers" or "Informal collaborators in East Germany" or "Informal collaborators (East Germany)"? (As to that last, I do understand the objection to parentheses, which are mainly used for disambiguation, being used for elucidation as 1) it's potentially confusing, and 2) makes some people pound their forehead on the desk, which we don't want editors upset, all things equal.)
Search me. "Should" is hard thing to determine. But since it's a "maybe", I would gently suggest that if BRD'd back one might consider taking it to talk rather than doubling down. After all, this discussion has opened up a couple of previously-unconsidered compromises or ways forward, so -- time-consuming as it is -- that can be fruitful. Herostratus (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It's fine where it is. Anyone favoring a different title is certainly welcome to open an RM discussion accordingly. --В²C 20:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, please read this[edit]

Hi In ictu oculi. Above you said "Thanks Herostratus for the lengthy and correct understanding displayed above" and earlier on my talk you have said (re the ANI thread) "You're absolutely correct, and thank you for your comments".

So although I have also probably said things you don't like (re HacoGate (HacoGhazi?)), take me as a non-hostile person, which is true -- I'm not hostile.

As a non-hostile person, may I suggest that you, as general rule, use a lot more WP:RM and a lot less unilateral moving. It is possible that User:Born2cycle should also -- I don't know -- and maybe you could both agree to do so, or something.

User:Born2cycle makes the point that, justified as they may be on the merits (or not -- I'm not making judgement because I don't know), anything that could conceivably be objected to just on titling rules alone, you should discuss. So should User:Born2cycle IMO. Really, so should all of us.

I understand "Well, it is crystal-clear to me, as an experienced editor that has worked in this area a lot, that this is the better title" as the basis for a unilateral move. However, IMO it needs to be "Well, it is crystal-clear to me, as an experienced editor that has worked in this area a lot, that this is the better title and no sane person could possibly object" needs to be the operative hurdle to clear.

I think a lot less drama this way (and if "no sane person could possibly object" still gets you in move wars, just expand your definition of "sane person" until it does I guess).

And there's no hurry. There's no "I must move this article now". Set up an RM, make your case and give your reasons, and see what shakes out. Sometimes you'll be turned down. Oh well -- Wikipedia! If you're making an article and need the title space cleared, I dunno -- keep the article in draft, or use a different name, or something, until the RM clears, I guess.

Of course, I get the point that "User:In ictu oculi and User:Born2cycle both agreeing to use RM's almost always" is not exactly a parallel situation for various reasons. What can I say? Life isn't fair. It's the best solution I can think of.

What say you? Herostratus (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I resent being thrown into the same bucket here. I'm generally very conscientious about using RM rather than making unilateral moves, and even at my worst (like last night) I explain at length what I'm doing and why. That said, if IIO volunteers to stop making unilateral moves and to always use RM per your standard (or, even better, "even B2C would agree with this", LOL), that would be fine with me, and we could probably avoid a formal sanction. --В²C 21:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. Well, User:Born2cycle has declined to join this suggested mutual agreement, so I'll stop meddling. I don't really know the right-and-wrong of all this, but I do note that that you get occasional objections on your talk page. This could be just an effect of you being busy and productive, or it could be a signal that you're a bit hasty sometimes, and I don't know which it is. Herostratus (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus (talk · contribs) I don't think you're meddling, but being helpful. I would hope that anything that is 1% among x000s edits is worked out. And whereever they have arisen they have been worked out. An example being Talk:Informal collaborator (East Germany) where I reverted a move and asked the original article creator if he supported the revert and he does. Over 12 over 24 months when discussion arises related to articles they are settled at the article with no problem. If I wasn't happy to let edits be challenged there'd be a problem, but I don't do that, I go on to other tasks. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Your edits are not at issue. It's your moves. Just your moves. The unilateral ones. And it's far more than 1% of your moves that are an issue. Probably more than 50% of them. Do you want me or someone to do an exhaustive analysis? It probably should be done. The only reason only a few were cited at the AN/I is because no one has done such a search and analysis. But we could, if you'd like... --В²C 21:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. Yes, it probably should be done... but by a neutral admin, which I'm not. Sometimes a case comes up where someone, or a group, will do a deep dig, but this seems unlikely here -- probably because it looks too much like (and maybe is) a content disagreement, with not necessarily any egregiously bad behavior. Admins at ANI are looking for things like edit wars, horribly rude behavior, vandalism, legal threats, and so forth, things which can be fairly easily determined what is going on, and which are unacceptable.
User:Born2cycle, it's a little like going to the police with "I know you are busy with murders and robberies, but my neighbor and I have been fighting for years over his putting his stuff on my property, and that matters too and it's become unbearable, please tell him to stop". In a fair world you have a reasonable complaint, but in point of fact the police are likely to be of the mind "Call when someone is actually shot, and anyway we can't adjudicate where your property line is".
My guess is the thread may expire with no action, or with an overt decision of "no action to take here". The second-most-likely outcome is that you, User:In ictu oculi, will indeed be enjoined from moving pages without an RM. There are, after all, an awful lot of complaints in that thread about your moves. I think you should take that to heart, User:In ictu oculi.
And if you are so enjoined, [User:In ictu oculi]], I hope you will not go into a huff, but be of the mind "Oh well, you win some and you lose some, and life isn't fair, and after all there were a number of editors joining the case against me. So oh well, I will simply adjust my mode of operation to Requested-Move everything. This will slow me down, but I can live with that; and some of my RM's will be turned down, but it is what it is, and anyway but that is not a "loss" for me but a win for the community who got to have their voices heard".
And whether enjoined or not, both of you shouldn't be moving stuff anyway, without an RM, as a general rule. Sorry, but my take is that both of you ohave a poor grasp of "could anybody possibly object to this?" and so you should be going to the community for confirmation a lot more. Herostratus (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus, other than what has been going in the last week, do you have any evidence of me EVER making an inappropriate move of any article? Seriously, what are you talking about? You're comparing someone with no record (me) to a serial unilateral article mover. By the way, I just created another section with another example on the AN/I, this one for Tokin. I did not revert. I created an RM to revert. Good? --В²C 21:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, fine, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Listen to the community[edit]

Yes, I did go through a 1-year forced vacation from Wikipedia & so I do know what I'm posting about, when I tell you to drop the Bunker mentality. Don't make the mistakes I made. If you increasingly peeve enough members of the community? scrutiny grows & restrictions will follow. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mario Chicot Ke An Wen.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mario Chicot Ke An Wen.jpg. 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) 17:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4[edit]

Hello In ictu oculi,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 412 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)