Archives

/2006 /2007 /Taxi dispute - Sept. - Oct. 2007 /2008 /2009 /2010 /2011 /2012 /2013 /2014 /2015 /2016 /2017 /2018 /2019 /2020 /2021 /2022 /2023

Sorry I didn't participate in the AFDWikipedia: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:

• From the Basement to the Dome How MITs Unique Culture Created a Thriving Entrepreneurial Community,2021 (see Foreword by Bob Metcalfe)

Blurb: "MIT is world-famous as a launching pad for entrepreneurs. MIT alumni have founded at least 30,000 active companies, employing an estimated 4.6 million people, with revenues of approximately $1.9 trillion. In the 2010s, twenty to thirty ventures were spun off each year to commercialize technologies developed in MIT labs (with intellectual property licensed by MIT to these companies); in the same decade, MIT graduates started an estimated 100 firms per year. How has MIT become such a hotbed of entrepreneurship?"

• "Building builders: entrepreneurship education from an ecosystem perspective at MIT"2018
• "Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from MIT"2007 (I'm not including the many other publications by E.B. Roberts on this topic)
• "Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience"[1]
• MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science2002

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)[reply]

@Macrakis: Well, there are two paths you could take: Either nominate the Stanford list for deletion or try getting aWP:REFUND based on your sources.Clarityfiend (talk)23:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. For now, I think I'll accumulate additional citations atUser:Macrakis/alumni-founders. --Macrakis (talk)22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Based on your reversion happiness, I see you are on the path to wantingwar. 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 theManual of Style. I suggest seeking venues ofcontent dispute resolution or other means on gathering aconsensus 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.BurgeoningContracting04:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just what part of the MOS are you claiming I am violating? The section title is correct. Fictional characters FYI are not people.Clarityfiend (talk)04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mos:dab of course. I will continue reverting your attempts todisruptively change established precedent because I am that confident I am correct. Until we can get a discussion and consensus for this issue since it is obvious we are both willing to die on our respective hills. Reminder that it is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with afait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change.BurgeoningContracting04:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inMOS:DAB that backs you up, nothing that says to be inaccurate. Be more specific. Which particular section or sentence? There are none.Clarityfiend (talk)04:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there. That and the aforementioned long standing precedent. I'm signing off for the night, but as I said, I am in the hopes you are willing to further have productive discourse on this, ascommunication is vital instead of wanting thingsyour way.Changing precedent because you believe you are right is disruptive if it causes a dispute like the one we are presently having.BurgeoningContracting04:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find it onwp:longdabBurgeoningContracting04:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that you say "communication is vital" when you won't (or more likely, can't) answer my question. "It's right there" is not an answer. Be specific or go away. LONGDAB says "Use the same section names as similar dab pages,if practical. (bolding mine) Is that what you mean? Because it doesn't support your stance at all.Clarityfiend (talk)04:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been communating the whole way here. I don't know what to tell you. It's right there. Says "People". I am confident you want me to "go away" because you're wrong, but that's only my opinion. Reminder toremain civil. Again, we needcommunity consensus on this since neither of us seem to want to budge. I have already sent some three other reasons why that would be preferable. It seems to me you are suffering a case of disruptive behavior if you cannot agree to open a discussion since you have no real MOS policy backing you, only "I'm right." I am telling you for the last time, I hope you can begin a consensus-building discussion over the issue if you are so passionate and certain you are right and that others will agree with you, because otherwise, I also think I am right and will act on it.BurgeoningContracting05:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABPEOPLE says "Forpeople", including the italics to clue you in that non-people are excluded. Fictional characters are people in your mind?Clarityfiend (talk)05:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See what I did there? I pointed to a specific section and quoted exact words, unlike your vague handwaving.Clarityfiend (talk)05:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense, man. Other sections have the italics just to describe that the section for people is to be formatted that way. You're using the incorrect way and I will continue fixing these pagess until we can get a broader consensus because your behavior here is obviously intentionally disruptive.BurgeoningContracting15:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was wrong about the italics. BUT, that section still makes it perfectly clear it is for real, flesh-and-blood people since it asks for birth and death years. Again, why are you conflating human beings with fictional characters? The notion that an encyclopedia should be inaccurate and that I should refrain from correcting obvious mistakes is head scratching, to say the least.Clarityfiend (talk)19:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't innacurate and I'm done with you since obviously, you're not here tobuild an encyclopedia with your disruptive editing you disguise as being constructive. I have linked enough policy and essay here for you to learn from if you're willing to start adhering bywhat makes this platform what it is. That template should contain everything you need to know should you have any more doubt.BurgeoningContracting20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not produced a single, solid instance of anything supporting your position. Just vaguely pointing at policies and saying it's in there is ridiculous. You are the one being disruptive and "innacurate" (hah!). For the umpteenth time, do you think fictional characters are people? That's what it all boils down to. How about you answer that question?Clarityfiend (talk)20:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're welcome.Clarityfiend (talk)14:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Clarityfiend! On behalf of theBirthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you madeyour first edit and became a Wikipedian!The Herald (Benison) (talk)05:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the redirectStyx River fromStyx 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, perWP: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 likeOceanus) 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 theRiver 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 regardsPaul August☎15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: Styx RIVER refers to the river aspect of the goddess, so why shouldn't the redirect be to the river section? This is in full agreement withWP:SURPRISE.Clarityfiend (talk)12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I tried to explain above, "Styx River" does not justrefer 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)[reply]

Not to the average reader, nor even to a semi-knowledgeable reader such as myself. The goddess is named Styx, never Styx River.Clarityfiend (talk)14:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The goddessis a river, and Styx River is another name for the goddess just like theRiver Styx is.Paul August☎15:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Show me a reliable source that says that "Styx River" or the more common "River Styx" is the name of the goddess, not the river.Clarityfiend (talk)23:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The river and the goddess are the same thing.Paul August☎23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the claim I am questioning. Show me a source that states one of the goddess's names is "River Styx" or "Styx River". Otherwise, you have no grounds.Clarityfiend (talk)00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't dispute that the river and god are the same thing, then you can't dispute that whatever is true of one is true of the other. The conclusion follows from the following logical syllogism:

A = B.

B is C.

Therefore, A is C.

Paul August☎12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That logic does not apply here. We're talking about terminology. When I see River Styx or Styx River, I expect to find something about the way to Hades, Charon and the coin fare. I do not expect a goddess. So, unless you can show that River is part of the goddess's name, as I have stated before, SURPRISE applies here.Clarityfiend (talk)22:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now that I think about it, A doesn't even equal B. One aspect of an entity doesn't equal another.Clarityfiend (talk)22:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now you do claim that the goddess and the river are two different things?Paul August☎23:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said two different aspects. For example, Joe Biden is a Democrat and President of the United States. Are Democrat and POTUS equal?Clarityfiend (talk)23:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the aspects goddessness and riverness are the same thing, obviously not. I'm saying that goddessness and riverness are two different aspects of the same thing. And that thing is the thing which our article names as "Styx" but which is also named, for example, theRiver Styx, which therefore redirects toStyx.Paul August☎23:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you said they were the same thing. What else could A = B mean (also B is C)? 99.99% of readers do not expect a goddess when they click on River Styx, no SURPRISE. (Aside: In fact, I'm wondering if the article shouldn't be revamped and renamed River Styx, since it appears to me that the river, not the goddess, is theWP:primary topic.) Why can't you accept that? If you are unable to do so, I suggest you ask for aWP:third opinion.Clarityfiend (talk)16:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note thatStyx River (disambiguation) states that the Styx is a river only; no mention of the goddess, strongly implying that (1) River Styx is not her name (still waiting for sources saying otherwise), and (2) the river, not the goddess, is far, far better known, and hence the primary topic. I may very well propose moving the page.Clarityfiend (talk)16:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 thatonly 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 facteverything in this article applies to the river. So any redirect targets for the mythological river need to be the entire article not a subsection.

ThatStyx 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 ofStyx : "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 thatRiver 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 ageneral context "River Styx" may, in fact, more commonly refer to one of the several geographical rivers listed atStyx 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 toTalk:Styx, to see if other editors have any thoughts about all this.

Regards,Paul August☎18:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: That's a pretty ridiculous argument to make. There's no consensus because no other editors have chimed in, soyou get to decide unilaterally? Whatever happened toWP:THIRDOPINION? You yourself have admitted the river is theWP:PRIMARYTOPIC! Your job is not to override the expectations of the average reader in a misguided attempt to enlighten them. (I was aware of the other redirect, but preferred to reach a consensus first.)Clarityfiend (talk)18:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, could you clarify the rationale forthis edit? As I explained in the edit history, MacLeod received the epithet ofCrotach from an actual deformity he developed after an injury, how would he be any different fromKonrad II ("Garbaty") orAlfonso Fróilaz ("el Jorobado") ?Orchastrattor (talk)01:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The titleList of people known as the Hunchback provides the answer. It includes people known as "the Hunchback. Is he known as Alasdair MacLeod the Hunchback?Clarityfiend (talk)02:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis VIII, Duke of Bavaria doesn't seem to be referred to as such in English either, but more broadly I think if we have non-anglophones on the list then it would only be natural for readers to assume the list is for people known by an epithet referring to Kyphosis-like symptoms, including direct equivalents in languages other than English; it feels unencyclopedic to have to crawl through all available sources to determine whether or not the obvious, literal translation is commonly used enough in English to consider including. Many of the subjects are fairly obscure either way, even if their page uses the English "hunchback" it could very well just be one or two historians throwing out a quick translation of their epithet and not something actually reflective of how they would be discussed in the wider historical record.Orchastrattor (talk)16:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MacLeod's own article states the "Scottish Gaelic word crotach means 'humpbacked', not "the Hunchback" or even "hunchback".Clarityfiend (talk)10:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When youchanged "Fictional characters" back to "Arts and entertainment" here, you forgot to move a couple of entries up from "See also". FromWP:LONGDAB: "all entries that fall within that subject areamust be there." Thanks, —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual}15:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been making a lot of deletions such asthis one but I can't really support them because you aren't giving any real justification for their deletion. Just because these people are not mentioned in each other's articles does not mean that they never worked together. You should be looking at the articles for the films themselves. There you will see that they did in fact work together. You are deleting a lot of hard work by some Wikipedians and you are not helping Wikipedia by doing so. The most should should be doing is adding a "citation needed" tag, if anything.Nicholas0 (talk)16:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicholas0: The mere fact that they worked together on multiple productions is not enough. Lots and lots of people do that. It has to be significant enough to get independent notice. Also, I looked for sources in most cases; others were obviously unnotable.Clarityfiend (talk)09:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did you read the hidden comment at the top of the list?Clarityfiend (talk)09:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On18 August 2024,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleMary Owens (Abraham Lincoln fiancée), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatAbraham Lincoln felt obliged to propose toMary Owens – a woman he did not want to marry – but was rejected several times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Mary Owens (Abraham Lincoln fiancée). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Mary Owens (Abraham Lincoln fiancée)), and the hook may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk)00:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita WoodStrangerthings7112 (talk)03:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to accept your revert onDiamond (disambiguation) but how isDiamond Tree, Western Australia different from all the other entries there, like Diamond Hill, Diamond Island and Diamond Lake, just to name a few?Calistemon (talk)11:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable to think that they could be referred to as simply Diamond. For example, the Aleutian Islands are often shortened to the Aleutians. The same cannot be said of Diamond Tree.Clarityfiend (talk)11:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying thatDiamond Hill (Ireland),Diamond Island (Tasmania) and all entries underDiamond Lake (Ontario) are commonly referred to as just Diamond?Calistemon (talk)11:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily have to be common, as long as it is used sometimes. Do I know that for sure? No, but it is certainly plausible, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.Clarityfiend (talk)11:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't think so! I think you are clutching at straws to defend your revert while letting the rest of the list stand. But lets leave it as that, there is zero point discussing a disambiguation page edit any further. Have a great day, happy editing!Calistemon (talk)11:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Diamond Tree does not qualify. Also, it seems dubious to me that mountains definitely belong (e.g. Mount Everest, Mount Kilimanjaro), but hills are somehow suspect?Clarityfiend (talk)11:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectShamrock Airport has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 30 § Shamrock Airport until a consensus is reached.Carguychris (talk)19:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:Malawian aviators indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, under discussion atCategories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted undersection C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.✗plicit14:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16 § Gypsy until a consensus is reached.Bug Ghost🦗👻12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Clarityfiend! I'm glad that you are joining theNovember 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk)12:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleThe Pale Horseman, to which you havesignificantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should bedeleted.

The discussion will take place atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pale Horseman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visitthe configuration page. Delivered bySDZeroBot (talk)01:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I can't thank you enough for correcting me. This really shows the Wikipedia community at its finest; the ability to conduct a courteous discussion andexplain how things really are, without resorting to ad hominem arguments. i so much appreciate your kind response about my mistaken belief, since long stuck in my mind. It's as if I suddenly were to learn I had a different name that I somehow had forgotten! --SM5POR (talk)16:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.Clarityfiend (talk)12:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem to have forgotten to "close" the italics in your nomination statement atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorke Sherwood. It might be voluntary, but just letting you know. -Mushy Yank.19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSulafa Tower has beenproposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.

PROD withdrawn after another used added more detail on fire and 20-odd citations about the fire. I had also added the notice to the talk page, not the article. Sorry to intrude.Elrondil (talk)02:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Clarityfiend for collecting more than 44.5 points during theWikiProject Unreferenced articles'sNOV24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! –DreamRimmer Alt (talk)17:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you aMerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotesWikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

★Trekker (talk)07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see the message atTalk:Joan the Lame.Surtsicna (talk)10:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got further comments on this case?Surtsicna (talk)13:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you split uplist of cult films some time ago, there is an ongoing discussion about recombining. (FYI, the individual pages got overhauled last year, now using no more than 20 book references.) Your thoughts are welcome here:Talk:List of cult films § Combine pages. Thanks,Erik (talk | contrib)^{(ping me)}16:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the renaming proposal atWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_13#Category:Sports_plays. –FayenaticLondon11:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Clarityfiend! On behalf of theBirthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you madeyour first edit and became a Wikipedian!DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)05:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the changes you are making to this article. Please do not revert again without discussion. As noted, a distinction between two spellings of a name is present in other name articles. It arguably also helps people to find the person they are looking for more quickly. A redirect from Phillida is also hardly “useless.”Bookworm857158367 (talk)07:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A chara,

I am writing on behalf of Wikimedia Community Ireland to invite you to participate in the Feminism and Folklore Writing Contest that open until the end of March.

This year the contest is bilingual and includes;

• the English version on Wikipedia:Feminism and Folklore Ireland 2025
• the Irish version on Vicipéid:Feimineachas agus Béaloideas 2025

If writing in English you can create or edit articles about Irish folk traditions.

For the Irish version of the writing competition we encourage editors to write in Irish on themes of feminism and folklore, whether in Ireland or elsewhere in the world.

Editors can create new articles, improve existing articles, or translate articles from other languages ​​into Irish.

You can also visit our website for more informationhere.

Go n-éirí leat!

Le dea-ghuí,

Sophie Fitzpatrick

Project and Communications Manager, Wikimedia Community IrelandCailínréalta (talk)12:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I recently editedRakel by adding in the origin, the meaning of the name with 3 sources (1 of which was definitely questionable for which i apologise) and a section break. I find it funny that you said it was an "utterly unnecessary section break", only to then, in a way, keep it in. The only difference is now there's no big line to separate it. You seem to not really appreciate the edit i did for the page you (pretty much) created. The least you could do was just explain in your edit summary that you didn't agree with the section break and remove it, instead of calling my good faith edits "utterly unnecessary". It comes across as negative. And it wasn't unnecessary, if you go to almost any name wiki page, they all have section breaks after they discuss in the lead sentences, the origin and meaning of the name. This isn't me trying to start any drama, i'm just saying you came across as ungrateful for my help, which i understand you didn't even ask for, but still. Thank you.Cherryblossomgirly (talk)13:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cherryblossomgirly: I'm sorry I offended you with my edit summary. However, section breaks are unnecessary when there are essentially no other sections (other than See also and the like). See for exampleAbeid,Abey (name),Abiel. I also go around consolidating subsections with one or two entries. I'm a minimalist (as I note on my talk page); I believe in simplicity, insofar as that is warranted. You're the first to chastise me on that practice.Clarityfiend (talk)22:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i wasn't offended, it was just kinda rude. instead of appreciating help, you called it utterly unnecessary.Cherryblossomgirly (talk)04:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound like you were offended. Frankly, if you expect appreciation for a routine edit, maybe your expectations are too high.Clarityfiend (talk)08:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don'texpect appreciation to the point of you thanking me constantly. not once did i say that. what i said is that your reaction to my help was almost like disgust that someone tried to help your article. if you had just said, “i don’t think that edit adds anything,” that would be more neutral. but the word "utterly" amplifies it, making it sound like you think the input is pointless, which it wasn't, i did add in the names origin and meaning, is that pointless? i didn't expect you to bow down, but i did expect you to not insult me for contributing - silly me thinking that’s what collaboration is about. But you're telling me that someone who tries to help shouldn't be appreciated, or at the very least not insulted?Cherryblossomgirly (talk)08:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've apologized. What more do you want? Why are you continuing to harp on this?Clarityfiend (talk)09:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see thatAbiel does require "sectioning".Clarityfiend (talk)23:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, readers are not idiots, but there is no reason not to supply information about whatever the name is shortened from in an article that is about the name and variants. Your edits have not actually improved that article.Bookworm857158367 (talk)21:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What reason? The actual given name is given in the subsection title, and the surname is relatively trivial and accessible from the linked article. I follow the general disambiguation MOS guideline which discourages excessive details.Clarityfiend (talk)21:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 22 § Mythological foo on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt •talk • he/they)03:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am wondering whether you can help me with the page I created this morning about the Greene'snovel "The Third Man". I was surprised to realize that the book (which I read in Italian and I see has coverage in French, Spanish, German and Galego) doesn't have an English page, so a created one today. However, a few hours later, another user thought it does not contain enough references and reverted my (and your) changes to a simple redirection. My question is: what references do we need for a book that everybody knows? I saw for instance your page about the Ministry of Fear and it does not contain any reference. Of course more references would help, but why reverting the page to a redirection to the movie? Can you help me out? Thanks!Lauretana1975 (talk)Lauretana1975 (talk)18:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lauretana1975: PerWP:BOOKCRIT, the book may perhaps have already been notable per criterion #5 ("The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable."), but it doesn't hurt to bulk it up, as I have done.Clarityfiend (talk)23:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Clarityfiend! It looks great. It's not easy to find references for the themes (which, by the way, are the ones I wrote -- I just read the novel, and the same of the movie), but I'll keep trying! Ciao!Lauretana1975 (talk)03:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lauretana1975: You shouldn't write about your own analysis perWP:OR.Clarityfiend (talk)07:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I got inspiration from the back cover of the Italian edition, but I can't find adequate text in English online.Lauretana1975 (talk)18:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: what do you think about the notability tag added to thepage?

@Lauretana1975: I've removed it. The book's notability is amply demonstrated by the existing sources, and more are easily found. P.S. You generally don't need to ping someone on their own talk page.Clarityfiend (talk)09:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, apologies for pinging!Lauretana1975 (talk)13:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, i see you have made some changes to the format of the section 'Murder investigation' of the above page. I also see you added [contradictory] to the line "The same newspaper also reported that 34-year-old Naomi Drysdale was arrested for questioning in 2019, before being released without charge", remarking that a few sentences before that it says she was released without charge.

First and foremost, I need to be very careful when naming who was arrested for what so as not to be accused of making libelous statements, seeing as defamation laws in UK/Ireland are very strict and can lead to both criminal and civil actions. Although a person could potentially put two and two together and assume that the unnamed 34-year-old woman mentioned by Irish Independent / RTE News is the same 34-year-old Naomi Drysdale who was reported as being arrested by the Sunday Life newspaper, as she has not been specifically named as being arrested in the same incident we must only state the facts that she was arrested in 2019 on similar charges also, and allow whoever is reading to make assumptions if they wish.

Also, the legal system in the UK can be a bit confusing as they have a concept of beingreleased on bail, which is totally different from the bail bonds system used in North America and i dont think has any similar concept anywhere else in the world. In a nutshell, someone is 'released on bail' when the police believe they have committed a crime but dont have enough evidence to file formal charges, so technically they have been released without charge however the police still want to keep an eye on them and usually attach certain conditions, such as having to report back in a few weeks for further questioning, not leaving the country until the bail period has expired, keeping a curfew at night, etc ....

In other words, 'released on bail' means you have been 'released without charge' in the UK legal systemWorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk)08:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FromWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Dodge City, Kansas:Size does matter. A place like Estherville, Iowa, does not warrant a list of mayors. But an anachronistic census snapshot in time, which in the case of a great many community articles is now a quarter-century old, is not only warranted but actively defended? I call bullshit. Census data, climate boxes, etc. which don't have to be added and sourced organically constitute undue weight in many places on the encyclopedia. Is the article supposed to be about an incorporated municipal entity or a census-enumerated place? If the former, it makes no sense to categorically disregard contributions directly related to that function. All we're doing is pushing the encyclopedia further in the direction of a popularity contest and/or anWP:INDISCRIMINATE dumping ground. RadioKAOS/ Talk to me, Billy/ Transmissions05:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioKAOS: I have no idea what you're arguing about. What does Estherville have to do with it? Did Estherville have a list of mayors? No Dodge City information was lost; it was merged into the main article. So can you be clearer about what your beef is?Clarityfiend (talk)05:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13, partly due to me having hayfever during that period and not wanting to run it throughout July or August in the hotter summer and will be run then unless multiple editors object. There is currently $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. As 250 countries and entities is too much to patrol, entries will be by user, but there is $500 going into prizes for editors covering the most countries. Sign up if interested! ♦Dr. Blofeld

Welcome, welcome, welcome Clarityfiend! I'm glad that you are joining theJune 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk)04:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clarityfiend, yourrecent request atWikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions atWikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered byTenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page)TenshiBot (talk)12:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions toMay and December. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit has no sources.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information atHelp:Unreviewed new page.When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.EatingCarBatteries_{(contributions,talk)}06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May and December, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed asStart-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~/Bunnypranav:<ping>07:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhede (disambiguation) (2nd nomination). You nominated this page previously.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)08:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Clarityfiend for accumulating at least 100 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog!Hey man im josh (talk)19:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Rack and pinion Award
		This award is given in recognition to Clarityfiend for accumulating at least 15 points during each week of the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog!Hey man im josh (talk)19:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen theWikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦Dr. Blofeld16:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Clarityfiend for collecting more than 3.0 points during theWikiProject Unreferenced articles'sJUN25 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 9,500 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! –DreamRimmer Alt■16:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	World Destubathon Barnstar
	Much appreciate your effort in theWorld Destubathon! ♦Dr. Blofeld12:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered why this wasn't on theCome On Over (disambiguation) page, even under "See also" and I added it back, but I wondered if maybe it had been removed and it had. Is it not true that there are only a few songs where "Come On Over" is easily mistaken for the title?—Vchimpanzee • talk •contributions •16:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clarityfiend. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk)10:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleLists of Hindus has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

seeWP:INDISCRIMINATE. This seems some redundant random list, which is easily supported byCategory:Hinduism-related lists.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Asteramellus (talk)19:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here a long time, and you know that just forcefully editing isn't the way to go. There is a status quo at the page and even though I disagreed with your edits I tried to make compromises and you've still forced the issue to your preference. Use the talk page to discuss further.Darkwarriorblake (talk)12:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTassos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAnastasius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)18:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you missed the pointhere. If the eternal five-year-oldness was only physical and mental, that could be explained away as any of a wide variety of perfectly mundane growth disorders and/or cognitive impairments — see, e.g.,Brooke Greenberg). "Or chronologically" is the story'snovum; as such, I've restored that to the text.

(Yes, I'm using 'novum' more loosely than Suvin did)DS (talk)16:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for editingCard. I don't mind my edits being reverted – I don't necessarily agree with it, but I honestly don't care enough about the topic to debate it, it's still looking better than it was when I first got to it, and my edits might have missed the "true" purpose of a disambiguation page anyway. That said, next time you revert someone, could you please be a bit nicer about it? I feel like like calling my additions "absurd" and specifying with an exaggerated "!?!" was a bit uncalled for. I know it's a silly request, but being hit with it a few moments after I was done with the page honestly shocked me a bit in an unpleasant way, and I fear the same reaction could turn someone else less experienced off editing permanently.

Many thanks,Vtipoman (talk)10:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vtipoman: Apologies. I will try to be more diplomatic in future.Clarityfiend (talk)11:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend All good, thanks for acknowledging my message. Happy editing!Vtipoman (talk)08:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:Scottish aircraft designers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, under discussion atCategories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted undersection C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.Liz^Read!Talk!22:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, the category was created mere minutes ago.Clarityfiend (talk)22:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the day, I do Quarry queries, looking for Empty Categories that need to be tagged. The fact you just created this one within an hour of my Query search was a coincidence. I'm sorry that it might have been incovenient to untag the page but you don't have to call a legitimate edit "idiotic". It seems like you took this edit a little too personally. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.Liz^Read!Talk!04:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging a category without doing the slightest due diligence is not a good idea.Clarityfiend (talk)06:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision to merge The Dales disambiguation page with the one for Dale was not a good one80.2.107.84 (talk)20:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the new dab pageDales, which has a lot more entries than the original The Dales one.Clarityfiend (talk)00:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response toWikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_73#Disambiguation_page_with_potential!Utfor (talk)14:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Cathy2001:56B:3FED:FBFE:0:4A:B112:BF01 (talk)00:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 14 § Fictional characters by occupation and medium on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.Pppery (alt) (talk)00:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 16 § People by mental disorder categories on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.silviaASH(inquire within)12:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleMan About Town (1939 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man About Town (1939 film) 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.

Athanelar (talk)14:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikiproject Anthroponymy conventions, The standard phrase in the lede of {surname} pages is "Notable people with the surname include:" --Altenmann>talk16:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann: Where does it so stipulate, and more importantly, why? It may be a common wording, but that certainly doesn't make it mandatory. That would be silly.Clarityfiend (talk)17:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Style advice All Wikipediaguidelines are non-mandatory, but breaking them requires a really good reason. And I would not be calling long-standing traditions "silly". In particular the phrasing "Notable people" has been preventing adding various random people into surname pages. If you want to be a maverick, fine with me, but sooner or later some "surname gnome" will put it into standard form. Gnomes love consistency, you know. And I know this first hand. Many a time, being a lazy typer, I write "It may refer to", and always I stand corrected. --Altenmann>talk17:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Preferred" means not a whole lot. I am not a robot blindly following rules that often make no sense, e.g.Glick. Fictional characters are not people, notable or otherwise.Clarityfiend (talk)17:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters may be people (fictional people, see egcategory:Fictional people by nationality). --Altenmann>talk18:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A badly named category doesn't overrule any dictionary orPeople orPerson; the latter defines a person as "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness."Sherlock Holmes may be a great detective, but he possesses none of these qualities.Clarityfiend (talk)02:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in awe at your creation and it dawned on me: why there is noList of people known as of Kiev or [[List of people known as of Paris? Do you think these may be handy as well? --Altenmann>talk17:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because "of [location X]" is not anepithet afaik.Clarityfiend (talk)17:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely may be something like an epithet, e.g.,Timon of Athens (person) orTimon of Phlius. There certainly must be a linguistric/anthroponymic term foor this.

But I am not talking about inclusion in this category: I am talking about new categories. --Altenmann>talk18:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? You ask about lists, then switch to categories? Make up your mind.Clarityfiend (talk)02:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mind is OK. Your lists are in a category. I thought your objection is related to category name: "Lists of people by epithet". I responded there may be a new category, and your objection "Because "of [location X]" is not anepithet" makes no sense: being a non-epithet does not prevent making a list of this type, because definitely there are plenty people known as "[X] of Kiev". --Altenmann>talk02:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedFulk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageFoulques.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]