<!--{{Quotebox|bgcolor=#FFFFF0|quote=From the absence of study comes the absence of women in history.|author=Sylva Federico|source={{cite journal |last1=Federico |first1=S. |title=The Imaginary Society: Women in 1381 |journal=Journal of British Studies |date=2001 |volume=40 |page=159 |ref=|oclc=931172994}}|salign=center|align=right|width=25em}}-->
<!--{{Quotebox|bgcolor=#FFFFF0|quote=From the absence of study comes the absence of women in history.|author=Sylva Federico|source={{cite journal |last1=Federico |first1=S. |title=The Imaginary Society: Women in 1381 |journal=Journal of British Studies |date=2001 |volume=40 |page=159 |ref=|oclc=931172994}}|salign=center|align=right|width=25em}}-->
@Celestina007: I'm only grateful for one thing—that whatever happens in the future, I've been lucky enough to have had the chance to watch you grow and develop onto one of our strongest contributors—front and back of house—while not shying away from the sensitive areas needing a nuanced touch. Keep up the (very!) good work! ——Serial18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know when your superiors at work make a remarkable comment about you and you literally can not at that moment articulate a proper response that mirrors your inner feelings, that’s me right now. I literally do not have the right words to use to appreciate this statement. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Jon698; it was Levivich who did all the "heavy lifting", actually helping you—I just did a slow burn in the corner. Mind you, did I send you a bunch of books? Anyway, the article's looking dead good. Good work! ——Serial18:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Late medieval and Tudor. Did you see that job opening in Groningen? The deadline was sometime last week. Are you on the market? Drmies (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, cool. But I basically just wrote the original article; many moons ago I realised that any article put forward for ITN would be taken over, not so much by gatekeepers, but by trivialistas and this hasn't proved me wrong. Still, collectivism is the name of the day! :) SN5412906:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not...
...miss the reference to my oppose in your own rationale. Thanks for noticing the point I was raising. You took an extended break last year, and I've been editing sporadically for many months. It would be remiss of me not to drop by and say hello. Hope you're well, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, long time no virtual interaction. Glad you've come through all *that* crap, I hope not too scathed. Also yeah, there's no fury like a support scorned eh?! SN5412918:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this Modussiccandi, and also for kickstarting it in the first place. What I noticed was that the original merge (so-called) discussion comprised one editor's proposal—in which the topic's notability was actually admitted!—a "go ahead" from a <300 edit account, and no notifications to any relevant project pages whatsoever. Slam-dunk merge!
I don't want to tread on your toes, but there's a bit more I'd like to add (not much—just a few unused sources). I don't know about you, but I reckon there's an FA in there, eventually; thoughts? SN5412912:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Please feel free to add as much content as you want! And yes, I agree the topic has lots of potential. It might be at GA level already. Is there there such a thing as a joint GA nomination? I know it exists for FAC, but I'm not sure I've seen it for GA. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Not Ritchie, but yes -- co-noms at GAN level are very common. I don't believe the bot can handle them well, though (the bot in general is rather on its last legs, although someone I've promised to ping every time it comes up until he's finished >:) is working on a replacement), so they tend to be informally done by adding a "[name] is co-nominator" to the |note= section of the GAN template. The unofficial status also means they don't get registered properly on WP:WBGAN, but that can be manually done if it's any sort of concern. Vaticidalprophet13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ritchie333; obvs, I'll do the Pepsi challenge with anyone on (late) medieval history—although not denying it might be a bit of a stretch call Worms late med—but it sounds like an "anything goes" GAN could be a goer! Cheers mate :) SN5412913:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeees I really really need to get that bot going. As I have said before, the initial 80% of the work is done, it's now the latter 80%.... :) firefly ( t · c ) 14:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Modussiccandi: Hi again! Re. the joint GA nom, would you like to look over the article and see if you think its about ready? I wanted to leave it a few weeks back then, so that it becomes fresh again. What do you think? Hope all's well. SN5412919:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me! I have to say that I don't feel a joint GA nomination can be justified at this point: you have contributed much more to this article than I have; all I did really is start it with the most important information. You should do the nomination on your own. Regarding the quality of the article, I think it's in good shape for the GA review: it's comprehensive, well sourced, stable, well illustrated etc. I'm glad you took this article to where it is now. Thanks and best,Modussiccandi (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Wonderful Parliament, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
thank you today for the article, introduced: "A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship?"! - Sorry, I missed the FAC, meant to go ... -- Happy 2022! (I was on vacation.) The image was taken in memory, and I remember your tribute for SlimVirgin. "the land is bright and wide." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Robert de Umfraville, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is to let you know that the Robert de Umfraville article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 10, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
This account has just been created ? I’ve not been blocked, you just came out the blue and said “you gettin blocked” ! When in doubt don’t block ! Phil.Mcrackin123 (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is true. Accounts belong to people, one at a time. Note I used the future participle. Infinitive, To Block. You have been blocked. You are blocked. You will be blocked. SN5412913:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except I have not been blocked, I am not blocked and with reason, because there is no reason as to why I should be blocked hence why I am not blocked 😂 Phil.Mcrackin123 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, always happy to check and give out these awards—it pales in comparison to the amount of effort people put into earning them. — Bilorv (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Yes, I like dinosaurs too :) but on our right, we see the results, ~20 years ago, of the increasing availability of CD blanks and cheap(ish) burning equipment and a folder full of bootlegs and bizarrities off soulseek. They say damp records the past...if that's so I've got the biggest library yet (actually did at the time; damp, that, is...)
I know I'm giving you shit on the FAC nom page, but here is an angry tune to take away the pain[1] n (as you are a Fall fan, there are a lot of similarities especially with he bass lines). Ceoil (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the Fall (and well done at spotting ref)...buried here is talk of a collab. If interested, what period? For me it would be early....Slags, Slates and Tapes, or This Nation's Saving Grace. I only really go as far as Curious Orange, which is Steve Hanley's high point. Ps I have a fuck ton of books. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, John Minsterworth, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Richard Roose, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
Thank you today for John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, introduced: "A joint nomination between myself and Gog on one of the many curious individuals populating late-medieval England. This chap starts off as a bit of an arse, frankly—a plutocrat forced to work with men of greater ability though less lineage, and who clearly can't decide whether he prefers fighting the French or cutting off relatives, as he spends his time doing both in almost equal portions. But—but—whose story ends with, really, some poignancy. This started off with me piling in my editorial size nine boots some years ago, throwing in everything I had on him, following which it was reviewed for GA by Iazyges of this parish (shout out!). More recently Gog has shown me how it's done—as usual—with a fantastic copy edit."! - I'm still curious about the question above. I like to see the ice age of the "infobox wars" melting, and wonder if you see the same. - My stories on the Main page today are about Johanna Geisler and Huub Oosterhuis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking you Gog. A shame, in a way because the anniversary of his grisly end is in eight days time. Seems a shame to miss it. SN5412918:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed that. Given the late notice and that the currently scheduled article is also an anniversary I don't think that it will get in for this April. But I have made a discrete enquiry, just in case. Assuming that doesn't happen, I could pull it from this May and you could "book" 15 April 2024 at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending?Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably I got a polite "Thanks, but no thanks." I'll leave it down for the 26th, but if you decide over the next couple of weeks you'd rather go for 15 April 2024, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Gog the Mild, if you could cancel it this year, I'll book it in for next. Also, while you're here, I've got two more lined up for 12 and 27 April, John Minsterworth and the earl of Pembroke. Seems odd to have two so closely connected characters in such a short space of time. I think Pembroke is a death anniversary, but could we save Minsterworth for another time too? Cheers! SN5412916:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, just a note that this talk page is getting fairly massive for an old and doddering computer like mine. Would you consider archiving some of it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a case to answer here, but can I just give a gentle reminder that if you're going to accuse somebody of impropriety, it's best to come armed with a bunch of diffs, so the rest of us can evaluate things on their merits. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ritchie333, it seems to have been something of a storm in a teacup. I guess it was serendipitous that I missed it, though; I can't imagine me saying anything in particular that would have made things much better. And, looking at the discussion now for the first time, I see Mzajac kept it going for as long as they could, so I suppose it's fair to assume they got everything they wanted out of it too. Honorable mentions in despatches, of course, to EEng, EvergreenFir, Barkeep49, Courcelles, Lepricavark, Lourdes, Cinderella157 and Ostalgia: all of whose comments I have considered and hopefully drawn the positives from. In some cases, these editors supported me; in some ways, they criticised me; in all ways, they taught me. Thank you. SN5412909:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my contribution (Oh for fuck sake, you're taking this to ANI? Move on. was clearly the most erudite one. EEng18:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely EEng, and to paraphrase the guy, "he might not be Sicilian, but I think he's gonna be consiglieri one of these days". Yours is all the advice anyone needs for ANI... It's also, of course, all the advice that's never taken before going to ANI, hein...? SN5412918:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine you apologizing for the unprovoked attacks instead of gloat-pinging me. But I guess that’s not what they taught you. —MichaelZ.13:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HiMzajac hope you're well! As I said, I completely missed this discussion and the notification to it; can you fill me in? Cheers! SN5412913:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SN54129. While the essay-sized paragraphs on my FAC's talk page are giving me panic attacks and triggering me due to my obsessive need to keep the page clean, I wanted to thank you for becoming positively involved and trying to ease tensions. It is appreciated. I remember the first time you reviewed my work (which ran into similar problems due to my excitement to get a source review passed) and it increased my confidence, which led to a lot of great work afterwards. That was a lighthearted exchange, which I prefer to the serious and robotic turn the FAC process has taken. I appreciate your presence over the years. I have dropped the discussion you've just revived and will be sticking to that but thanks for trying to help.--NØ17:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know why I restored the old section: the "new" version had some strange markup errors. For example, from that revision:
"Much has been made of Edward's sexual licentiousness, but there is no evidence of any infidelity on his part before Alice Perrers became his lover, and by that time the queen was already terminally ill.; Prestwich (1980), p. 241.</ref> This devotion extended to the rest of the family as well; in contrast to so many of his predecessors, Edward never experienced opposition from any of his five adult sons.
. He was bluff, brave, generous, slightly boorish, heartily heterosexual, fair-minded and, on the whole, even-tempered. Above all, he fitted the contemporary image of kingship."
Apologies if I came across as too brusque, Tim O'Doherty—it's not easy to express oneself through edit summaries nuancedly, and I should have remembered that. Glad you're OK with it now though! SN5412920:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The edit, on the whole, was a very good one. I've decided to stall my ref-checking for now; when you've finished, I'll take a look (although I'm sure you're using good sources anyway). Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Henry II
Brilliant. Just brilliant. I just saw the edit you made to Henry II regarding the FA nomination, and I am impressed and astounded beyond words. The writing and academic research present brings my history-nerd eyes to tears. In all seriousness, I have been quite troubled by personal matters (as reflected by my slow activity recently), so I really appreciate the helping hand with this burdensome task. You have outdone yourself yet again. Once again, thank you so much for your assistance. If there is anything I can do for you, just let me know. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now then, Unlimitedlead, the last time I brought tears to someone's eyes, I was a railway ticket inspector, so I hoped I wouldn't do it again :) but seriously, no—you wrote the article, it's a fine piece of work. An excellent summary of the historiography of the reign. It's a shame that we're (presumably?) running out of medieval English monarchs to work on, otherwise I might've dared suggest a collaboration... and thanks for your offer by the way, much appreciated! SN5412920:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: I must apologise to both you and SN54129 for my incessant butting-in here and at your talkpage, but I've been eyeing up the triumvirate of Henry IV, V, and VI for a few weeks now too. Maybe I'm still high off the adrenaline that GA-ing Charles III gave me, but I would like to sink my teeth in to a more substantial project now; I've also taken a glance to see if I can FATony BlairorOliver Cromwell, although both would involve months of work. Henry V and VI's orange-tagged articles are obviously subpar, so if you want to collaborate on one of them, Unlimitedlead? Just ask. I've the Wikipedia Library, Internet Archive, and a bookshelf of G. M. Trevelyan (amongst others) at my disposal to get the article into better shape. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would Oliver really be that difficult? I mean, yes it's an FAC and yes it's a bio, but most things about him seem pretty nailed down. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn’t even looked at the existing article, I had assumed that I would need rewriting from scratch. If there is usable material already there that should make it even easier. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty Sounds good. Just wrapped up Edward I and am almost done with Henry II, and I am still deciding who I want to take on next. I likely will not be in a position to work on anything that substantial until November (due to the WikiCup), however, and I am not sure if I want to tackle any of the Henrys just yet. I have a few other candidates up my sleeves ;) Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I think I'll start work on Henry VI over the week, as upon closer inspection it is probably the worst article on post-1066 English/British monarchs (unless you count Henry the Young King) on the site. The lead section is badly written, and the article cites YouTube, which, if I'm aspiring to FA, is doubleplusungood. May well be my first FA; if not, second (or third, depending on what happens between now and then) GA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Tim O'Doherty: No apologies, you're always welcome here. Those are some interesting ideas! And, in happy coincidence—almost bizarrely so!—you reminded me of something sitting in my sandbox... for nearly the last five years! Incredible! Although it's looking a bit tatty of course, by today's standards. I'm not sure now why I stopped—except, perhaps if I realised how big the job would be for one editor... SN5412915:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim (again!) very kind, thanks! It's a job of work, to be sure, but slow and sure wins the race. Luckily I've gotta bit of time right now; it'll probably be like painting the Forth Bridge! SN5412920:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thaaaanks Gog But can you imagine me ever being anything other than helpful, polite, and respectful at FAC? Yes, I suppose you can... You know where the bodies are buried :) Thanks for the Barnstar, I ain't had it in ages! SN5412920:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, dear SN. I recently had a GA promoted and I was thinking of taking it to FA, but I am unsure if the sourcing meets the FA standards of RS and HQ. May I ask your opinion on the following? As an renowned source reviewer, I trust your judgement far more than I trust mine
Kelly, J. N. D.; Walsh, M. J. (1988) [1986]. Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford University Press. ISBN9780192820853.
@Unlimitedlead: Apologies for not replying sooner! Yes, those sources all look good to me, although I've never heard of Wendy Reardon. What are her qualifications? She might garner some pushback, although her publisher is highly reputable. It might depend on what period of the Papacy you're working on. For a general collection of good and specific sources re. the medieval papacy, have a look at the bibliogofAdrian IV, 1154–1159. Cheers. SN5412910:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2018): "John de Mowbray is one of those medieval characters of whom—while we know very little, if anything, of their personal or private lives—reveals a lot about themselves by their reaction to events and treatment (including mistreatment!) of political rivals. Mowbray has much that personifies the "overmighty subject" of the Wars of the Roses, private feuds and killings, imprisonment in the Tower of London, roadside trysts with his wife, and finally, in the last months of his, literally changing the course of history by being late. What he was late to, though, was the biggest and bloodiest battle in English history, with decisive results. All round, an interesting if not always pleasant man—but no less the product of his age than anyone else. That, however, is another question."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
you deleted the main content from the Sindhi Child Given Names. I want to what made you remove the main thing from the article? If the main content of an article is removed then what lefts behind? If you have any reason kindly mention and try to improve the article, otherwise it's better to delete the article. Thanks AngelicDevil29 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Order of Brothelyngham, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
I saw that you had pointed out my removal of content from my talk page on the ANI thread. I find this to be a very fair thing to point out, and I just wanted to take a moment to say that it was not meant to disregard the notices you had given me -- I merely removed it due to the fact that I did not feel the need to keep it on my talk page, given that I have edited pages about American politics in the past. I just wanted to let you know that the removal was not intended to write off Wikipedia policy. I do thank you for bringing it up, since it gave me an opportunity to clear up any doubt. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HiJeffSpaceman thanks for this and, yeah sorry about that. I didn't assume much good faith there. I think I need a break; I'm seeing bad hand actors all over the place when of course there aren't any. Sorry pal! And thanks for the nice message. SN5412910:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. I get that my edit summary seemed dismissive, but given that I've edited those types of pages plenty of times before, I didn't see any harm in removing the notices. I appreciate your receptiveness here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dying—I hope you're not—thanks for calling this! I think you're right, but the blurb is fully protected now so I've left a note at WP:ERRORS based on your note here. Cheers! SN5412908:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.
Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember 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. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Hi SN. Dudley did a source review for Edith of Wilton and ended with a request for some source to text spot checks: "I think that this one needs a detailed source check as I have come across several cases where the text is not supported by the cited pages". On a couple of fronts that seems up your street - to mangle my metaphors. Do you fancy taking it on? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I'd love to help, but I was recently accused of distorting sources and lackadaisicalitly with source integrity, so by the sounds of it, I am very much the opposite of what you're after. Also, didn't you see that I was going to do it back on the 28 June, but, having read the nomination, gulped at the thought of doing a source check for what comes across as one of the most stonewalling discussions I've ever read, decided life was too short, and decided against it less than 24-hours later? I mean, I don't see the point in reviewing when all it does is get argued about like a war of bloody attrition... It's a featured article candidate, not Sanctuary Wood. It's well out of my wheelhouse, too, topic- and period-wise. Hasn't Dudley Miles got all the sources already?! [pokes Dudley] :) SN5412914:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worry not. We all review whatever we feel like reviewing. We supposedly do this for "fun"; for a given value of fun. In terms of any future accusations or "stonewalling", I would suggest just writing up your comments - yours are usually very clear - and leaving things at that: the coordinators will know their own. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the review a slog as the nominator has a different viewpoint from me, regarding reports of miracles as facts, and often does not get the point of my comments, but I have felt bound to keep going as I am so far as I know the only Wikipedian who has a detailed knowledge of the subject, and the nominator has so far always accepted my suggestions in the end. I would much rather not do the source review as I do not want to be the only person criticising, and I do think the article needs a third party to give their view. Maybe Gog can find someone else. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks L235, shows our search machine is as good as ever. When would it be used, then? Although I agree, thinking about it, that's the single most guaranteed-to-be-watched-by-arbcommers on the entire project, so it would be mildly unnecessary to say the least... SN5412912:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are my flowers of resilience ;) - I have an open question further up (Precious anniversary), but will start over, concerning the discussion about an infobox for Richard Wagner.
Technically, you used a bracket before "eric" that suggests html but isn't, and it makes the rest of the discussion look uniformly pink to me in edit mode, which I can't fix without changing your edit.
You say that a consensus was established there (if I understand it correctly). I suggested an infobox to remain on the talk page 10 years ago, and instead of just letting that happen, there was opposition to put it mildly. The possibility of an actual infobox was never discussed for that article, afaik. It is proposed now, and some new users seem not to see how it can even be in question, - that's what I see. Same for Mozart. How many more rounds of this perennial waste of time do we need? I asked that for Sibelius, remember? ("another RfC would be another time sink, and how many more RfCs do we need to call the infobox wars over?" 13 December 2021)
Back to my question: I see that in 2023 only few users are offended by an infobox, and they could use the script by Maddy from Celeste, first offered for Robert le diable, which turns an infobox into just image and caption. What do you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerda, I didn't realise that bracket would mess things up. I've got rid of it, so hopefully that sorts your screen out. For the record, I wouldn't have minded you changing it myself! SN5412917:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listening to Siegfried from the 2023 Bayreuth Festival, third act, Andreas Schager as Siegfried waking up Brünnhilde. Which reminds me of this discussion. Was there anything in it demanding arbitration? - A few weeks later, three participants were admonished, and I also restricted, - for what still remains a mystery to me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Hi. Thanks for the changes, but I'm in the middle of fixing a bunch of stuff, so could I ask that you hold off to avoid edit conflicts? Thanks. RoySmith(talk)14:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now that @Theleekycauldron has her mop, the pressure is off promoting queues at WP:DYK, so I've taken a semi-break from adminish tasks to (gasp!) work on content. I've got a bunch of articles I've written over the years that I never quite got up to GA, so I've been pushing those through, and while I was in that mode, decided to try my hand at a FA. RoySmith(talk)15:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
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!
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Michael Z. 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.
Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
