Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageMusgrave Park Hospital bombing, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)20:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yarp, but that isn't my source: I don't have any more than the|work= and|date= info that was already there. Hopefully the error will spur somebody who does have access to the original source to both verify it and update the{{cite news}}. —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMusgrave Park Hospital bombing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSunday Life.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I expected that might be the case. In this instance, not only is the original source still not my own, but I couldn't even load the target page due to technical hurdles I'm suffering. Again, though, when an editor has access to the actual original sources and is spurred to fully kit out those sources, hopefully the ambiguation will slso be specified. —Fourthords |=Λ= |11:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRobert J. O'Neill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBond.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be damned, you're right.This should've fixed it. —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just verifying forSin Shadow Fox (talk ·contribs) that I'm the same editor they're speaking with off-wiki. —Fourthords |=Λ= |01:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, small question, but when you update the date parameter on a maintenance template like{{use mdy dates}} (eg here:[1]), what is the purpose of that date change?— HTGS (talk)22:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just go ahead and update it for the same reasons the bots do, to indicate the most-recent date that the specific-fomatting conventions were checked. If I'm already in an article's edit, I might as well update the formatting template, which'll save somebody else time and effort down the line when checking articles which haven't had their templates updated in ages. —Fourthords |=Λ= |00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I’m really asking though why the template would need to be “checked”? Like, it’s not like MDY or DMY date formats would change for an article over time.— HTGS (talk)04:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the template serves two purposes: (1) formatting citation-template dates so that|access-date=2022-04-01 gets automatically rendered in the article as "April 1, 2023" or "1 April 2023"; and (2) to serve as a notice to editors, alerting them to which format they should use.

It's not the template that needs to be "checked", but articles need to be checked periodically to make sure they're using the correct date format. Say you live in the US where the typical date format is MDY, and you often edit US-related topics, where MDY dates are usually appropriate, so you never even need to think about other date formats. However,WP:MILDATE says that articles about the US military should be using DMY dates, but if you don't realize that, and if you don't see the template, you might accidentally use the wrong—MDY—date format in the article while working on it. If I later go to editUSS Dingleberry orFlibbertigibbet Air Force Base, and notice that the{{use dmy dates}} hasn't been updated since 2019, I'll take an extra minute or two to double-check the article's dates, find where you accidentally used the wrong format, and I can quickly fix it while I'm there. Does that make sense? I'm just telling other editors, "Hey, this article's prose was checked for correctly-formatted dates really recently, so you needn't bother." —Fourthords |=Λ= |22:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thaaaat makes a lot more sense. Thanks so much for explaining it, honestly. I was going around so confused that it would ever need changing—or even thinking that the older date maybe should have been more important—but setting the date to indicate thatthe article conforms makes so much sense.— HTGS (talk)20:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm glad (and more than a little surprised) I could help! —Fourthords |=Λ= |05:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isDispute in Falling from Grace (film) article. Thank you.QuasyBoy (talk)01:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, more power to ya! Do you need me to read and provide input there, or've you and the preexisting discussion got it covered? —Fourthords |=Λ= |05:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting for an administrator to respond to my request. I hope you will participate.QuasyBoy (talk)07:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you need me to, I certainly don't mindstopping by and saying "hi!". —Fourthords |=Λ= |07:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I unwatched my own user/talk page back in November when replying to the above. I will now reply to the messages below. —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:38, 1 May 2024 (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)00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to this conversation, you and I last spoke in September 2023 at:Talk:Violet Keene.

To whom this may concern:

Miss Keene (Violet Keene) is my great-grandmother; you'd told me in September, to get her English birth certificate.

I have it; her mother,Minna Keene is listed as the informant, and Violet's birthdate is, in fact, the 8 August 1893.

I can send a photograph as verification, if you'd like to see it.LucilleBall (talk)06:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In September I referred you tothe reliable-sources guideline, saying that materials needed to be reputably published for us to use them. I have, also, seen you message at that talk page and replied there as well. So sorry for the delay! —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind to review Slavica Ecclestone's article because there is a very disruptive, irrational contributorDenle1 with a political agenda. Thanks.Dekker2 (talk)12:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After these many months, I'm not sure to what you're referring. Does that article still need review? So sorry for the delay here! —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12BLPs 11RFAs 10New Users 9Barnstars 8AdminsBlocking 7Socks Socking 6Clerks Clerking 5Check Users Checking 4Oversighters Hiding 3GAs 2Did You Knows and anARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--Chris Troutman (talk)22:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] This message was generated using{{subst: The 12 Days of Wikipedia}}

Hi there! I see you've reverted my bot twice onTalk:Coagula. The B-class parameters were recentlyremoved from{{WikiProject Comics}} (as a result ofthis discussion at WT:COUNCIL). See the discussion atTemplate talk:WikiProject banner shell#B-class information when the article is a GA class.GoingBatty (talk)13:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I missed your comment here, but I think it was addressed inthese edits of mine. So sorry for the delay! —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was astonished to discoverthis edit, in which you removed from a (dead) subject's biography all material within the article body pertaining to his most famous career roles, presumably on the basis that the paragraph was tagged for citation. Do you mind correcting that, please?{{cn}} is an invitation to improvement, not a death sentence, and the article as it stands is massively less evenly-weighted as a result.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)20:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now undone the majority of this change. I'd still be keen to know why you made it in the first place.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)18:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you sayundone the majority of this change, I assume that IAWWikipedia:Verifiability you also provided "aninline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Because "material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Right? —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that edit, I was removing uncited material (some seven years old) IAWWikipedia:Verifiability, as I linked to in my originaledit summary. According to our policy,correcting that would be "providing aninline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If material can be trivially sourced, then removing it is not the best course of action. If it is your understanding that "actor X appeared in role Y" is the sort of contentious statement that can be removed after an arbitrary period despite the article on Y containing ample evidence as to its correctness then you misunderstand the purpose of our citation guidelines. RS is designed to ensure that our articles are _more_ and not _less_ accurate, and by deleting key points of it you made said article worse, almost incoherent in places, by means of omission.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If material can be trivially sourced, then the contributor who added it, and read the words "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable throughcitations to reliable sources", would have done so.It is [my] understanding that "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (Wikipedia:Verifiability) —Fourthords |=Λ= |01:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're cherry-picking, and as a result failing to understand the point. The top of that policy quite clearly states the criteria under which said action applies:

1. direct quotations,
2. material whose verifiability has been challenged,
3. material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
4. contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

The subject is dead, and it isn't a quote, so that rules out #1 and #4. "Pete Postlethwaite was in Sharpe and When Saturday Comes" is not a statementlikely to be challenged (as his name is on the front of the DVDs). This only leaves #2, and if you were truly challenging said material on those grounds, then why did you leave it in the Filmography section?

This was rote misapplication of the RS policy which made an article less informative for absolutely no gain. Consider the next time you remove material which is at leastlikely to be factual whether spending three seconds Googling for a source yourself might lead to a superior outcome.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)12:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems your actual complaints, then, are that (a) I was not comprehensive in excising uncited claims in an article, and (b) the article was poorly written when I saw it. Regarding the former, I don't think any editors are required by the Verifiability policy to excise all noncompliant material from every article they edit; the specific phrasing is "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed…" As for the latter, I had no hand in writing that article, nor its sorry condition prior to my edits. —Fourthords |=Λ= |13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great article, and could do with improvement. That was how I came across it. It isn't improved by removing some of its most pertinent material for reasons which are at the very best borderline applications of policy. This was just a heads-up that there was a better way to improve the article than was taken. Thanks.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)17:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I removed uncited material, it was a poor-quality article when I came across it, too. I'm glad you found the sources needed to replace the material that wasn't cited. If you want to list your articles which you prefer to retain uncited in contravention of policy, and only 'improved' by your own personal metrics, I can try and avoid editing them in the future. —Fourthords |=Λ= |17:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're giving me that liberty then feel free to consider this a blanket admonition not to remove trivially-citable facts anywhere on the encyclopedia. Go and make it better instead.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant; I was just referring to any other articles of yours, specifically. (I've of course added your initially-linked page to my list of prohibited articles.) If removing uncited material from articles wasn't improving or bettering them, we wouldn't do it nor have an explicitconsensus-based policy as to its allowance. It it assuages your sense of having been wronged, though, rest assured that I also often add sources and material therefrom to articles. —Fourthords |=Λ= |19:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GraziePrego has given you a bowl ofpeaches! This delicious fruit promotesWikiLove and has hopefully made your day juicier. Spread peachiness and WikiLove by giving someone else some peaches, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, by adding {{subst:Peach}} to their talk page with a friendly message!

I'm astonished by the tone and attitude that Bearcat has used against you, and I hope it doesn't put you off from continuing to build Wikipedia. Happy editing!GraziePrego (talk)00:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say, I do love peaches! Thanks! Do you have any suggestions about how I should move forward? —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should apply for theAutopatrolled user right. I just reviewedPress Your Luck scandal atNPP and it seemed excellent to me. A brief check of your Xtools stats suggest you should be eligible; doing this will help NPP get on top of the backlog by removing the need for us to review every article you create. Best,Toadspike (talk)14:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the kind words! I will look into this at a later date, yes. —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to giveMichael Larson a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, intoPress Your Luck scandal. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits thepage history, which islegally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to bemoved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account isfour days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the"Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may behidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates aredirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions atrequested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them atWikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.Jax 0677 (talk)20:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you tried to giveMichael Larson a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, intoPress Your Luck scandal. I didn't. The content of the latter article was originally and entirely developed independently of the former.Press Your Luck scandal was created from whole cloth, and thenMichael Larson was turned into a redirect. I'veboldly removed the{{history merge}} because I was worried a bot might make a technical mess by trying to merge two different wholly distinct article histories. —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectGlory Hallelujah 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 June 2 § Glory Hallelujah until a consensus is reached.Rusalkii (talk)00:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a better destination for that page, I certainly don't object. The page previously didn't exist at all, so turning it into the redirect as I did was just a helpful navigational aid for the time. —Fourthords |=Λ= |23:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to comment at the discussion page for your opinion to be counted. It does look like you don't object to any outcome though. Jay 💬14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on both counts. —Fourthords |=Λ= |16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrtTemplate talk:OSM Location map#first point not showing?. The programmers who introduced these bugs on map transitions across 180 degrees did not write consistent wrap around code for two behind the scenes modules whenKartographer implemented. Issues go back to 2016 at least. Perhaps a moan from a typical user editor will do some good as issue has been graded ever downwards to low priority. In practice it means you can't use Kartographer with overlaid features mapped by coordinate that cross 180 degrees to get consistent display on click through from the default map image generated to minimise bandwidth and server load. CheersChaseKiwi (talk)13:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the TemplateStyles tag from your signature. This has the same effect as a template, which are not allowed in signatures.IznoPublic (talk)19:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed my signature since August 2019, and that was just a capitalization; the style has been consistent for nigh decades at this point. I see what you're talking about in my recent posts, but as recentlyas 2 April 2024, it wasn't doing that, with the first instance beingthis signature on 3 April 2024. All the while, the coded signature in my preferences hasn't changed. It looks like I've been substituting{{color|#CC0000|Fourthords}} since maybe 2006? Any thoughts? —Fourthords |=Λ= |19:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, saw the ping. I will revert the problematic change. Consider not substing the template for the future.IznoPublic (talk)20:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the ping? I haven't changed anything yet, though. If substituting the template in the signature is the problem, how would I get the same outcome with the minimum/most-efficient coding (to keep it small)? —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This ping. I've fixed the issue, but to answer the question, here is what you can/should place in the signature box instead:'''[[user:fourthords|<span>Fourthords</span>]] | [[user talk:fourthords|=Λ=]] |'''.IznoPublic (talk)22:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! Sorry, I didn't think to assume you were watching their talk page. Thanks for the heads-up; I've replaced the substitution code in my signature, and this'll be its first test: —Fourthords |=Λ= |02:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks identical to me! Thanks again. —Fourthords |=Λ= |02:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Fourthords. I wanted to reach out in case any of my edits to your talk archives were confusing and/or bothersome. At some point in the future,{{archive}} will be updated with the code from{{aan}}, so I've been going through and converting any talk page that used{{archive}}+{{archive navigation}} to just use{{aan}}. You're welcome to ask questions, but I mostly just wanted to reach out and offer an explanation. Take care,Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk)01:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that{{automatic archive navigator}} is going to be merged into{{archive}}. So you replaced the target of the merge, the template that's going to be kept and maintained, with aredirect to the template which is going away? You replaced the template I specifically added to my archives with a redirection to a template that's being replaced with the template I already specifically added to my archives. That's expending effort (yours, your bot's, and the server's) to effect no functional change except to compel all those users' pages to expend that tiny more server effort (redirection) in the future. Yes, thank you for the… explanation. —Fourthords |=Λ= |18:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. In the future,{{archive}} will work as{{aan}} works now. Pages that currently use{{archive}} plus{{archive navigation}} would have two rows of duplicate links.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk)18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the future,{{archive}} will work as{{aan}} works now. First of all,{{aan}} doesn't "work" at all because it isn't a template; it's aredirect to{{automatic archive navigator}}. More saliently, if{{archive}} is going to be functionally synonymous with{{automatic archive navigator}}, then why replace other users' preexisting instances of the former with a redirect to the latter, at all? Because based on what you youself're saying, that's literally 100% unnecessary (especially the redirection).Here you replaced two templates with a redirect to a third, when by your own claims, simply removing{{archive navigation}} would have accomplished the exact same thing. For that matter, the simplest and least intrusive thing you should have done was to simply post once on those users'talk pages that: templates they're using will be undergoing changes and merging, thereby letting them edit their own archives as they needed or desired.

Ultimately, it's all moot, now: your bot's already edited across countless pages, and I've already repaired my archives from its one-time run. —Fourthords |=Λ= |19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Because based on what you youself're saying, that's literally 100% unnecessary (especially the redirection)." Nope. Removing{{archive navigation}} would remove the navigation links until the templates are merged. Additionally, some archive pages have atypical titles like "August 2007-08" or "9¢", that{{automatic archive navigator}} cannot locate. This seems to have upset you, so I apologize for that. Take care,Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk)19:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As unnecessary and excessive behavior I've never before encountered by an approved bot, I'm more utterly baffled and agog rather than upset. Your apology is appreciated, but I'd still recommend you be wary of making such sweeping, preemptive, and unnecessary changes to user pages not your own. Nobody finds talk-page messages undue—that's their very purpose; changing the expected and future behavior of their pages on their presumptive behalf can be perceived as ogrish vandalism at worst (or even just a housekeeping annoyance, as in my case). Cheers, and best of luck to you in the future. —Fourthords |=Λ= |19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRyan Creamer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageGame Changer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, damn: too right.I've fixed it, thanks! —Fourthords |=Λ= |20:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by "IAW WP:MILFORMAT"?

Also can you explain the thinking behind the date formatting in this paragraph?

On June 7, 2017, Kim was one of twelve candidates chosen from a pool of over 18,300 applicants to join NASA Astronaut Group 22. He reported for duty on 21 August 2017, and graduated from training on 10 January 2020.

Thank you! --RickyCourtney (talk)20:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the articleJohnny Kim?WP:MILFORMAT says,articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage. That's why{{use dmy dates}} is used. As for that specific line from the article, it should be formatted as "On 7 June 2017, Kim was…";I've fixed it (and another), now. I've also rephrased your HTML comment to matchthe infobox instructions. —Fourthords |=Λ= |22:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the use dmy dates template and normally would just run a script to quickly conform everything. What threw me is your hidden comment "IAW WP:MILFORMAT" — I didn’t understand if you were trying to suggest. I thought that there was perhaps a reason for blending MDY and DMY dates (stranger things have happened). So what do you mean by "IAW"?RickyCourtney (talk)03:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Kim is a largely US topic, which would normally beget MDY formatting; the hidden HTML comment was just to explain why DMY was implemented instead (i.e.WP:MILFORMAT); I suppose it's just a safeguard from somebody accidentally changing it back to MDY again. No, the MDY date you noticed in the article (and the infobox one I saw) were unintentional, and I appreciate you catching it! As for "IAW", it's just a commonEnglish-language abbreviation for "in accordance with". —Fourthords |=Λ= |15:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I've never seen the abbreviation IAW before. So, thanks for teaching me that. But might I suggest that since we aren't exactly limited in space in hidden comments, you might just want to avoid the abbreviation and just say "in accordance with." Anyways, thanks for engaging in the discussion. --RickyCourtney (talk)17:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominatedMichael Tritter 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. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)11:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't work to promote this article, nor was I its FA nominator—merely one of 21 who commented upon its 2009 nomination. You may instead be looking forMusic2611 (talk ·contribs) orSandyGeorgia (talk ·contribs). —Fourthords |=Λ= |13:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part ofGlobal reminder bot to let you know that yourWP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 14:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself tom:Global reminder bot/Exclusion.Leaderbot (talk)08:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request the IP-block exemptions because I travel often, and have found myself blocked from editing even when logged in. I'll wait until this happens again before making my request, in case systems and processes have changed. Thanks, though! —Fourthords |=Λ= |14:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, and I was wrong. Next year I'll heed your warning. —Fourthords |=Λ= |23:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do us all a favor and leave us alone already, everyone has been complaining about you for years! You are NOT the Wikipedia Police ok, you have no right to take full control of an article, users can add what they want in articles, that does NOT give YOU the right to annoy them and revert their edits over and over again even then they did nothing wrong. The only user that is causing vandalism is YOU, you blame everyone over the problem YOU caused in the first place. Besides, I wasn’t even following you at all, I was only adding missing information on the article, now stop lying about me! I did nothing to you.103.31.182.7 (talk)02:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

everyone has been complaining about you for years!^{[citation needed]}You are NOT the Wikipedia Police ok, you have no right to take full control of an article, users can add what they want in articles, that does NOT give YOU the right to annoy them and revert their edits over and over again even then they did nothing wrong. I assume you're referring toPeter Ostrum. PerWikipedia:Ownership of content, I do not have "full control of" any articles. Users can, in fact, add what they want in articles, but they're also subject toWP:BRD andWP:CONSENSUS, which it seems you've taken exception to.The only user that is causing vandalism is YOU You may want to readWikipedia:Vandalism.Besides, I wasn’t even following you at all, I was only adding missing information on the article, now stop lying about me! I did nothing to you. Here, are you referring toCarlos Carrasco (actor)? In the past 84 hours, the only articles you—and103.231.73.87(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS)—have edited are Ostrum's and Carrasco's. It breaks credulity to claim you (both) didn't follow my recent edits from the former to the latter. As for "only adding missing information", you added claims without citing any reliable sources in contravention ofWikipedia:Verifiability, which in turn says, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." —Fourthords |=Λ= |03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia'sbiographies of living persons policy by insertingunsourced orpoorly sourceddefamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did atPeter Ostrum andCarlos Carrasco (actor).103.31.182.7 (talk)02:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to all specific edits, in the past ten years, where I've added any unsourced material to any article whatsoever (especially a BLP). If you can, and they've not yet been corrected, I'm keen to do so myself. Thanks, —Fourthords |=Λ= |03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in thisanonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on itsMeta page and view itsprivacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk)19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done, happy to help! —Fourthords |=Λ= |20:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on itsMeta page and view itsprivacy statement.

Take the surveyhere.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk)00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. Seeabove. —Fourthords |=Λ= |14:58, 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)00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Malaysian CARE (Logo) (cropped).jpg. 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)03:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, all I did was crop this image.Riccckyyy (talk ·contribs) is the original uploader. —Fourthords |=Λ= |04:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanksTrentBuchet (talk)01:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I reverted119.224.60.232(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS). (b) Both community consensus and the uploader's statementsat the Wikimedia Commons evidence that this photo was released by its copyright holder under an irrevocableCreative Commons license. (c) As you are editing in contravention of community consensus (both here and at the Commons), I'll rollback the removal of the file yet again. You may, of course, continue your discussion atTalk:Powelliphanta patrickensis IAWWP:BRD if you'd like. —Fourthords |=Λ= |03:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, the author and the uploader have consistently disputed its release under CC. All pre-existing licenses were CC-BY-NC, which is incompatible with wikimedia and wikipedia licensing.

Community consensus does not invalidate law. These photos are stolen and were never hosted with permission from the author.TrentBuchet (talk)03:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to again try and convince anyone of your longstanding claims;your extant discussion at the Commons is. Until you overturn consensus there, however, the image may continue to be used here at the English Wikipedia, and I will revert your edits as contrary to consensus; as I explained,[y]ou may, of course, continue your discussion atTalk:Powelliphanta patrickensis IAWWP:BRD if you'd like. —Fourthords |=Λ= |04:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedJoint Expedition Against Franklin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageFloating bridge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a reread of the source didn't provide enough context to know explicitly which was intended. —Fourthords |=Λ= |13:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectDVSM 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 March 18 § DVSM until a consensus is reached.Plantdrew (talk)21:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably I came across that initialism somewhere, had to conjure or deduce its meaning, and created a cheap redirect for anyone who followed the path I took. Fourteen years on, I can neither solidly confirm that nor summon any interest. —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedJonny Kim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSergey Ryzhikov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damnation, I probably assumed that was a unique-enough name that I didn't need to check. Thank you for the catch;I've fixed it. —Fourthords |=Λ= |08:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fourthords,

I was reviewing this article which is PROD'd and I don't understand your deletion rationale:4.71-year-old biography of a living person with no evidence for Wikipedia:Notability and cited only to a single source which is not archived and which cannot be found with a search of its site.. What is 4.71-year-old biography? The subject was born in 1980s so they are 45 years old. Could you rephrase this deletion rationale so it is clearer why you believe the article warrants deletion and what 4.71 refers to? Thank you.Liz^Read!Talk!00:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the BLP is based on the UTC time and date of its creation; the subject of the article (a person in this case) doesn't have any bearing. In all that time, it hadn't shown any evidence of meetingWikipedia:Notability, and its only source not only wasn't archived, but wasn't to be found at the publisher's site as linked. —Fourthords |=Λ= |01:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]