|
Clarityfiend,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡ 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Have you got a problem with haddocks? A bad experience at a fish-and-chip shop? I see a common theme in these nominations... (no offence intended; it just amused me as I read through AfD; have a great weekend). Elemimele ( talk) 13:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for pointing out that Terry is not listed on the IMDB page for The Adventures of Rusty, I added a source (albeit not a super great one) and I thought I'd run it by you. CardboardWolf ( talk) 18:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi
I was wondering if you would be willing to revist the article by sticking it in my user pages so I can add a cople of refs.
It was deleted due to failing notability under WP:MUSICBIO ... However, I feel it does meet 1. and 10. for a couple of counts, and so would like the chance to see what was there and try to get the article on main again.
There were several tracks he performed in that are notable, as well as him performing the theme tune for a TV show, which all fulfil 10., I guess that just leaves 1.
I can see a couple of reliable sources interviewing him, for example https://www.recordproduction.com/interviews/snake-davis, which is an award winning site, so surely must fulfil 1.?
There is also an article on the Yanagisawa saxophpones manufacturer website, https://www.yanagisawasax.co.jp/en/artists/view/118, which I believe is independent enough and reliable enough to give 2x 1.
If you feel that would probably be enough, as well as me finding other refs, please go ahead and stick it in my user pages for me to at least look at and work on.
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I have just noticed that you nominated and successfully deleted an article about Helen Graham, the main heroine in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I don't deny that the article was not very informative and needed reworking. However, there are numerous articles about fictional heroes of the same quality. I don't mention it because I want them to be deleted too, quite the contrary. I think reworking articles about Dickens', Brontes', Austen's etc. heroes would benefit the project much better than a speed deletion. Anyway, I plan to write the article about Helen all anew with the better sources and I hope there will be no edit war. And please, next time you nominate not so well written article about an important topic for deletion, consider contacting its author(s)/contributor(s). Not that I want to dictate you what to do, but once again, discussions about articles' quality surely will benefit Wikipedia. The Terrible Mutant Hamster ( talk) 12:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
[w]hile not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion). @ The Terrible Mutant Hamster: as you can see, this is recommended but not a formal requirement. In practice, the majority of people who nominate articles for deletion use the tool WP:TWINKLE, which will send a notification only to the author of the first edit in the page's history (and if that edit was the creation of a redirect, then the person notified won't even be the creator). Unfortunately, it's rare that nominators would take the trouble to track down and notify substantial contributors. If you'd like to keep abreast of what's happening to the articles you're interested in, you can add them to your watchlist, and then check that watchlist every couple of days (if you don't want to do that so frequently, you can change your settings so that you get an email every time someone makes an edit to a page on your watchlist). And as for this AfD, the community agreed with Clarityfiend that this article wasn't needed in its current shape. As far as I can see from the discussion, there was also rough consensus that the topic was notable and that an article could be recreated, provided it's more in-depth and it doesn't duplicate the relevant content in the article about the novel (that's my understanding at least; if you'd like to play it on the safe side, you may want to double-check with the closer of the discussion: Star Mississippi). – Uanfala ( talk) 12:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
No need to be that rude. Actually, I've made it with my previous account, but it's of no importance now. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I just inform you that your deleting of the pages that will be restored (hopefully in better quality) is a waste of time. Yes, I fully admit that many articles about fictional heroes require improvement. However, we need a more comprehensive approach to the problem. The Terrible Mutant Hamster ( talk) 12:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, User:Clarityfiend, I have noticed you reverted my edit at Carlton (disambiguation) and will assume this is a contribution in good faith. It appears you added "and fictional characters" to the subtitle to section People. This, however, is a disputable edit. Please see WP:MOSDAB. Jones#People, Johnson (disambiguation)#People, Smith#People, Anderson#People, Sebastian#People Goodman#People Baker (disambiguation)#People. BurgeoningContracting 03:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
And guidelines should be followed except when there is a good, articulatable reason not to. On Mac, you made some improvements, but you also ignored this bit of WP:LONGDAB (emphasis in original): "all entries that belong in that subject area must be there". If a dab has a section called "Organizations", then all organizations must be found there, either directly or (less ideally) via a hatnote. Likewise "Places". (Schools are both places and organizations, and we should expect readers to look for them in either of those sections.) I'm not sure what you meant by "overly broad" with respect to "Organizations" and "Places" - there is no guidance limiting the number of entries in a section, so long as they are appropriately organized into subsections.
And, less significantly, LONGDAB also says: "List groups of people (such as ethnic groups) and titles shared by several people separately from individuals."
Thanks, — swpb T • beyond • mutual 19:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see value in continuing talking here; your talk page is not where this is going to be resolved. I'm only writing now because, for some reason, probably my fault, the edit summary I wrote for this edit got cut off. The summary I wrote was something like: "'Contrived' and 'problematic' are opinions, and ones I disagree with. Macau is absolutely referred to as MAC in documents using the ISO codes; such codes are always put under "Places". And per LONGDAB, repetition of entries is not a problem." Now since I'm here, I'll just re-iterate my most recent summary: on two points where we can't agree, I'm going to stand hard on WP:STATUSQUO. If you want those two changes, you're going to have to do it the long way. — swpb T • beyond • mutual 20:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I’ve added a section on the talk page of List of Recluses where we can discuss why I disagree with you as to why you remove him from the list Bob3458 ( talk) 20:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I know some of my additions to the list may be highly debatable and you’re justified to remove them but I feel Bill Watterson and Terrence Malick fit the description of a recluse.
If you disagree then please let me know. Bob3458 ( talk) 14:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Clarityfiend, you removed the hatnote on Alexei Vasilievich Shubnikov with the comment "silly hatnote". You also removed a similar hatnote from Lev Shubnikov. I respectful disagree with your removals for the following reason.
The article on A.V. Shubnikov was created specifically for the purpose of distinguishing the two scientists, as on 17-11-2020 user Parcly Taxel had created a link to Lev Shubnikov from Magnetic space group where it referenced Shubnikov groups. In fact these groups are named after A.V. Shubnikov not Lev Shubnikov. Two days later I created the A.V. Shubnikov article and added hatnotes to both articles to prevent other users confusing the two scientists in the future. Please consider reverting your removal of these two hatnotes. GreatStellatedDodecahedron ( talk) 11:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
On 2 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oscar Holmes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during World War II, Oscar Holmes became the first black US naval aviator only because the still-segregated Navy initially thought that the light-skinned Holmes was white? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar Holmes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Oscar Holmes), 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.
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 10,406 views (867.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2023 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
In the Chucklevision episode Market Forces, Paul got a wristwatch that tells the time & date in 12 cities at the same time. And when Barry asked when did he get it, he said "A week next Thursday". Funny, strange or silly, whenever Barry asked what time it was and what day it was, Paul would say the month rather than the number or day (e.g. Hour: 20-past June. Day: January), and Barry does not say "What do you mean, 20-past June?" nor "I said day, not month." When today was actually Saturday, Paul's watch said Friday, which is one of the days the markets open, only the markets were empty today. So maybe it was only Friday in Tokoyo. See the episode on Youtube. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Time-Date-City_wristwatch 86.130.77.121 ( talk) 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove this sentence from your User page, it is a bit rude to Chinese people? 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 ( talk) 05:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am following up on the recent rejection and feedback on our submission on Stephen Manson Benson. This article was created as part of the Wiki GLAM initiative, the stated mission of which is to " share their resources with the world." We are following the example of others in our sector, for example the Frick Collection GLAM project which has successfully published articles such as these: /info/en/?search=Winthrop_Kellogg_Edey /info/en/?search=Hannah_Johnson_Howell
I do not see how our content differs from this, in the significance of the subjects/individuals discussed nor the nature of the sources referenced. Both are highlighting prominent individuals and collections within our respective institutions collections. Stephen Manson Benson may not have left a mark on a global scale, but his collection of photography is extremely significant for documenting the early history of our county. I would have thought the intention of GLAM wiki would be to highlight the history of smaller institutions and communities equally with that of larger or more prominent ones. I therefore am left wondering why their articles were approved while ours was rejected. Are we missing a tag on our article to mark it as part of the GLAM initiative?
Thank you for your help.
HWilson Archivist ( talk) 13:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
On that category you might want to point out we have one article. I think it would help if people read through that article, and maybe our helpful (in seeing how messy this is) article List of district attorneys by county
The latter is truly a mess. Each state calls them by their own name. Districts often correspond with counties. In Iowa they call them County Attorneys, but 2 of the 97 cover 2 counties.
Some of these are appointed, some elected. However all are head prosecutors for a local prosecuting office. I do not think the notion of merging them into the American prosecutors really makes sense. At least we want to think about it. There are essentially 4 American attorneys who would count as prosecutors. 1-US Attorneys, used to called US district attorneys. They lead offices that do prosecuting for the US government. Each state has 1 or more judicial district, each district has a US attorney. They also handle civil as well as criminal cases, so they do more than just prosecuting. 2- Assistant US attorneys. A lower percentage of these are notable, and some it might be harder to say it is defining. They are usually the poeople doing the main work, and far out number the Distict Attorneys. 3-The state level district/states/county (attorney or prosecutor) officers, I have not covered all the names. They oversee the prosecution of most crimes in the US. There are thousands of them at any given time. 4-The attorneys under those attorneys who handled the actual prosecutions in most cases, unless it is a very small district. There are a lot more of these, but they do generally serve longer. So we have 2 questions. 1-do we want to distinguish the state-level and federal level prosecutors by cat. 2-do we want to have sepeate categories for the people who act as leads of office, as opposed to those who work in actual prosecution in the court room. My initial guess is we want cats for US attorneys, who in most cases are notable for the office and often do other notable things, being an assitant US attorney is an important part of someones bio and worth having cat as such, I also think the nature of the lead local prosecutor whatever it is called makes it a notable office, and having sub-cats for each state makes sense because the legal system is different in each state, and having one US cat would become huge. To me the biggest question is weather those who work in the prosecuting office but not as the lead local prosecutor are distinct enough from other attorneys to justify a category for them, but I am pretty sure the other 3 are, and by state for state level makes sense. However I think the thing you nominated is a case of grouping people by shared name, instead of by actual nature of the office. There are distinctions between state attorneys in various states, If they are appointed or elected and if they are elected in partisan or non-partisan election, and probably other distinctions, but those are not in ways that would correspond to what they are called.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I see you split off Branching from Branch (disambiguation). A friendly reminder to make sure when you split dab pages you add the new dab page to the "see also" section (or other appropriate section) of the old one, and to reconcile the redirects as needed (in this case, retargeting Branching (disambiguation) and Branching (chemistry)). Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
You appear not to have read the linked star chamber article. The modern usage is not limited to the British courts. As the article states that it is a general term: "In modern times, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings, no "due process" rights to those accused, and secretive proceedings are sometimes metaphorically called "star chambers"." The use of the phrase 'kangaroo court' currently in the article is very poor; if you do not like 'star chamber' for whatever reason, then at least change 'kangaroo court' to something more useful indicating its criminal and malign nature. HenryRoan ( talk) 23:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Shootout until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
For this. I did something similar to the Enterprise list (moved, started main cast). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Clarityfiend:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mark Twain, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 08:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:Hoarders has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason ( talk) 23:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Robin and the 7 Hoods, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 15:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Category:War criminals has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Afddiary ( talk) 15:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 22 § X in fiction X on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Just read through a bunch of your Sharpe articles. Great stuff! Sbierwagen ( talk) 03:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
★Trekker (
talk) is wishing you a griffin's claw full of
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec21}} to your friends' talk pages.
★Trekker ( talk) 11:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Category:Films about paraplegics or quadriplegics has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason ( talk) 03:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't participate in the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies founded by Harvard University alumni -- I did not receive any sort of notification, although I have contributed to both the MIT and the Harvard articles.
As for the claim that Stanford is uniquely noted as a creator of new companies, that isn't true. Look at:
So it seems to me that if the MIT article is to be deleted, so should the Stanford article. -- Macrakis ( talk) 18:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Macrakis: Well, there are two paths you could take: Either nominate the Stanford list for deletion or try getting a WP:REFUND based on your sources. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Statistics about the usage of the name and its variants are relevant. I have restored the cited material you removed from this article. Please discuss on tge talk page before deleting it again. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 00:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you wouldn't mind chiming into the other discussions listed at the articles alerts on WikiProject Anthroponymy? I am dealing with a particular user who seems to have a tough time understanding guidelines, who you have had an experience with as well. Thanks for any help. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 03:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Based on your reversion happiness, I see you are on the path to wanting war. You are incorrect in your addition of "and fictional characters" and are alone on these changes you make little by little to section titles that have had a long-standing precedent of existing as they are and are featured in the Manual of Style. I suggest seeking venues of content dispute resolution or other means on gathering a consensus rather than you make these futile changes yourself merely because you think it is right. If we all had it that way, well, this enyclopedia would be different, to say the least. BurgeoningContracting 04:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to leave a message to thankyou for the time you invested in improving both the style and presentation of this article. Your interest and assistance is most appreciated. Bw. 82.38.214.91 ( talk) 05:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Clarityfiend! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
You changed the redirect Styx River from Styx to a section of that article. I disagree with this change so I reverted you. You then reinstated your change with no discussion. Although when another editor reverts your edit, the standard procedure, per WP:BRD, is to discuss the proposed changes, before making further edits. So can we please discuss your proposed change?
Here's my view. In Greek mythology Styx (just like Oceanus) is a single thing which happens to be both a deity and a river, rather than two different things with the same name. So in Greek mythology "Styx River" and "Styx" refer to exactly the same thing, and whether someone enters "Styx River" or just "Styx" they should arrive at exactly the same place. Just because our article Styx happens to have a section which focuses on Styx as a river doesn't mean that the rest of the article doesn't also apply to the Styx River (or the River Styx for that matter). I don't want to participate in an edit war by reverting your edit again (something your revert of my revert unfortunately started). So I think you should undo your edit, at least until we can arrive at a consensus possibly including other editors.
Thanks, and best regards Paul August ☎ 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
refer to the river aspect of the goddess. In this context "Styx River" = "Styx", they are synonyms, they both refer to the same thing, a river who is a goddess and a goddess who is a river. Conceivably the article could be named "Styx River" instead of "Styx". So just as "Styx" directs to the whole article and not just a subsection, so should "Styx River". They are identical things. The reader should not be misled as you seem to have been into thinking that "Styx River" only refers to that section of the article. Paul August ☎ 13:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, like you, many readers will not know that the mythological River Styx (or the less common Styx River) was a goddess. All the more reason why the target for "River Styx" (or "Styx River") should be our article on the mythological river goddess (which is currently at "Styx", as it should be since "Styx" is by far the more common name for the river goddess, if you think otherwise you are welcome to propose a move, although I don't think that such a proposal stands much chance of succeeding, see below). Having "River Styx" (or "Styx River") direct to the section "Styx:Mythology:River" is misleading since the River Styx was more than just a river, and since a section redirect implies that only that section applies, which is simply not true in this case. For example, an important fact about the River Styx (as the previous section "Styx:Mythology:Oath of the gods" discusses at length) is that the river was the "oath of the gods". Redirecting to "Mythology:River" would cause the reader to infer that river had nothing to do with oath taking and didn't really apply to the river. And isn't it obvious that the section "The Arcadian Styx" also applies to the river (don't you agree?) In point of fact everything in this article applies to the river. So any redirect targets for the mythological river need to be the entire article not a subsection.
That
Styx River (disambiguation) failed to mention that the river was also a goddess (I've now fixed that) does not imply anything other than the fact that Wikipedia articles are not always perfect. Since the goddess Styx was also a river she was often referred to as "the river Styx", and and since the river Styx became such a famous river, "River Styx" came to be used as a proper noun. So the "River Styx" is another name for the river goddess, more commonly called simply "Styx". As for sources which say that the goddess and the river are the same thing see any of the sources cited in the second note of
Styx : "Grimal, s.v. Styx; Tripp, s.v. Styx; Parada, s.v. Styx; Smith, s.v. Styx." Or look at any general reference work. Your saying that "the river, not the goddess, is far, far better known"
makes no sense since the river and the goddess are the same thing. What would make more sense, and perhaps this is what you meant, is that the name "River Styx" is the more common name for the river goddess than "Styx". But in that case I think you are wrong. And this is born out by the fact that, for example, the reference works cited just above all have entries for the river goddess under the heading "Styx" rather than "River Styx". And, for what it's worth, I can tell you that I've been doing research in this topic for a long time and every reference (as far as I can remember) I've ever looked at (and I've looked at many dozens over the years) all commonly refer to the river goddess simply as "Styx".
Let me point out a few more things. In all of what I've said above I've been treating the terms "River Styx" and "Styx River" identically, since, in a mythological context, both terms obviously refer to the same thing. And so I've been assuming that, in particular, wherever we redirect those terms, they should be the same place. Furthermore, since every argument you've given for redirecting "River Styx" to "Styx:Mythology:River", applies equally to "River Styx" (don't you agree?), I've also been assuming that you think the same thing. But notice that River Styx redirects to Styx. So was leaving "River Styx" as a redirect to Styx an oversight on you part? Or do you think we should be treating the terms somewhat differently? However, I'm now wondering if I was wrong. While "Styx River" certainly refers (in a mythological context) to the same thing as the term "River Styx", the latter is by far more common. So uncommon in fact that in a general context "River Styx" may, in fact, more commonly refer to one of the several geographical rivers listed at Styx River (disambiguation) than Styx itself. Thus I'm now wondering if the term should instead redirect there? Or rather that we should move Styx River (disambiguation) to Styx River. What do you think about this?
I've tried above to address all the concerns you've raised. I hope you find what I've said persuasive. In any case, I've carefully considered all that you've said and I still don't agree with your proposed change, and I can't think of anything particularly relevant left for me to say. So, since so far you are the only editor in favor of this change there is obviously no consensus in support of it. Therefore I'm going to revert your change, and copy this discussion to Talk:Styx, to see if other editors have any thoughts about all this.
Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slacks (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slack.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
also why is this discussion still going on? Obviously this is a deadlock.
(
diff)
It's still going on because no uninvolved editor has come along to close the RfC. If you can find one who is willing, please do ask them to come along and close. Cheers — Jumbo T ( talk) 12:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, could you clarify the rationale for this edit? As I explained in the edit history, MacLeod received the epithet of Crotach from an actual deformity he developed after an injury, how would he be any different from Konrad II ("Garbaty") or Alfonso Fróilaz ("el Jorobado") ? Orchastrattor ( talk) 01:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew J. Robinson.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)