Premeditated Chaos

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Girl Who Lived in the Tree 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.^{[April Fools!]} Di (they-them) (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on The Overlook (Alexander McQueen collection). — Bilorv (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on the award! You're now in uncontested eighth place on the leaderboard. I look forwards to seeing what comes next! — Bilorv (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Bilorv! I appreciate your tireless work in dealing with editor retention stuff like these awards and your challenges page. Are you working on any FA/GAs right now? I just took a peek and didn't see any noms with your name. I really enjoyed reviewing your Black Mirror episode, would love to comment if it goes to FAC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks—I've got a few ideas up in the air but nothing in shape to be nominated yet. Black Mirror's latest renewal (for series 7) is a blessing and a curse. I'm saving my Black Mirror energy for the new episodes and updates that will be required across the topic. I'll try to let you know when I next put something up for review. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please do! I'd be happy to grab another episode GAN as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

My latest sacrifices to the altar of Jimbo... Apocalypse Clown (DYK, GA) and To Catch a Copper (DYK, GA). Take a look if either interest you but no pressure if the subject matter doesn't appeal. — Bilorv (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ooh, that Catch a Copper show looks like something I would watch. Dibsed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Verse 1) Yo, listen up, here's a story untold, About the Wikipedia streets, where the key is to be bold. But hold up, before you throw a punch or a jab, Remember, personal attacks, they ain't fab.

(Chorus) In the world of Wiki, we're writing the script, No room for haters, let's keep it equipped. With respect and unity, we stand side by side, In the credits of this 80s flick, together we ride.

(Verse 2) Now, editing's a battle, of facts and of wit, But when tempers flare up, we don't quit. We talk it out, share a point, or maybe concede, 'Cause in this community, it's unity we need.

(Chorus) In the world of Wiki, we're fixing the plot, No personal attacks, give it all you got. With a keyboard as our sword, and truth as our guide, In the credits of this 80s movie, with pride we abide.

(Bridge) So before you hit "send", take a breath, take a beat, Remember, kindness in this game, can't be beat. Let's make this Wiki world a better place to be, In the credits of this film, it's respect we wanna see.

(Outro) So here's to the editors, the writers, the crew, In this 80s movie credit rap, we salute you. Keep the vibe positive, the community tight, In the world of Wikipedia, let's do it right. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, this is the worst thing that's ever been on my talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:DONOTCHATGPT80sMOVIECREDITRAPSONGTHEREGULARS ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's taking everything I have not to bluelink that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's what ChristieBot thinks you've reviewed -- let me know if any of these need to be corrected.

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I realized you have a list of your GA reviews in your userspace so I did a quick compare: the extra ones are Cribbage (pool) and Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey, for which ChristieBot has credited you with both GA1 and GA2. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

And checking, it looks like you did review the cribbage article, but the other one is an error on the bot's part -- you only reviewed GA2. I'll look into that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I bowed out of the Cribbage one so I don't count it, that's what it was. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

And I've fixed the other one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 14 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Girl Who Lived in the Tree, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alexander McQueen created a fairy tale about a feral girl who becomes a princess for his Autumn/Winter 2008 collection The Girl Who Lived in the Tree (look pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Girl Who Lived in the Tree. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Girl Who Lived in the Tree), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article The Girl Who Lived in the Tree you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:The Girl Who Lived in the Tree for comments about the article, and Talk:The Girl Who Lived in the Tree/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there PMC. Sorry if it bothers you, but are you willing to do a 2nd review at the article Albert Wesker? Your review (Article's 2nd review) before was helpful. Thank you. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update it is now a GA. Thanks for the previous reviews; it really helps. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about not getting back to you! Glad it worked out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. Sorry for the random message. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my peer review for the Kes (Star Trek) article? I saw your excellent review for the Iron Man FAC so I thought that I should reach out. I am trying to gauge if the article would be appropriate for a FAC. I completely understand if the quality is just not on that level. I am not super confident with it so I intend to keep the peer review open for a while to get as much feedback as possible. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are doing well and having a great week so far. I look forward to whatever article you bring to the FAC process next after The Hunger (Alexander McQueen collection). Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! You never have to apologize for messaging me, I'm always happy to help out a friend :) I'll put it on my watchlist and try to get to it within a week, but if I let it slip (as I often do), please ping me. I'm doing well and I hope you are too. Trying to decide whether it'll be Pantheon ad Lucem or The Girl Who Lived in the Tree first; they'll both go eventually so it's mostly just a matter of order. Pantheon has a few elegant designs, but is overall pretty boring, so there's a lot less said about it (much easier to write :P). Girl is outstanding from top to bottom, so it's more fun to write, but more work too. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the response and the kind words! Take as much time as you need. I am in absolutely no rush. I am glad you are doing well. I have been doing better, thank you for asking. I can understand the pros and cons to both choices lol. I agree that The Girl Who Lived in the Tree is more exciting, but a FAC for Pantheon ad Lucem could bring some fun to it (but hopefully not in a negative way of course lol). Either way you go, I look forward to doing a review and reading through either article, and I am sure other reviews feel the same way. I am still very impressed by all the work you have put into the Alexander McQueen collections. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on The Hunger (Alexander McQueen collection). Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, and thank you today for Oyster dress, introduced: "Once upon a time, Alexander McQueen was known for tight tailoring and sharp cuts. He made dresses, but he didn't make dresses. Then he went to work for Givenchy, where he learned the real art of dressmaking. Channelling his obsession with outdoing British designer John Galliano, he came up with the oyster dress, a riff on Galliano's 1987 shellfish dress that blew the original out of the water. The oyster dress, a full-length gown in layers of distressed beige chiffon that appeared in Irere (S/S 2003), is one of McQueen's most famous designs. Only two copies of the original are known to exist, owned by The Met in New York and Kim Kardashian, respectively."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you today for your share of Boundary Fire (2017), "about another Arizona wildfire from 2017, a busy year. In this particular fire, high winds, high temperatures, low/no humidity, and the crispy remnants of a fire 17 years before were combined by lightning into a blaze that scorched almost 18,000 acres of the Coconino National Forest. Also, this is another really short article at 828 words as of time of writing."! - See my talk today, with 5 items on the Main page, including the TFA that I nominated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for hiding those various edit summaries - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem, whoever that was seems like a very unpleasant character. I'll keep an eye out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

12eeWikiUser has asked for a deletion review of Paulin Basinga. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 11:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fyi, I'm just letting you know that WWE have been doing an ARG campaign lately and a couple of the clues led to the Dusky Seaside Sparrow and Decree 900 articles. That's why it's so sudden. 86.13.203.114 (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I was wondering what the wrestling connection was. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your welcome. Kinda felt bad seeing so many fans change the article outta nowhere. I think the actual goal WWE had was specific dates and clues in the articles, so I doubt they would've even remotely wanted the changes either.

I suggest just keeping an eye out for these things during the next few weeks. 86.13.203.114 (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it looks like there's some kind of connection to June 17. I wish the wrestling people well and all with their ARG but I wish they would think about how annoying this is for other people. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Premeditated_Chaos, may I ask you a question about the GA review process? I've agreed to do a review on an article, and I think it meets almost all the criteria, but I'm just uncertain about one: the cites. The article is well-sourced, and I've done a spot-check on a lot of the cites, but I've found several that lead to dead links or that don't seem to support the point that they're being cited for. I appreciate that GA review isn't as rigourous as FA, but I didn't see an answer to this in the GA FAQ. Could I put it on hold for a week and let the nominator have the list of cites that have problems? Would welcome your advice. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing this is for Tamil Nadu? For the dead links, you could try running IABot to see if it can rescue any of the dead links with archived links. There's also some useful ideas at WP:DEADREF to look at. My concern is the failed verifications - those are much worse of a problem. Were they inserted by previous editors or by the GA nom? If they were inserted by earlier editors, that's an oversight but not terrible, but if they were inserted by the GA nom, it's much more concerning. How many instances of this have you found?

Whether or not to hold, in my opinion, would really be predicated on how many instances and how egregiously off the mark the content is from the source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The dead links are older ones, as you might expect, I think before the current nominator came on (it was nominated a decade ago and got a quick fail). The ones that have content issues are ones that are clearly related to the matter under discussion, but just don't quite support the sentence. They're not a big part of the ones I checked. (Yes, it's Tamil Nadu).

What I did was check every 20th cite, and if it was an online cite, I clicked on it to check. Also checked a few around each 20th cite. (There's 590 cites,and I wasn't going to click everyone that had a link!)

I think I'll put a hold on it, suggest nominator check the ones I flag, and also consider checking the older links from 2012 or before; I think that's from the previous nominator. Other than this issue, I think it's very well-written, very detailed and good coverage.

There's also some typos and grammar issues; probably unavoidable in such a big article. I'll wait until the GA matter is decided, and then suggest my changes. I do wonder if part of what is catching my attention is a difference between North American English and Indian English, so I don't want to be too definitive.

Thanks very much for your comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I've been enjoying your McQueen articles. It's an area I know nothing about, but it's fascinating to read. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I think your course of action sounds reasonable. "Connected but slightly off" is reasonable and fixable, and if there's not that many of them you can probably chalk it up to editor error; happens to the best of us.

Glad you're enjoying the McQueen series! They're lots of fun to write, each one presents its own challenge. Hopefully I'll get my next one out of draft and into main soon. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just approved the Tamil Nadu article as a Good Article. The nominator was very helpful and responsive in updating cites. Does the Wiki software automatically add the "Good Article" button at the top of the article page? Or is there something more I need to do? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Once you've taken all the closing steps, the bot will take care of the rest. It runs a couple times an hour if I recall correctly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks. Everything on the template is now "y", so that should happen in a bit. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi again! I've got a follow-up question: would you be willing to take a look at my GA assessment on the Tamil Nadu article? That was the first one I've done, and I would appreciate any feedback you may have on the way I did it. Was it thorough enough? balanced? Anything I could have done differently or better? I've seen your comments on the GA project page about GA not meant to be as rigorous as FA, and I kept that in mind. Any comments that you may have would be very welcome. (I've now been asked to do a GA review on another Indian state, Andhra Pradesh, and before I start that, I want to have some indication whether the Tamil Nadu one was properly done. Query: is it usual to have someone request that a particular editor do a GA review?) Hope this isn't too much to ask, but if you're busy, I understand. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mmmmm...I find it difficult to do a second opinion on other peoples' reviews. Very often they're not the review that I would have done, which doesn't necessarily make them wrong or bad, but it can make it hard to critique them objectively. Tamil Nadu is also a subject that's doubly out of my comfort zone; I don't really edit India articles or top-level state articles.

All that being said, I do think, if I were doing your review, I might have been more detailed with leaving comments. The majority of the review is focused on calling out sourcing - mainly dead link fixing and some formatting nitpicks, with a few content-based spot checks. Spot checks are great, don't change that, but GA reviewing requires more than just fixing sources. You mentioned seeing grammatical errors and actual sentence structure problems, but said they were out of scope for GA. They're not; the criteria explicitly says "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable" and "spelling and grammar are correct". It's true that the prose isn't expected to be as crisp as at the FA level, but genuine errors are still a problem.

There's nothing wrong with asking a particular person to do a GA review, as long as a proper review is conducted and there's no rubber-stamping from the reviewer or pressure from the nom. (Mind you, if someone asks and you're not prepared to do a review, it's perfectly fine to say no.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's helpful! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

hello,

I would like to request for undeletion of the page Aamir Tameem which was deleted sometime ago. the page is of an Indian actor who has been cited in 3 more wikipedia pages of the films. Request you to kindly consider this request.

1. Prayanam (2009 film) 2.Katha (2009 film) 3.Katha Screenplay Darsakatvam Appalaraju

here are some YouTube links of the actor 1.https://www.youtube.com/shorts/L5JVw7PwBWA?app=desktop Aza.azee (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What does the big blue banner at the top of the page say to do when making undeletion requests? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned, I have provided 4 sources of Aamir Tameem's work. Aza.azee (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia articles aren't sources, and neither is YouTube. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

But who are you to decide on whether the work of an actor as stated in your deletion discussion is not notable. Considering you have no experience in acting. Aza.azee (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources or don't bother coming back, thanks, I'm not arguing the basic principles of notability with you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Joan (Alexander McQueen collection) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Joan (Alexander McQueen collection) and Talk:Joan (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Joan (Alexander McQueen collection) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Joan (Alexander McQueen collection) for comments about the article, and Talk:Joan (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 13 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that models in the runway show for Nihilism by Alexander McQueen were dressed in plastic, locusts, rust, and clay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

^Complex/_Rational 00:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Premeditated Chaos, you are so cool for working on all these McQueen articles. Thank you! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aw thanks :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 18 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joan (Alexander McQueen collection), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the flaming finale of Joan by Alexander McQueen has been read as an image of violence, resilience, transcendence, and resurrection? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joan (Alexander McQueen collection). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joan (Alexander McQueen collection)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see you promoted three prep sets to queue in a span of a minute and a half and didn't note any issues with any of the hooks. It usually takes me about a half hour to do one set and it's rare that I don't find something to complain about. Forgive me if this is an impertinent question, but are you sure you're giving the review process the full rigor it deserves? RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a fair question. I give the preps I'm thinking of promoting a scan beforehand, then hit post all at once. It's possible I don't scrutinize to the extent that you do, and certainly possible that I'm less picky about things, for better or for worse. I'm also, to be honest, less vocal about hooks I'm not sure about than I probably should be - I often give those prep sets a pass rather than going to WT:DYK. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 September 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, really. Literally you gave no reason for undoing my edit of adding a GIF to the Running other than asking if "really?". The article is about running, "a method of terrestrial locomotion by which humans and other animals move rapidly on foot", not just the sport running. So when you were asking me if I really meant to add that GIF -- yes, I meant it, because the article lacks examples of normal people running. Normal people can be anyone, not just athletes or runners as the article shows. That is why, I added the GIF. The GIF shows the gait and upper body movement of a female human body as she runs. While no clear explanation of why my edit was removed, I bring forth an explanation of my part -- which I might add was in good faith. Did you assume good faith from my part? Thank you, I hope this explains the reasons behind my actions. Cheers. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a gif of a chick with huge tits, apparently wearing no bra, breasting boobily down the street. Are you seriously, with a straight face, trying to tell me you added it for purely educational reasons? And that there's no other gif which might better illustrate the mechanics of upper body movement while running? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

PMC, if you're interested to look closer, User:TepeyacPilgrim appears to be a sock of User:Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas. Using the account on dozens of wikis to spam the latter's photo uploads (or create articles for their amateur porn), including obviously inappropriate additions to a wide number of language projects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Their 'amateur porn' article is probably ripe for merging into its obvious parent ... or just deleting completely. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm on my work computer today so although I'm editing, I can't look into this right now for SFW reasons, but I can take a look later. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rhododendrites the connection is   Confirmed by CU -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Okay, well, I've redirected the article, as the sources are complete trash. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

At least they weren't running bare. I'll get me coat. SerialNumber54129 11:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 October 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 5, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 2024. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi PMC, Just to let you know I've moved this TFA to 9 October, which is the anniversary of the show. Sorry for the relatively late change, but I think it's a little better where it is now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No need to apologise! :) Thanks for stepping up and doing the TFA backrooms work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I really enjoyed reading your review of the Singapore MRT station -- having just completed my own review it was like being in a writing workshop to see your notes appear only an hour or two after mine. I wasn't thinking about opposing, though perhaps I should have been; but what really struck me was that I agreed with a lot of your points and then wondered why I hadn't made those points myself. Anyway, I hope you don't mind the random post, but I think your comments were spot on and have made me want to be more precise in my own reviewing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind at all, in fact I'm flattered you took the time to say this. I read your comments as I was going through and found myself in agreement with the majority of what you said. One thing I find FAC doesn't often touch on - and which is weirdly important to me and I wish it would come up more in my own FACs - is flow and organization. I often comment on this at FAC and I'm never sure if I'm just being neurotic. Conversely, I often find myself looking at my articles and thinking the order feels wrong, but I never get comments in that direction so I'm never sure if it actually is flowing fine or if it's just that no one noticed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree; I try to comment on flow and organization myself, but when one has a lot of sentence level comments it can be hard to pull away and look at the article at a higher level. Sometimes I'll wait till everything I've commented on is resolved and then read through again, now looking for the higher level issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Pppery

  Interface administrator changes

  Pppery

 

  Oversighter changes

  Wugapodes

  CheckUser changes

 

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

  Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

  Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Voss (Alexander McQueen collection) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey PMC, I've always really appreciated the thoroughness of your content reviews. I've got a peer review up for iMac G4 at Wikipedia:Peer review/IMac G4/archive1 in preparation for a Featured Article nomination, and if you've got the time to look at it I'd appreciate comments. A fashionable eye on a techy article I find is always helpful for accessibility. Hope you're doing well! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi David, I don't normally do tech articles so my commentary may not be super helpful, but I can certainly have a look. I'll put my name down; if I don't actually comment within about a week or so please ping to remind me :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey PMC, took a while since I was gone on vacation for a spell, but I've gone through and addressed most of what you posted in the PR (now closed). I was thinking of putting it up for FAC in the next month and pinging the PR participants then, but if you have time before to suggest any other things I'd love to hear. Thanks again for your comments thus far, they've been super useful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey David, finally had time to have a look here. Mostly looks good, but still have some outstanding things I would pick at at FAC.

• Still need to fix "comprised of" in the lead
• Job's quote about each component being "true to itself" still feels like corpospeak. What does he mean by that?
• Looking good down to Release - still wondering about "personal computers, which were increasingly being commoditized" - in what sense?
• also, still wondering about "were not endangered" - when did we establish that they were endangered, or that someone thought they were?
• Sentence 1 of para 3 under Reception is still a brutal length
• "sticking the computer internals" - sticking feels informal

Otherwise I think it looks quite good and would be happy to comment at FAC. (As a side note, if you've got the inclination to wade through academic gibble-gabble about fashion, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Voss (Alexander McQueen collection) could use comments!) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 14 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Voss (Alexander McQueen collection), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the runway show for the Alexander McQueen collection Voss included dresses made from razor clams (pictured), microscope slides, and an antique Japanese folding screen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Voss (Alexander McQueen collection). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Voss (Alexander McQueen collection)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

story · music · places

Thank you today for The Girl Who Lived in the Tree, introduced: "After the death of his frenemy Isabella Blow, Alexander McQueen took a month-long trip to India to process his grief. The result was The Girl Who Lived in the Tree, a wildly imaginative and critically beloved collection that smashes together imagery of the British monarchy with the culture of India during the British Raj through the story of a fairy tale about a feral girl who becomes a princess. It's a joyous collection that's rightfully remembered as one of his best."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

		The Fashion Barnstar
		Hi PMC, I just wanted to give you this to let you know that I appreciate all that you do with your various GAs, FAs, DYKs, and general good work! Di (they-them) (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much, Di! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem :) Di (they-them) (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greenwood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection) for comments about the article, and Talk:Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Today when I de-orphaned this article I thought you may be interested in this one. I added links at both Fashion, See also and at Index of fashion articles.

Help to de-orphan articles. 1. WikiProject Orphanage - working to reduce the article backlog. 2. Wikipedia:Orphan - the complete How-to Guide for Orphaned articles. » De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web.

For Orphaned articles from September 2024 for the entire month, I focused on de-orphaning many of those instead of the usual oldest articles. Some of the articles were double-tagged, and occasionally 3-orphan-tags. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Joe, while I appreciate that you're thinking of me, I think that was not a great way to de-orphan that article. It's the same kind of inappropriately low-level link on a high-level article that people have been asking you to stop doing for several months now. The top-level article about fashion does not need a link to a dinky fashion app that no longer exists. Imagine if that "See also" section contained every single article within the sphere of fashion. That would be tens of thousands of "See also" entries. You can see why that would be completely unhelpful, right?

If there was an article like fashion app or list of fashion-related apps, then it would have been appropriate to put Wishi there, but not at a top-level article about the whole concept of fashion. When you encounter this kind of junk article, it's better to check if it's even notable first before bothering to de-orphan it, and if it's not, either nominate it for deletion or leave it for someone who's comfortable doing that. When I searched it, the Wishi app that our article describes is so non-notable that the name was reused for a different app in 2019. I've nominated it for deletion.

If you still can't understand why you need to stop linking low-level articles from high-level topics, it might be better for you to stop de-orphaning entirely. I get the sense from the numerous messages on your talk page that eventually someone will get frustrated with you and take you to ANI. I would rather not see you go through that, so please, from the bottom of my heart, I am begging you to change the way you're going about things. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain about low-level vs. high-level articles. I always thought articles to be equal so okay to add a link (like building the encyclopedia) to de-orphan. For now, I will go back to "Community portal", Help out section, as there is so more variety of things to do there. Thanks for your advice & insights. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rather than reverting your edit of the redirect Non metal, let me explain. The page Nonmetal only discusses the elements. The page Nonmetallic materials refers, to quote from the 1st line "to materials which are not metals" which is what "non metal" is. Why the names are so confused...that is a different issue of WP:1AM which does not matter here. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

N.B., if you really, really want I will be OK (but not excited) by making it a redirect to Nonmetal (disambiguation). Please note that I am not the "1", that is the person who insists on a Nonmetal being only for the elements despite various attempts by about half a dozen editors to move him.

N.B., of course Non-metal is the same. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an expert in this kind of thing, but to me as a layperson, it doesn't make a lick of sense for the words "non metal" to redirect to anything other than "nonmetal". That's the article I was looking for. Nonmetal is a longstanding article that gets 21k views monthly. Nonmetallic material is a relatively new article that appears to be trying to cover a bunch of ideas about "stuff that isn't metal" into one article, and it gets 500 views monthly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you have it the wrong way around. The article 'Nonmetallic material should be renamed as "Nonmetal", as it is the correct useage in 21st century science.

The term "non metal" is used for elements when teaching high school chemistry Nonmetallic material#Periodic table elements. In the rest of science (including chemistry) it refers to Nonmetallic material#General definition or sometimes Nonmetallic material#Functional definition, while there is a historical anomaly with Nonmetallic material#Nonmetals in astronomy, Wikipedia should never be a populist vote, it should be NPOV and follow the accepted science as an encyclopedia. The page Nonmetallic material covers everything as NPOV, so should be "Nonmetal"; at worst the disambiguation page should be used. The current Nonmetal should be Nonmetallic element.

Please note the tag at the top of Nonmetal about the sources that are not verified. If you want to understand more, please look at Talk:Nonmetal, WP:1AM, many editors. So far the "1" has outlasted the "M" who have got fed up and moved on.

As I said, I am OK with a compromise if we redirect to the disambiguation but not to Nonmetal. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see that the talk page there looks like a bloody mess, and I'm not remotely qualified to wade in. But again, from a lay reader's perspective, it makes no sense for an internal Wikipedia redirect to refer "non metal" and "non-metal" to something other than "nonmetal". If and when you get the article scopes settled properly, then by all means it would make sense to retarget them. But given the way things stand, if I'm looking for "nonmetal", variant renderings of the word should take me to nonmetal, not to some other article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Socratic method (apologies, I like it). Which of the following is a "nonmetal"?

Paper, wood, glass, pizza, table salt, titanium nitride? Ldm1954 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ldm1954 why not just take this to WP:RFD? That would probably get a more solid consensus than a discussion on someone's talkpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Elli. Ldm1954, I've said above at least twice that I'm not competent to argue about the contents of the page. My argument is purely from a reader-utility perspective, which suggests that redirects should target the most obvious target. Please make the RFD and I'll be happy to say so there rather than playing silly games. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The definition of "Nonmetal" has already been there, and met the same 1AM.

Being blunt, I no longer care enough about this to fight you. Your edit is wrong. Wikipedia has a bad reputation for science inaccuracy which some of the professionals have tried to change, but sometimes we run against a wall. To quote Johnjbarton from the talk page (another editor who has moved on):

Everything that I have found points to the same conclusion: there is no such term as "the nonmetals" except in the narrow sense of "elements which are not metals". The nonmetals are not, in any source I have read, a category like "halogens" or "transition metals" or "lanthanides". See for example,

Fluck, E.. "New notations in the periodic table" Pure and Applied Chemistry, vol. 60, no. 3, 1988, pp. 431-436. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac198860030431

Of course I cannot provide a reference to show that a non-thing like non-metals is not a thing! There are refs that use "nonmetals" for the category of elements listed here, but this is not chemistry but simply logic: many elements share the property of being metals, the rest are thus "nonmetals". The only common property is exactly one: not being a metal.

There isn't a history for the term "nonmetal" because it is not a thing. The closest we get is the current discussion, which I've fixed up the refs for. In the earliest days, "nonmetals" was a "Type" before elements were more broadly understood. My claims can be easily refuted with a reference and maybe there are a few but it's not a mainstream concept beyond a logical category. I've done what I can here. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You know buddy, maybe that other guy isn't the only person in that discussion who can't listen, considering that none of your responses have taken a single thing I've said into account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have read what you said and offered a compromise; as against you reverting without discussion on a topic which you have stated you don't know much. Not being rude, but being rigorous; to make a value judgement expertise and/or reading and researching the topic matters. I quoted one of the other editors to refute your argument, which you have ignored.

A quote from a second editor, Double sharp, you can find the context:

What we have here is a lie-to-children simplification of the real definition, since you cannot explain all of this to people first seeing the periodic table without most of their heads exploding: and I think it is somewhat of a mistake to treat it as an actual, independent definition.

There are more, some are much less polite. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please take this to RFD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

story · music · places

Thank you today for The Birds (Alexander McQueen collection), introduced: "For his fifth collection, Alexander McQueen presented The Birds, a collection inspired by the Hitchcock film of the same name. Where a lesser designer might have been satisfied with aping Tippi Hedren's classy dresses and pencil skirts, McQueen chose sex and violence: gratuitous nudity, tire tracks, and dead white eyes. Desperately poor, he was courting controversy in an effort to attract financial backing, and it worked. Although it was his next collection, Highland Rape, that made him a star, The Birds is a work of macabre genius that deserves recognition in its own right."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Gerda! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

		Bronze W Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Bronze W Award for your contributions to each long-time section of the Main Page: a Featured Article at Today's Featured Article and 5 articles listed at Did You Know. Your contributions to Wikipedia put you in a class of prolific, highly skilled editors. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 00:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You technically won 11 of these awards, though I don't want to completely spam fill your talk page! You can display this award using Template:Bronze W UBX.

Haha, thank you for no spam. This is pretty cool! Cheers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey! I just noticed you on the deleted page retrieval list, and i was wondering if you could retrieve the contents of Draft:Lil Timmy for me? Thank you very much in advance, i worked hard on this page and don't want to lose it, even if i have to get it edited by someone before its allowed on Wikipedia. LilTimmyOfficial (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

And if you could point me in the direction of people that are willing to help me get the page to a state that is suitable for Wikipedia, that would be amazing too! LilTimmyOfficial (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You didn't read the big blue banner at the top of the page, did you? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unless I'm just an idiot and don't know of a certain feature, i don't think i can link a deleted article.

If it's linkable, then this should work:

Draft:Lil Timmy LilTimmyOfficial (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, and what does it say about providing sources for undeletion requests? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was requesting the content of the article be moved to my user page, not an undeletion request. It will take some time for me to compile sources and find the best choices for my wiki page, so for now I'd love to just have a backup of my previous article that got deleted. LilTimmyOfficial (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to Wikipedia editing so apologies if I'm misunderstanding some things. LilTimmyOfficial (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, Timmy, I see that you've now admitted to being the subject of the article you want to undelete. It's generally frowned upon to write an article about yourself - see Wikipedia:COI. Among other things, if you're not notable enough for someone else to write an article about you, you're probably not notable enough to have an article in the first place. So in the interests of not wasting anyone's time further, I'm not going to undelete the article. If you get famous, someone else will write it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Once again, i'm asking for the content of the article to be moved to my user page as a "back up" in a sense, so i can keep it for later use and not lose that work. I wasn't asking for undeletion. LilTimmyOfficial (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, and I'm still not going to do it, because I'm an unpaid volunteer and I'm not here to assist people with self-promotion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am a complete beginner on Wikipedia. I have just managed to finish writing my first article (with all references) in my sandbox. Here it is: User:Mlody1312/sandbox Could you please help me? I need someone to take a look on it. I would like to avoid a situation where I move an article to the main space of Wikipedia, and after a few days it is removed. I would appreciate it if you could help me move the article from the sandbox to the main space or just assure me that the article is good enough and will not be removed. I'm losing hope that anyone will lend me a helping hand. Thank you. Mlody1312 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to say that from my perspective, the article relies way too much on social media and other unreliable sourcing. I don't think it would be accepted to mainspace in that state if you submitted it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation (also called AfC; this is the normal process for drafts, rather than messaging random admins). I don't typically assist with drafts/new page patrol, so I won't be able to help you further with this. I would recommend using the AfC process that I linked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Voss (Alexander McQueen collection) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Voss (Alexander McQueen collection) for comments about the article, and Talk:Voss (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your GAN at the Littlehampton libels page. I've added a small paragraph towards the end to highlight the 'rough' v 'upright' aspects of the two main parties and popped it into FAC. Thanks again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'm always happy to get the chance to review articles that are interesting in and of themselves. Be there to comment shortly :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article What a Merry-Go-Round 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article What a Merry-Go-Round you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:What a Merry-Go-Round and Talk:What a Merry-Go-Round/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article What a Merry-Go-Round you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:What a Merry-Go-Round for comments about the article, and Talk:What a Merry-Go-Round/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 31 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article What a Merry-Go-Round, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that What a Merry-Go-Round closed with evil clowns cavorting around a carousel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/What A Merry-Go-Round. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, What a Merry-Go-Round), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 13 December 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I happened to be looking at my watchlist for the first time in several months and saw this. Congrats, PMC! :) Vaticidalprophet 10:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Vati! Nice to hear from you, hope you're doing well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi PMC,

I'm out of my depth here attempting to guide a COI editor at Fox River Trolley Museum. Could you give me a hand here? I'm bringing this to you directly because the alternative is going to a noticeboard and that's likely to end with the editor simply blocked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it even notable? All the refs that aren't its own website look like they're for the various exhibits. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Premeditated Chaos -- suggest prod for this one. If it's been around since 2010, another week won't hurt. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's no carve-out for age on CSD, but sure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, PMC,

You changed this into a broken redirect page so I was about to delete it until I reviewed the page history, saw your work and thought that maybe you had just chosen the wrong target article or misspelled it. Can you take a minute to fix it? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and the same situation with Cheilea tectumsinense and its talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I swear I copy-pasted the spelling on that first one from the actual page, but I guess not. Second one I was gonna let the redirect bot fix. Both fixed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we have a bot that fixes broken redirects. We do have a bot that fixes double redirects, when a redirect page points to another redirect page, it will make sure that the original redirect points to an actual article, it will fix that. But Explicit and I delete broken redirect pages every day, we don't have a bot that fixes those because most of the time, they are broken because a page/article has been deleted so there is nowhere else to point them. Mistakes like the one you made are very uncommon. I probably see one of those every two weeks or so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. I just wanted to drop in and say that I hope you are doing well. Great work as always with the Alexander McQueen articles. As always, I very much enjoy reading them. I hope you are having a great end to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aoba! I'm doing well and I hope you are too! Have you got any FACs or GANs coming up? I missed your last FAC somehow and I'd like to make up for it :( And on the other side, if you're interested in reviewing a McQueen article, Voss is up at FAC. This one's a bit gigantic compared to others so no worries if you're busy. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind words! I am glad you are doing well. I am actually taking a break from Wikipedia as other things are taking up my time at the moment, so unfortunately, I will not be doing any GAN/FAC projects or reviews for a while. And there's no need to apologize. You have been a huge help in the past. I greatly appreciate it. I am sorry for not being able to help with your current FAC. Voss is an interesting topic, and I look forward to seeing what you do next. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the good wishes and kind words, my friend! I hope you have time for Wikipedia again in the future, but if not, I hope that you're having a good time in the real world :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

		The Closer's Barnstar
		Started by a chaotic person, devolved into chaos, ended by a type of chaos. Thanks for saving the community from more squabbling. Though the outcome was pretty clear, it takes guts to SNOW close an RfC some 200 people have weighed in on. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The close was premature, it had barely been running for one day. Not everyone logs into Wikipedia every day.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given some people had wanted a close after 24 hours, and given the way the votes were consistently coming in as more opposes than supports, it's probably best such a divisive process was ended sooner rather than later. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Schro. This was exactly my thinking. It was clearly not going to gain consensus and was not generating anything productive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the right thing would be to re-open the discussion at this juncture, but I do wonder if that was the right choice. Over 900 people had signed the open letter at the time that you closed the discussion, which means at least that many people were following the issue and were opposed, in principle, to the disclosure. And the true number of those following the story is probably significantly higher. Only a small fraction of those community members had a chance to respond, and I think we can safely presume hundreds more would have.

Mind you, it is hard to criticize you too strenuously, because I also anticipated a close within 24 hours originally. But in retrospect, I did not have a realistic read on how quickly people would engage with the discussion. But !votes were still steadily coming; I don't think it was the right call to close under those circumstances. I equally think it would probably be more disruptive to try to re-open the discussion. But purely as feedback to an admin-closer, I don't think your statistic-based reasoning for the close was entirely solid, good faith though I am sure it was. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I too signed the open letter and am opposed to the disclosure. I respect your disagreement, but I think you are flatly wrong in thinking there was any way that proposal was going to gain strong community consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think any further !votes would have changed the outcome. It was clear the blackout was doomed after Jimmy weighed in, which about caused two opposes to come in for every support. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suspect you are both right, which is why I don't think anyone should lose any sleep over it. I just mean that with most of a thousand known editors with strong feelings on the subject yet to be heard from, I think waiting a while longer still would have been the best call--for pro forma reasons if nothing else. But I do concede that Jimmy's power play (which I don't mean disrespectfully: he is free to trade on his social cache here whenever he deems fit, as far as I am concerned--though the way he did it is sub-optimal in my eyes) probably would have continued to influence the outcome no matter how many people answered. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Infotalks23&redlink=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Genuine_10&redlink=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Madeena_Cherpulassery

same sock as behind deleted page, appearing once in while Cenderabird (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please post this at WP:SPI, I'm not a checkuser and I have zero involvement except that I deleted that Al Madeena page 2 years ago. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just curious, why is nonylnaphthalene notable?--Smokefoot (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know that it is, which is why I merged the page 1-Nonylnaphthalene to Naphthalene as a bold alternative to deletion. None of the other derivatives listed has any specific justification of their being listed, and about half are non-links. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi PMC, This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply