Hello. I have noticed that you have been replacing the twenty year lists of Acts of Parliament with yearly lists. The pre-1880 lists are already in the process of being corrected and improved. I think those lists should be left intact until that process is completed. If the footnotes in those lists were deleted or orphaned, it would negate months of effort to correct the errors in those lists, to ensure that articles and redirects are located at appropriate page names, and to identify the status and origins of short titles and popular titles. (Template:Legislationuk does not seem to have provision for footnotes, popular titles, or Acts that have multiple names, as far as I can see). Best regards. James500 (talk)23:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James - the template has provision for footnotes (and other features) via optional parameters, and I will be implementing additional options such as popular titles and Acts with multiple names in time with more, although the most logical implementation won't be clear until I've had a look at specific Acts and worked out what would make most sense. As such, I've been doing this as I go along in reverse chronological order - you can see that I have (for example) included provision for Provisional Order confirmations in local Acts where the long title to the Act itself is unhelpful. This will become more relevant in Acts confirming multiple unrelated Orders. I have also been converting it into Lua and working on increasing the efficiency so as to not run up against some of WP's limitations. If you want to see module code behind the template you can do sohere, though it's still a work in progress (albeit nearing completion). Citations are automatically generated by date and chapter number using a database accessed by the Lua module, which will become more relevant pre-1963.

In any event, I anticipate that it will be quite a while before I would be intending to work on 19th century legislation, but please be assured that I have not been whole-sale deleting the information that is there, and I have been working from primary sources throughout. For example, I have been manually typing out long titles and cross-checking against OCRs of scans so as to catch any errors in both. --Theknightwho (talk)23:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks, even though it seems from the above that my assumption was incorrect. What I wasreally lookiy for was the infobox. I use it so rarely that I misremembered it as a template. So it would be good if you could add a least some skeleton doc for other editors if I was wrong. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)09:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised just after that it wasn't quite correct. I've been meaning to do some documentation for a while, but real life has got in the way! I've actually decided that the best approach is to upload the relevant data onto Wikidata and to then port that over onto Wikipedia - it's logistically neater, more flexible, and ensures consistency where information is duplicated (e.g. lists of legislation by topic; and I have also been contemplating a UK legislation citation template which would draw down the relevant info and format it correctly based on a simple input). Implementing that will require a total rewrite of much of the template, and so I'm reluctant to do much in detail until then. When I get the chance, I'll put something up, though, as it'd be good to have skeleton documentation in the meantime.Theknightwho (talk)15:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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)00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add that book reference toNew Year's Day? --John Maynard Friedman (talk)13:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good shout - have done.Theknightwho (talk)13:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think you have the wrong publisher? It should be British Academy. Also, I believe we should recognise the Hathi Trust? --John Maynard Friedman (talk)13:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Poole, Reginald L. (1921).The Beginning of the Year in the Middle Ages. Procedings of the British Academy. Vol. X. London:British Academy.Archived from the original on 23 November 2021. Retrieved24 November 2021 – viaHathi Trust.

So I was a little confused, as the cover to that edition cites OUP, though I think it wasn't published in volume X until later. I don't think the page numbers line up if we use that citation, though I'm about to rush off somewhere so will have a look later.Theknightwho (talk)13:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, surely we are looking at the same book on the Hathi Trust site? --John Maynard Friedman (talk)17:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume so - if you look at what Hathi calls page 3, the bottom half of the page mentions OUP. The page numbers for theProceedings seem to be pp. 113-137, going bythis sourceTheknightwho (talk)18:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. publishedfor by the British Academy by the OUP. My mistake. Somehow I read it first time asprinted'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)20:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've also added a second new source by Pollard, which adds some further clarifications. The more I read into it, the more confusing it gets!Theknightwho (talk)21:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a particular reason to replace the Wikisource version in favour of PepysDiary.com? --John Maynard Friedman (talk)23:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the point being demonstrated (that Pepys celebrated New Year on 1 January, despite not actually writing a different year until 25 March), whereas Wikisource appears to only show the modified year, which I assume is an editorial decision.Theknightwho (talk)23:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh!!! © Homer Simpson

I KNEW THAT! I KNEW THAT! ©1998-2001Goodness Gracious Me'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)23:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I think we are both reliving some of the frustration that led to the passing of the Act...Theknightwho (talk)23:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your additions here. However, I have found that it's often best to be clear that precision is not possible, especially in the metal type period. Often a lack of surviving archives makes it hard to date when exactly typefaces appeared, you often only know which specimens include types but they were not released annually, or there are dates in reference works with no source or explanation which are hard to trust. I explain this in theSemplicità andAlbertus articles for example. With very very few exceptions (like Clarendon, which was registered) I would not give dates of introduction for any pre-1950 typeface, certainly not unless you've personally verified it in a very, very reliable reference book.

You seem to be categorising a lot of redirects taking them from the names of typefaces on the Stephenson Blake article. I don't think that article is very good, it was created by an editor who threw in a lot of information I don't believe is reliable. (It's one of the things I just haven't got around to checking and cleaning up.) In particular now I look at it, I suspect that "Doric 12" is a confusion of Caslon's first sans-serif, which first appears in 1816 but is probably earlier (and isn't 12pt size), with Caslon's later sans-serifs named Doric, introduced about 70 years later. I would not use it as a source for creating redirects and categories, they could confuse people.Blythwood (talk)21:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - that's fair enough! I have categorised the redirects under the Stephenson Blake category in any event (or whichever was appropriate for the others), so they are easy to track down and sort out if necessary. Two pre-1950 typefaces that I know for certain have the correct dates areDoves type (1900) andRecord type (1774), as I'm familiar with the histories of both. I get the impression that a lot of this also comes down to the ambiguity of the term "introduced", which seems to be a generic WP term for "came about". It seems to be variously used to mean "first cut" and "first used in a published work" in this context, which isn't helpful.Theknightwho (talk)21:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Based onyour edit summary for your page move ofCo-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965, the text ofCo-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010 seems to be outdated. Can you correct it to say what the current status is, if this was repealed? Thanks,wbm1058 (talk)15:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem. I'll do that later on today.Theknightwho (talk)15:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onModule:Legislationuk/Mw.html extension requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguouscopyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy fromhttps://runescape.wiki/w/Module:Mw.html_extension. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source ofinformation, but not as a source ofsentences. This part is crucial:say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violatorswill beblocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then youmust verify that externally by one of the processes explained atWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, seeWikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look atWikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a questionhere.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Asartea^{Talk|Contribs}10:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine to delete, though I’m not aware that it’s copyright infringement. The RuneScape wiki states at the bottom that everything is shared under theCC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 licence.Theknightwho (talk)10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theknightwho, I just wanted to let you know that I haveadded the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload onnew page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, seeWikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater andUser:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!Schwede6601:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!Theknightwho (talk)01:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.— kwami (talk)12:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of24 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk)03:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedWuhai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageWuda. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In an item on the BBC News website (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60478725) it was mentioned that there was a view that paying digtial ransom demands should be illegal.(seehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57173096)

My thought was that Wikiversity would be an appropriate place for someone familiar with the relevant (English) law (and ideally access to a library of existing relevant caselaw reports), to draft what's essentially a journal article as to (as of December 2022) the position in English law was currently.

An extension of such a research project would be the creation of a draft bill containing appropriate amending clauses to statute law, relevant to the issue concerned.

• One example clause could, for example be to make the payment of a "digital ransom demand" a "recoverable loss." which companies could legally recover from the individuals and organizations that undertake so-termed "ransomware" attacks.

I would not be qualified or have the confidence to undertake such a research project, but you perhaps know people with such experience in the Wikimedia sphere that might be interested.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk)12:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You moved the article titledChōchin-obake‎ toChōchin'obake‎; I am considering moving it back, because there was prior consensus for that version, but I thought I would just ask you personally to see if we can sort it out. I do not know how much you know about Japanese - for example your previous edit toOnoda: 10,000 Nights in the Jungle was precisely correct, but your edit summary to this article suggests you have missed the point. You mentioned a "dash", but there is no dash, only a hyphen. You have not "normalised" the romanisation, you have changed the form of the term. This is a noun-noun compound, of two (quite ordinary) words:chōchin (lantern) andobake (ghost). There are no rules in Japanese for word spacing or hyphenation, because these do not exist in normal writing; it is simply written 提灯おばけ. I think it is better to show the non-Japanese-reader that there are two elements; these could be separated either by a space or a hyphen. See my comments at the top of the talk page about the name.Imaginatorium (talk)08:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium It is common for compound terms to be treated as a single word when referring to a specific concept. I normalised it to the agreed form atHelp:Japanese, but you are right that there several different possibilities for doing this. However, if there is a general consensus to use one we should be consistent.

On a minor note, “dash” can be used to mean “hyphen” in casual language.Theknightwho (talk)12:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:Geography of Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, afeatured topics category, 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!05:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:Buildings and structures in Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, afeatured topics category, 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!05:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:Township-level divisions of Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, afeatured topics category, 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!05:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theknightwho,

If you are going to revert all of an editor's work on a subject, you need to start a conversation with them, either one on their User talk page or join the discussion they already started on an article talk page. Please communicate with them and present your reasons for changing the names back. This will help avoid an edit war or other disruptive activity. But please do not just do mass reverting of all of their edits on a subject. If you need a third or fourth opinion, bring the difference of opinion to the talk page of an appropriate WikiProject so it isn't just a "me vs. you" issue. You're an experienced editor, please reach out and offer a reason for all of your reversions byond what is says in an edit summary. Thank you.Liz^Read!Talk!19:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: I provided a short, policy-based explanation inthe edit summary of my initial move: "PerWP:COMMONNAME. See talk." On the talk pages of both Deqin County and Diqing Prefecture, I gave more detailed explanations.

It seems that your primary concern is the erasure of Tibetan names, but as I explained on the talk pages of both Deqin County and Diqing Prefecture, Dêqên is not the original Tibetan name of the area; it was decided upon by the firstChinese governor of the prefecture. In fact, there was not a Tibetan name specifically for the borders of the prefecture and county carved from the traditional Tibetan area of Kham, because the Chinese government created those borders, not the Tibetan people.

As I further touched on in the talk pages, if you are concerned that this move to theEnglish common name may unintentionally create bias for the Chinese government, then your concerns should extend to Dêqên, the name chosen by a Chinese governor and the spelling of which is the one used by the Chinese government (Tibetan pinyin).

So either way Tibetans have not been consulted, and either name will be the past decision of the Chinese government. For this reason, I only looked towards Wikipedia policies when I came to the conclusion that a move was even necessary. The sources given do not use the Tibetan pinyin spelling of Dêqên for either the county or prefecture, and rarely did the few reliable sources I could find (in English). I took great care in not skewing my research either, removing the circumflex accent from results (i.e. Deqen), yet still nothing.

I am sure that, like yourself, the previous move for the prefecture and the original title decision for the county was based on the goodwill idea of preserving Tibetan names. However, as I made sure to explain in-depth, they were not the best policy-based decisions, and even if we ignore all Wikipedia policy and decide solely on our goodwill towards Tibetans, what we seek to do is not accomplished. Instead of preserving a Tibetan name carried into English, the editors who chose Dêqên coined a new English transliteration of a Chinese-created name.Yue🌙21:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be evident that my goal in the subsequent edits was not to prioritiseMandarin (Standard Chinese) transliterations, because if it was I would not have bothered cleaning up the formatting and adding a section on the Tibetan name's etymology. I only care about site policy and accessibility for readers, and regarding the latter I feel strongly about the relevancy ofWP:COMMONNAME.Yue🌙22:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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)00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I noticed your post on Trappist's talk page about a parser, and have a couple of thoughts about how it might be useful. From what you say it sounds like it's a template parser, meaning that it doesn't generate any internal structure for text between templates. Is that correct? The suggestions below are mostly for something that can do at least a crude parse of an article -- identifying the text blocks between templates, and finding <ref> tags and their contents.

Seethis discussion about switching a page away from list-defined references and the use of the R template. To make the change Piotr requested I wrote a simple parser in Python for the wikitext, and then wrote an output routine to take the parsed representation and print it in named reference format without the list definition. A more general capability -- to take an article written in a certain citation style and change it to another style -- might be of interest to some people. Mostly people want to do things like convert short form refs to sfn, and there would be a certain amount of guesswork in matching up the short form names such as "Smith (2011), p. 123" with the cited sources.

I do some source reviewing atFAC, and I've been planning to write a parser for that as well to help spot some inconsistencies. For example, if an article cites a dozen books, it should either cite the publisher location for all or none of them. Having a parsed tree of citation templates would allow questions like "are all book citations consistent in their use of locations?" Other possibilities: inconsistent use of ISBNs, use of "p." for multiple pages or "pp." for single pages, domain names used as website titles. A few of the errors might even be auto-correctable. I had planned to simply scan the article for the cite templates and parse those, but if you already have them in a parse tree that would simplify things.

Does any of this sound possible?Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)21:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Hi Mike, I'll respond to the specifics in more detail a bit later when I have more time, but I just wanted to point out that it does generate an internal structure for the whole of the input text, which is done by using various classes of node. The most relevant of these is of courseTemplate, but there's alsoArgument (3 braces),Tag (parser tag blocks, e.g.<ref>some text</ref> would be one node), and the genericWikitext. Any of these can be nested inside each other arbitrarily, and the parser (run fromwikt:Module:parser) uses recursive iteration to traverse the tree. The internal structure of each type of node is pretty different, but nodes don't need to know or care about other nodes, since the recursive iterator simply calls the applicablenext method for each node as it encounters it. This is a highly flexible model, and the intention is for Module:parser to be used for parsing code, as here, as well as in the complex linguistic parsing we do at Wiktionary for things like pronunciation modules. Does that sound like it fits what you need?If you're interested, there's also the much more complexwikt:Module:User:Theknightwho/wikitext parser which is designed for things like internal/external links, headers, HTML etc. It's not finished yet, though.

Theknightwho (talk)22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recursive node structure is what I ended up creating for the one I wrote; I've never written a parser before so it took me a couple of passes before I realized that was the most logical data structure. I think most of the uses I'm thinking of could be divided into 1) parse; 2) optionally analyze/transform; and 3) render. Once an article is parsed, the data structure could be passed to code that renders it with a different citation style, or part of the structure such as the citation templates could be analyzed for particular errors or inconsistencies. An attempt to convert hand-written citations to templates, for example, would identify a sources section, find bulleted citations, classify them as plain text or links or templates, and use clues such as ISBNs to determine whether they were books, journals, web pages, or something else. The advantage of having a parser as a front end for this is that it eliminates the need for a user to point the code at part of the article. I should add I have no knowledge of Lua and wouldn't be able to write this code myself, unless I end up learning it -- the crude parser I wrote is in Python, which I'm still getting familiar with.Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)02:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Yes, doing things in those three stages makes the most sense, and in fact there is the option to simply return the raw node tree from the parser as well, or to write other kinds of iterators to help in processing the data. The template iterator was written to replace a simpler version on Wiktionary which was already in use, but the module is capable of much more.

Given that you've mentioned things like bulleted lists and links, I should probably point out that (from the point of view of a Lua module), everything that the native parser does can be divided into (1) things done before Lua and (2) things done after Lua. Everything that the template parser does is purely focused on what happens before Lua, which means templates, parser function tags (e.g. ref tags), HTML comments, other templates and so on. In other words, everything that you could never pass into Lua as raw code, because it will always have been processed first. However, youcan view those things if you process the raw page contents. On the other hand, links and formatting (e.g. bulleted lists) are processed after Lua, which is actually whatwikt:Module:User:Theknightwho/wikitext parser is designed for. There are a lot more moving parts, and wiki markup is actually extremely complicated when you're trying to generalise it. However, you should never process (e.g.) templates and links at the same time, because you don't know if those templates will affect the links once they've been expanded.

For anything involving links, I suspect you'll need to wait until that parser's in a ready state (which may be a few months), because determining what is and isn't a valid link is really complicated. However, things like lists are usually simple enough to parse with Lua's string library.Theknightwho (talk)02:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian language has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)01:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedList of bank robbers and robberies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageGreat Train Robbery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing me of vandalism bro38.109.228.189 (talk)21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't - I disagreed with your change, but I didn't call it vandalism.Theknightwho (talk)21:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominatedGwoyeu Romatzyh for afeatured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets thefeatured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process arehere.George Ho (talk)21:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Soft De

added a link pointing toPalatalization

Soft El

added a link pointing toPalatalization

Soft Em

added a link pointing toPalatalization

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)20:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"They don't originate in Ukraine, so we still wouldn't give it, as you have already been told. Plus, you just reinstated your old edit with no changes"

Ok. So then why say "adding the Ukrainian spelling between the Russian plural and singular is confusing at best" you just like being nitpicky on purpose don't you? You didn't have to write that, did you? You just wanted to nitpick. Knight, why are you like this?Rolando 1208 (talk)21:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 I'm not going to refrain from pointing out issues just because you don't like it.Theknightwho (talk)21:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because I don't like it. You point out issues for no reason. You wanted me to waste my time adding the singular. But I saw right through you. Could have just rv and I would have moved on since consensus was not in my favour. Time is a valuable thing. Please consider that when writing edit summaries.Rolando 1208 (talk)22:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 My first edit summary said that I agreed with the other editor (who had already told you that we wouldn't include Ukrainian because they didn't originate in Ukraine), and then Ialso said that there was an issue with where you placed it, which was a point of advice on the placement of native terms which it would be good for you to remember going forward. I also did not waste your time, since you didn't actually add the singular - you simply restored your old edit.Theknightwho (talk)22:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This dude isPanayotis Koupitoris and you faked him intoPanayotis Kupitoris.— Precedingunsigned comment added by91.200.161.250 (talk)16:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was revertthis edit which changed the name to a transliteration of the Greek. Please don't make accusations of "faking", as you need to assume good faith (seeWP:AGF).Theknightwho (talk)15:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert is not magic tool doing editing by itself. Stop using reverting - it is mindless as vandalism.— Precedingunsigned comment added by91.200.161.250 (talk)16:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay dude. It was obviously not "falsifying" but rather a mistake, given the name was correct in my edit summary ([1]).Theknightwho (talk)16:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should have been turning "u" into "ou" before clicking "publish changes" during revert.— Precedingunsigned comment added by91.200.161.250 (talk)16:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See thenote I have left on Rolando's page in which I both warned them about their needling and asked them to minimize their interaction with you. To help them do that, I would suggest that you too not seek out an interaction with them and not post on their talkpage unless necessary. If you run into issues just report them at ANI or to an admin, while keeping in mind that some minor conduct problems are best handled by looking past them and focusing on the content issues.

To be clear: this advice is not based on you having done anything wrong but solely with the aim of helping everyone's experience ofbuilding an encyclopedia be as pleasant as possible. Cheers.Abecedare (talk)22:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare Thanks, will do. Your help has been much appreciated.Theknightwho (talk)23:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare They've done it again ([2]): removing a sourced English pronunciation with a misleading edit summary. I think this needs to go toWP:ANI, as I think they still don't seem to get it.Theknightwho (talk)01:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare I didn't want to interact with this user but they keep reverting me. Check my last edit summary (the one after [2]) on the same page, it's not misleading.Rolando 1208 (talk)02:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for not mentioning I removed the English IPA, I thought it was obvious? Do you want me to mention it every single time? BTW, just because it has a source doesn't mean it should be there.Rolando 1208 (talk)02:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 Yes, I will revert you when you keep trying to remove English pronunciations from articles, despite being told aboutMOS:DUALPRON several times. Removing the English pronunciation with the edit summaryMatching the IPA with the audio. was misleading. We have been over this before, and you have been told this by other editors, because you have done exactly the same thing before, including the misleading edit summaries. I will be taking you toWP:ANI, because it's clear you're just going to keep doing this.Theknightwho (talk)02:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I DID match it with the audio. I explained in further detail in my last edit summary. Please do check it out. I'm being more comprehensive with the summaries now, no need to go to ANI.Rolando 1208 (talk)02:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 Yes, and youalso removed the English IPA, which you omitted to mention, which is misleading. You've had enough chances at this point.Theknightwho (talk)02:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted without reading my last summary, wow. I wrote verbatim:

"Why? English IPA here is not necessary. English speakers already know how to pronounce Yoga. The word is very common. Plus, your revert puts the Sanskrit audio with the English IPA."

I did mention it. How is that misleading?Rolando 1208 (talk)02:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for not being familiar with the rules. It's my first time editing. I see that you are a professional editor, and you must have the ability to find out what hoklo is through various channels. As I described, Hoklo is not a branch of South Min. Hok is "Hokkien(福建)". Lo is "佬" meaning "people/guys". It used to be a derogatory term, but now it's neutral. "學佬" is incorrect in writing homophones. We call all those who speak Min "Hoklo". I also have friends from Hailufeng who have never heard of haklau. I suspect there is no such pronunciation. The pronunciation of Haifeng County and Lufeng County is: hok lau.

you can refer toHoklo culture/Hoklo people/Hoklo Americans

Ping:

There are several ways to classify Han Chinese, among which the classification of the main ten dialect regions comes from: Chinese Language Atlas, Second Edition, Chinese Dialects Volume, 2012. On page 8 of this volume, the complete name of this category is "平話和土話(Ping and Vernaculars)", including "Pinghua" similar to Yue, North Yue Vernaculars, South Xiang Vernaculars, and so on. Whether "Pinghua" itself can be independent is controversial. Ping is a main dialect region, just like the Yue. I think it would be better to complete the name of this category. If you find adding 'and' strange, you can also add 'other vernaculars' at the same level.

Ciamun (talk)03:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ciamun I have a few issues here:

1. We are not under any obligation to follow what the Chinese Language Atlas says. They might group miscellaneous lects under the heading "Other vernaculars", but that doesn't mean we need to do that. A miscellaneous heading makes sense in the context of a language atlas, but it doesn't make sense in the context of a list of links, as it implies they form a linguistic grouping, which they don't.
2. The places to discuss these issues areTalk:Haklau Min andTalk:Pinghua, not my talkpage. I also feel it would be more productive for you to read the articleHaklau Min to see what sources it's using, because continually asserting that it doesn't exist when we have an articleright there that explains what its sources are is not going to get us anywhere. "My friends haven't heard of it" is not a valid argument, though, and if what you really mean is "I can't find it in the Chinese Language Atlas", then see point 1.
3. Continually trying to reinstate your changes toLanguages of China over and over after multiple people have reverted them is not productive, and not really how Wikipedia works. I'm sure @Remsense would say the same thing.

Theknightwho (talk)01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who argues more in edit summaries than they would like to admit: it's almost always faster in the end to explain positions and establish consensus where one can actually write a full paragraph untied to a contending action.Remsense诉01:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's also a talkpage about this word. Thank you for giving me the hint. Sorry again. This talk button is indeed obvious, but I'm really not used to this layout. So I need to perfect the circular argument.

1. There is no evidence on the haklau page to prove its origin, and I couldn't find it on Google either. Before now, this page is not enough to support our use of this term. In ISO639-3 it is called Hai Lok Hong. I asked more netizens and a linguistics professor and finally found a place to pronounce "haklau"(羅志海. 海豐方言辭典, ). Many Hailufeng netizens do not know that. One netizen said: 陆丰惠东部分读音类似"额洛，鹤洛" 海丰汕尾城区这边读音学佬，好像是这个词hoklo每个地方叫法有变化. The professor's opinion is that "hak" may be a rephrased pronunciation. New knowledge.

There is no specific article to prove whether "haklau" is widely accepted by local. It can only be confirmed by netizens now. May I ask if you can open Chinese TikTok to search: "海陸豐 福佬"

I haven't found any videos pronoucing haklau yet.

In Chinese, no matter how it is pronounced, the written language is "福佬", which is definitely ambiguous. And when it comes to Hailufeng, all Chinese know what you're talking about.

2. Guinan Pinghua cannot be an independent language, which is a consensus in the Chinese dialect circle. However, I'm too lazy to search for evidence. Wiki is a hodgepodge, using the incorrect classification of the 2012 atlas in Pinghua but having strong opinions on controversial Tuhua. Anyway thank you for finally adding the Tuhua.Ciamun (talk)07:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since according to our article the letter⟨v̋⟩ doesn't exist in the orthography, I wonder where you get the idea that the language is spelled "Mav̋ea". And if it is spelled Mav̋ea, what else is wrong with our account of the orthography?— kwami (talk)23:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see Guérin has changed their orthography. But in the title of their book they just call it "Mavea", and their dictionary doesn't use any diacritics at all! So it looks like the English spelling of the language is still "Mavea".— kwami (talk)23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami Seehere - you can get access through the WP library. The first sentence of the book begins "Mav̋ea is a severely endangered Oceanic language spoken by about 32 people...", and it uses "v̋" throughout. The second paragraph begins "Mav̋ea (also known as Mavea, or Mafea in the Ethnologue)...". So I don't agree with your conclusion, really - we shouldn't just be looking at book titles.Theknightwho (talk)23:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We still have the diaeresis from 2008.

BTW, "Mav̋ea" triggers an error as a WK header because the characters are considered invalid.— kwami (talk)23:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:UK Government Crown Crest.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edittemplates andmodules that have been protected withtemplate protection. It also allows you to bypass thetitle blacklist, giving you the ability to create and editeditnotices. Before you use this user right, please readWikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section onwise template editing and thecriteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits,after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as theirconsensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to processedit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments tosecure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a{{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in yourrights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing!* Pppery *_{it has begun...}18:46, 13 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)00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're really good at Wikipedia. I love what you do.Zestiest bowler in the rock (talk)17:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you sincerely for your contributions!! :)xRozuRozu •teacups22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLatin phonology and orthography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDiaeresis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)08:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:UK Government Crown Crest.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you don't care that you are creating trouble elsewhere? Please look ateTemplates with disambiguation links:

Unicode chart Greek and Coptic (6 transclusions)

   Π (redirect)       Pi (disambiguation)   Ͷ

And the template did not show up in that maintenance list before your superfluous edits...The Banner talk02:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner Why don't you try clicking on both of those to see where they lead, then get back to me, hm?Theknightwho (talk)Theknightwho (talk)02:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And they do go to disambiguation pages. But by removing the redirect, you also removed a trick to mislead the maintenance bot into believing that it is not a link to a disambiguation pages, causing it to appear in maintenance reports. And prior to your superfluous edits, that did not happen. Ergo, you improved nothing but did create trouble elsewhere.The Banner talk02:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner You can't have, becaue the Π-link quite clearly goes toPi (letter), andͶ inherently must go to a disambiguation page, because the glyph represents two separate letters. Maintenance issues should not influence content.Theknightwho (talk)02:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you just made clear that you just have no clue what you were doing. And don't seem to care about it either.The Banner talk02:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner What are you talking about? Onthis revision (i.e. the current revision, as of my writing this comment) you can clearly click on Π and go straight toPi (letter), and you seem to be intentionally avoiding the issue ofͶ. Given you've thrownWP:AGF out of the window, I think it's fair for me to say in turn that you've just been caught bullshitting because you jumped the gun, as you self-evidently did not check Π yourself.Theknightwho (talk)03:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to see the trouble elsewhere that you created with the changes relating to"Ͷ". Instead you focus on Pi. But no fear, someone else will correct your mistakes.The Banner talk04:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner You mean the issue that Ialready addressed, which (yet again) you didn't bother to check?

I certainly agree that there has been some incompetence here, but it hasn't been from me.Theknightwho (talk)05:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have seen that you finally understood and addressed the issue. I hope it was a learning moment.The Banner talk14:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner I dealt with it before your previous comment, and you were actively unhelpful in resolving the issue. Leave my talk page.Theknightwho (talk)19:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamps...The Banner talk02:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner Are you serious?This diff was over an hour beforeyour comment here. You are obviously experienced enough to have checked this yourself, so stop wasting my time with puerile nonsense.Theknightwho (talk)08:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related tothe region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to thepurposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicablepolicies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain fromgaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk)11:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onHindutva. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.Kautilya3 (talk)20:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 This is fundamentally dishonest - I simply reverted your attempts to change the article while a discussion is ongoing, as you know. Take your puerile attempts at intimidation elsewhere.Theknightwho (talk)23:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you had satisfied the question of verifiability, I would have agreed with you. But you are simply throwing your weight around. That is not in the interests of Wikipedia. --Kautilya3 (talk)07:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 You have dismissed all evidence presented without making an argument, and have addressed no specifics. You are not being rational. Ironically, the only person throwing their weight around here is you, with this warning.Theknightwho (talk)09:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have reading disability.WP:V requires you to add citations to the content that is currently unverified. Reinstating the content without doing so, for whatever [[WP:RGW}] reasons you might imagine, is against policy. There is no discussion, no explanation or whatever is needed. Just add the bloody citations or rest your case. --Kautilya3 (talk)10:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 Retract that and apologise or I will escalate this toWP:ANI. Your conduct is beyond unacceptable.Theknightwho (talk)11:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:MOS namespace templates 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!05:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz It isn't actually empty - for some reasonTemplate:R to MOS namespace hasn't populated the category despite being a member, even after purging.Theknightwho (talk)05:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

First declension

added a link pointing toGreek

Second declension

added a link pointing toGreek

Third declension

added a link pointing toGreek

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectɟ̠ʝ̠ 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/2025 September 26 § ɟ̠ʝ̠ until a consensus is reached.Casablanca 🪨^(T)13:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectɟ̠͜ʝ̠ 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/2025 September 26 § ɟ̠͜ʝ̠ until a consensus is reached.Casablanca 🪨^(T)13:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectɟ̠͡ʝ̠ 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/2025 September 26 § ɟ̠͡ʝ̠ until a consensus is reached.Casablanca 🪨^(T)13:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectɟʝ˗ 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/2025 September 26 § ɟʝ˗ until a consensus is reached.Casablanca 🪨^(T)13:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectɟ͜ʝ˗ 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/2025 September 26 § ɟ͜ʝ˗ until a consensus is reached.Casablanca 🪨^(T)13:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectɟ͡ʝ˗ 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/2025 September 26 § ɟ͡ʝ˗ until a consensus is reached.Casablanca 🪨^(T)13:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Casablanca Rock Please list them all in one message instead of spamming them. Thanks.Theknightwho (talk)13:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Going forward I'll uncheck that box on twinkle if the author for the pages is all the same.Casablanca 🪨^(T)13:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I hadn't realised it was automated anyway (I assumed you'd copy-pasted or something), so it's all good.Theknightwho (talk)13:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho can you explain why you created this? is there a source that mentions it occurs or was it mentioned at the target before?BodhiHarp20:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectVoiceless post-palatal nasal 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/2025 September 28 § Voiceless post-palatal nasal until a consensus is reached.BodhiHarp17:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectƝ̠̊ 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/2025 September 28 § Ɲ̠̊ until a consensus is reached.Casablanca 🪨^(T)21:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also listedƝ̠̥,Ɲ̥̠,Ɲ̊˗, andƝ̥˗ as they were mentioned in the RfD nomination forVoiceless post-palatal nasal, but didn't want to spam you like I had before so I just wanted to leave this before. All the best!Casablanca 🪨^(T)21:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentionedhere. While it's not abouyou, any input is appreciated. Thanks you,Yacàwotçã (talk)08:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Script/Znamenny has beennominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Jonesey95 (talk)20:50, 31 October 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)00:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Legislationuk/new has beennominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe entry on the Templates for discussion page.Gonnym (talk)11:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]