User talk:Casualdejekyll/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Casualdejekyll. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I did a thing!
Baby's first PROD. Joe Del Campo. If I did anything wrong then definitely inform me of that. casualdejekyll (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
(note: This section used to hold my daily "i did a thing" updates, which have been moved to User:Casualdejekyll/I_Did_A_Thing
Your GA nomination of Seedfeeder
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seedfeeder you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Casualdejekyll, a human here. Well that's quite some article (even referring to itself, a la Droste effect). I think the article is basically ready for a GA, but I have very carefully raised some concerns to make it clear that I'm not just nodding the article through, as it is obviously a sensitive topic. I've made a few suggestions which you can take or leave, though I think it would be sensible to state the few publicly-known facts about Seedfeeder, and to consider adding some of his sex images, since they're the principal subject of the article. I've noted some small changes to the References which require action (should only take a few moments). I hope to see it as a GA very soon. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Seedfeeder
The article Seedfeeder you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Seedfeeder for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding User:Casualdejekyll/Luck Be A Landlord
Hello, Casualdejekyll. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Casualdejekyll/Luck Be A Landlord, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi
its my user page and i can do what i want with it. Thank You (and no its not redirectly at users) TzarN64 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, there are a few guidelines on what you can do with it - see WP:UPNOT, which says among other things that the page can't have attacks on other editors, which your edit could be interpreted as.
- I feel like that sufficiently clears that up, however I'd like to point out that your general grammar looks a bit.. off? You have all the words in about the right order, but there's some convention errors. I'd just like to point out that if English isn't your first language, there are Wikipedias in many other languages, if you would like to help on those. I personally think your English is probably good enough that you can contribute here at the English Wikipedia effectively anyway, but just in case.
- Other then that, I have no issues anymore. casualdejekyll (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Founding Fathers
@Casualdejekyll, pinging Randy Kryn and North8000: I noticed the Founding Fathers DRN has been archived. Could you please explain this? I have two issues to bring to everyone's attention. The first relates to the policy associated with the DRN, namely WP:VER. The second is a request for a very specific RfC. Please advise how to proceed. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was a mere commenter there so whatever I say is just my opinion as an observer. Contrary to the listing, I was not a party to the dispute, merely someone trying to help. DRN is an attempt to resolve by discussion and it appears that it fizzled out / was unsuccessful. IMO a part of the problem is that it never even stated what the article content question was. So any "official" next step is the the same as with any other article. My advice is to start a discussion on the talk page, and to do so by clearly stating what the ARTICLE CONTENT question is. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why was it archived, especially with questions and paths forward? Signed, Confused in Kansas. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000, I understood your role and appreciate input you've provided. I suppose my opening statement should have been more succinct, though I clearly stated: "I have thoroughly discussed content in this article with another editor regarding the lack of adequate sources, specifically in terms of an assertion made on July 30, 2021 by a different editor claiming 145 historical figures are founding fathers." No doubt this was lost in the shuffle and that's one of the two items I would like to address. Saying anything else here would probably be inappropriate. Now that I see @Randy Kryn has responded, it would be fair to note that I share his confusion. Allreet (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It was probably just automatically archived because it was inactive.That is not an official move, somebody could just unarchive it. But either way, if you want my advice, y'all need to post your question / RFC as a a specific ARTICLE CONTENT question. "regarding the lack of adequate sources" is not such a question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: We were awaiting @Randy Kryn's latest rebuttal. While he may have missed the timeframe he set, nobody received any notice the DRN was being archived. As for the ARTICLE CONTENT question, don't you think that issue should have been raised earlier? I don't mean to be critical of anyone. It's just that I have zero familiarity with DRNs and RfCs. I came here for guidance on something I've never encountered. Given your experience, then, what do you or @Casualdejekyll think would be helpful to rescue this exercise? Frankly, it is a mess because of the lack of focus, and as a mea culpa, a large part of that stems from my not being precise at the start. Allreet (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever my idea is, there are doubtless other good ones as well. You could unarchive and resume the DRN although it didn't seem to be going anywhere. My advice would be to go to the article talk page and try to frame the specific article content question and see where it goes from there. Or I might try to do that. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion should be occurring at the DRN, which the moderator should reopen (apparently a bot archived it, Brave New Bot World) not here. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed Allreet (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: Please do. That's a sincere plea. (Despite my agreement with Randy, I believe I'm okay in responding to North8000.) Once you post the item on the Founding Father talk page, I plan to provide specific information on what the content issues are and then the sources that apply. Allreet (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000, please don't, since you've participated in the last well-worded and well-viewed RfC and in the still open and mistakenly archived (I think the close-date was wrong and that's what the bot read) dispute resolution. You came up with the most logical and neutral solution which we've all agreed is the best way forward (at least on the Articles of Confederation signers, and it should also apply to the CA signers) thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion should be occurring at the DRN, which the moderator should reopen (apparently a bot archived it, Brave New Bot World) not here. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever my idea is, there are doubtless other good ones as well. You could unarchive and resume the DRN although it didn't seem to be going anywhere. My advice would be to go to the article talk page and try to frame the specific article content question and see where it goes from there. Or I might try to do that. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: We were awaiting @Randy Kryn's latest rebuttal. While he may have missed the timeframe he set, nobody received any notice the DRN was being archived. As for the ARTICLE CONTENT question, don't you think that issue should have been raised earlier? I don't mean to be critical of anyone. It's just that I have zero familiarity with DRNs and RfCs. I came here for guidance on something I've never encountered. Given your experience, then, what do you or @Casualdejekyll think would be helpful to rescue this exercise? Frankly, it is a mess because of the lack of focus, and as a mea culpa, a large part of that stems from my not being precise at the start. Allreet (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It was probably just automatically archived because it was inactive.That is not an official move, somebody could just unarchive it. But either way, if you want my advice, y'all need to post your question / RFC as a a specific ARTICLE CONTENT question. "regarding the lack of adequate sources" is not such a question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000, I understood your role and appreciate input you've provided. I suppose my opening statement should have been more succinct, though I clearly stated: "I have thoroughly discussed content in this article with another editor regarding the lack of adequate sources, specifically in terms of an assertion made on July 30, 2021 by a different editor claiming 145 historical figures are founding fathers." No doubt this was lost in the shuffle and that's one of the two items I would like to address. Saying anything else here would probably be inappropriate. Now that I see @Randy Kryn has responded, it would be fair to note that I share his confusion. Allreet (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why was it archived, especially with questions and paths forward? Signed, Confused in Kansas. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, I already decided not to, but for a different reason. It's not possible to frame a good question without knowing what the topic of the article is, which needs to be clarified. Here are the two likely possibilities:
- Persons who are "Founding Fathers" per the common meaning of that term. Which boils down to determining the common meaning of the 20th century term "Founding Fathers"
- Persons who are main founders of the USA
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. The topic is defined in the article's first sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but IMO that doesn't nail it down between the above two possibilities. IMO that is the root cause of the entire dispute. Underlying the arguments is that some people are applying #1 and some are applying #2. My previous proposal sort of covered both possibilities. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding @Randy Kryn's comments, three things: "we" have not agreed on anything, clearly the last RfC was under attended, and the issue most emphatically is not the first sentence of the Founding Fathers article (that's a red herring - we're not here to define founding fathers). @North8000, what drew me to the founders article was Randy's unsourced edits to 50 articles in October 2021 where he anointed signers of the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation as founders. I then turned to the main article and found the statement on which Randy's changes were based: "the following (145 document signers) are considered founding fathers", an addition made in July 2021 without a source. This is what I am challenging, and I believe WP:VER is squarely on my side, totally apart from the fact that the 2021 edits were unsourced. I respectfully ask @Casualdejekyll to re-open the DRN so we can discuss the specifics in the proper forum. Allreet (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- We have all agreed in the DRN with the established FF article that the signers of the Articles of Confederation are Founding Fathers (and agreed to a 'some sources' worded descriptor). Including Allreet. Of course he'll open it again, it was closed by a bot because of an errant end-date. The last well-worded RfC was widely viewed, I've already posted the views link. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "We have all agreed...signers of the AoC are Founding Fathers" is a mis-representation. We only agreed to "some consider" this, and I withdrew my support for that with my last statement under Allreet's Final Answer. Re-read my objections. As for your "views link", the views recorded also include the numerous times you and I visited the CA talk page during the last RfC. Beyond that, all we know is that just one editor responded, @North8000. Allreet (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, "some consider" as a qualifier, we all agreed to that. The moderator commented on that mutual agreement. It was the nation's first constitution and the blueprint for its first government which lasted for many years, about as founder worthy as you can get. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not agreeing to anything that runs contrary to WP:VER. On that, more later. 23:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Allreet (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, "some consider" as a qualifier, we all agreed to that. The moderator commented on that mutual agreement. It was the nation's first constitution and the blueprint for its first government which lasted for many years, about as founder worthy as you can get. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "We have all agreed...signers of the AoC are Founding Fathers" is a mis-representation. We only agreed to "some consider" this, and I withdrew my support for that with my last statement under Allreet's Final Answer. Re-read my objections. As for your "views link", the views recorded also include the numerous times you and I visited the CA talk page during the last RfC. Beyond that, all we know is that just one editor responded, @North8000. Allreet (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- We have all agreed in the DRN with the established FF article that the signers of the Articles of Confederation are Founding Fathers (and agreed to a 'some sources' worded descriptor). Including Allreet. Of course he'll open it again, it was closed by a bot because of an errant end-date. The last well-worded RfC was widely viewed, I've already posted the views link. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding @Randy Kryn's comments, three things: "we" have not agreed on anything, clearly the last RfC was under attended, and the issue most emphatically is not the first sentence of the Founding Fathers article (that's a red herring - we're not here to define founding fathers). @North8000, what drew me to the founders article was Randy's unsourced edits to 50 articles in October 2021 where he anointed signers of the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation as founders. I then turned to the main article and found the statement on which Randy's changes were based: "the following (145 document signers) are considered founding fathers", an addition made in July 2021 without a source. This is what I am challenging, and I believe WP:VER is squarely on my side, totally apart from the fact that the 2021 edits were unsourced. I respectfully ask @Casualdejekyll to re-open the DRN so we can discuss the specifics in the proper forum. Allreet (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but IMO that doesn't nail it down between the above two possibilities. IMO that is the root cause of the entire dispute. Underlying the arguments is that some people are applying #1 and some are applying #2. My previous proposal sort of covered both possibilities. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Saw your edit summary. Bull. You did fine, especially taking on a huge topic with a pair of editors doing a daily back and forth for three months now (and counting). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Casualdejekyll! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 00:18, Friday, March 11, 2022 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Casualdejekyll! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 00:18, Friday, March 11, 2022 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
WE WILL GET OUR REVENGE!!!
KHALSAMANWA 3.0 WILL BE LAUNCHING SOON!! 148.252.132.56 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, have fun with that. I'll be sure to fire back with an SPI report as soon as you launch. casualdejekyll 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Though, @148.252.132.56 - It's worth noting that the original, 1 contribution account. User:Khalsamanwa, is not blocked. So if you want to contribute in good faith, just use that account. casualdejekyll 12:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Standard Ds/ alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pittsburgh Steelers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Greene. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
February 2022
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gun violence in Sweden into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 03:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oops! I thought that was written by the person who made the edit request. Should've checked first, haha. casualdejekyll 12:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no problem, stuff like that happens! Best! Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 15:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Removed an edit request you replied to
I removed an edit request here, which you had already responded to. Just letting you know, since I removed your comment as well. The edit request was just poorly spelled trolling by a clearly confused IP that thinks that Nick Foles is in any way better than Tom Brady. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds great. I'm not a football fan so I didn't recognize the name and just figured RS was the appropriate response. casualdejekyll 12:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's a common vandal request on sports articles, especially when someone lost a game to someone else. No worries though, just wanted to let you know I removed your comment when I removed the request, since technically that's breaking talk page guidelines. I like to give a heads up and an explanation when I remove someone's comment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
A Vukky for you!
| Vukky has given you a Vukky! You see, Vukkies promote WikiLove. Hopefully this Vukky has made your day better. Enjoy! | |
| Spread the goodness of a cute Vukky by adding {{subst:Give Vukky}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
You seem like a nice editor, so I wanted to give you this Vukky. (Vukky gives you a Vukky? Vukky vukky.) Best regards, Vukky TalkGuestbook 08:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Just a heads up I replied to your questions re: my edit request at Talk:Travis Katz. If you have a second, would love your feedback. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
SPI
Hi Casualdejekyll. You wrote, But the specific Wiki-expert-edit to Trust Me I'm Biotechnologist connection is stale.
[1]. Howso? Could you explain? --Hipal (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wiki-expert-edit has no edits since 2015. No CU is going to even attempt to confirm that, the logs just don't go back that far. casualdejekyll 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've never looked to see what was logged, no how long the logs were kept.
- Maybe a SPI for the AfD accounts might be reasonable, given the article history? --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hipal - Definitely, there's been SPA's here since at least 2008. casualdejekyll 17:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Teahouse host
Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!
Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:
- Useful scripts you can install to make responding easier,
- templates to use and, of course:
- the question forum itself.
A Barnstar for you!
|
The Autism Barnstar | |
| A little late, but thank you for redesigning The Autism Barnstar — it looks fantastic! ~BappleBusiness[talk] 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
Disputed Territory between Somaliland and Puntland issue
Thank you for advising the editor to notify the other editors on their talk pages. There were two other problems with the case. The more serious one is that there had been no discussion at the category talk page for several months. There had been discussion in 2021, but then it stopped. They need to resume trying to discuss, because opinions might have changed in a few months. The less important issue is that one of the editors has been banned. That just means that they should not try to invite that editor to take part in discussion. So I have closed the case and have told them to resume discussion at the category talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thankya for advising. casualdejekyll 02:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Side Discussion at WT:DRN
Don't worry about it. You didn't make a mistake. This was a problem that I have not seen before, and we can't anticipate every possible sort of weird behavior, let alone know exactly how to deal with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Dawn After Dark (March 19)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dawn After Dark and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dawn After Dark, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Casualdejekyll!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CUPIDICAE💕 20:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
|
- Not my article, @Praxidicae. Also, I'm a teahouse host
casualdejekyll 22:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's because you submitted it. CUPIDICAE💕 22:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Noeliagarone struggled with submitting and I just clicked the button for them. Go to their talk page, please. casualdejekyll 22:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- The AfC helper script allows you to submit *as* another person so that you don't get these messages :) Use the little dropdown menu to change who submits it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Noeliagarone struggled with submitting and I just clicked the button for them. Go to their talk page, please. casualdejekyll 22:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's because you submitted it. CUPIDICAE💕 22:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Rules for Founding Fathers
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
— MusikAnimal talk 23:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
revert
Hi. Just wanted to place a courtesy note here.
I reverted your edit to CENT. If someone hadn't already, I would have reverted the VP deletion too.
closing a thread once discussion has died down, might be one thing, but generally we probably shouldn't delete others' comments.
Anyway, just a quick note. I hope you have a great rest of your day. - jc37 05:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cool, have fun! casualdejekyll 15:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Tone
Rather than clutter up the SPI case, I'll respond here. As I read it, the tone of your post was expressing incredulity at my stated findings, which is what I didn't appreciate. If that wasn't your intention, fair enough, but I'd urge you to refrain from making observations about how you would interpret CU results - just leave that to the people processing the report. Girth Summit (blether) 07:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok :) Sounds good to me casualdejekyll 13:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey remember not to DFTT
Coming from the Teahouse, next time just zap away obvious troll editors/entries such as that, don’t even respond to them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have never seen the text written in this diff in my life. I would have zapped, if I had indeed seen it. @Celestina007EDIT: After checking out the diffs a little more - this troll removed their text in the edit before I responded, so I never saw it casualdejekyll 00:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yes, Not too worry, I figured as much. Celestina007 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 May newsletter
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.
The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Closing review
I apologize for my mistaken close, which has since been amended. casualdejekyll 15:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Hello, I am coming here per WP:MR. In this closing comment you wrote
|
Ma! Look! I've been insulted on Wikipediocracy!
There comes a time in every active editor's life, when some idiot presumably well-meaning but misguided poster on a forum decides that they know better than you casualdejekyll 22:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Don't give the dipshit any more attention eh? — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Damn, I've violated WP:NPA! I've fed the trolls! Whatever will I do! [sarcasm] casualdejekyll 22:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Though, out of curiosity, @TheresNoTime, how'd you get here within 10 minutes of me putting it up? casualdejekyll 22:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have a very large alarm that goes off whenever anyone posts a link to that site — its fairly annoying at 11:38pm but ho hum. /s I preferred your message prior to the edit though — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Serious answer is your talk page is on my watchlist, I saw wikipediocracy while randomly scanning down it, and clicked — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wait.. you've never commented here before. How'd it end up on your watchlist? (I don't want to be badgering you with questions but it is genuinely confusing to me why anyone would want to watch this hellhole of a page - 90% of it is people mad at me, and the rest of it is bots!) casualdejekyll 22:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TheresNoTime - badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger (mushroom, mushroom) casualdejekyll 22:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have a habit of clicking "watchlist" on pages I visit, so at some point I must have looked at your (user)talk page, I don't remember a specific reason though ^^ — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Serious answer is your talk page is on my watchlist, I saw wikipediocracy while randomly scanning down it, and clicked — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have a very large alarm that goes off whenever anyone posts a link to that site — its fairly annoying at 11:38pm but ho hum. /s I preferred your message prior to the edit though — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Though, out of curiosity, @TheresNoTime, how'd you get here within 10 minutes of me putting it up? casualdejekyll 22:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
Technical news
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Concern regarding Draft:Mikaela Davis
Hello, Casualdejekyll. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mikaela Davis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)