Nearly all of our information came from newspaper articles that cannot be cited. How am I supposed to site something like this? Adsimmel (talk) 2:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adsimmel Newspaper articles can be cited provided that they are independent (not paid by the company), secondary (not interviews) and reliable sources (see WP:RSP for examples). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change the pronouns - the quotation was accurate (and transphobic). Vizjim (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear that it was a quotation, sorry. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northern green anaconda, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Will Smith took part in the expedition that discovered the northern green anaconda? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northern green anaconda. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Northern green anaconda), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 20,110 views (837.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why’d you delete my hard work for no reason Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete anything? I just formatted it and added "See also" links, a category and a navbox. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorrý. Á section was deleted which i was editing, and í guess Wikipedia guesed us editing at the same time as an edit conflict. Sorrý for the misunderstanding. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northern green anaconda you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Geardona -- Geardona (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Northern green anaconda you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Northern green anaconda for comments about the article, and Talk:Northern green anaconda/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Geardona -- Geardona (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused by the rejection of my edits to the anacaonda article; they are accurate summaries of the two papers published in Bionomina; Rivas et al. did literally refuse to acknowledge that Latreille's name was available, as noted by Vásquez-Restrepo et al., and quoting the ICZN is very much relevant to the argument provided by Dubois et al. It makes no sense to add the fact that the availability of the name is being contested without explaining how and why the name is contested. That is not OR, and I would appreciate it if you would restore the edits. If you feel I am using weasel words, then I can change the wording, but the section challenging the nomenclatural availability needs to be restored and reinforced. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the availability of the name is contested should be pointed out, but you shouldn't cite the ICZN directly and make the argument yourself (that's the OR part) or say that Rivas refused to acknowledge Latreille's name (a loaded word). The best thing to do would be to explain the argument (and claims) of Vásquez-Restrepo et al., but without taking sides or claiming that one or the other is correct. There is a difference between saying "Vásquez-Restrepo et al. contested the avaliability of the name" and claiming, in wikivoice, that the ICZN proves the name isn't valid. As the article is currently a GA, this is even more of a requirement, and (several) paragraphs should be written carefully to detail the arguments being made without bias. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the weasel word bit, but not the OR part - very specifically, Dubois et al. say the new name violates Article 13. If I put that into the WP article, readers will not know what ICZN Article 13 is, what it means, or what it says, unless I quote Article 13. That is not OR. Citing Dubois et al. is going to look pretty meaningless without establishing that context, but I'll give it a shot. Dyanega (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not citing Article 13. The issue is citing Article 13 in wikivoice and claiming its violation as a fact, rather than as an argument presented by Dubois et al. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the new version, I reworked and expanded it a bit! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. With all respect. He is a YouTuber focused on music in Venezuela where the content is popular. I invite you to reconsider the decision and investigate the YouTuber's articles. Benito Ocasio (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaotic Enby. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such a beautiful userpage..!! :)

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!!! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 05:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaotic Enby :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd love to participate! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Skeleton panda sea squirt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the skeleton panda sea squirt was known on the Internet for its skeleton-like appearance years before its formal description? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Skeleton panda sea squirt. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Skeleton panda sea squirt), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 16,418 views (684.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your reviewing work. Brilliant user page by the way. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Skeleton panda sea squirt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vortex3427 -- Vortex3427 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvici has given you the Gigachad Award! Spread the WikiLove and keep being based.

Give someone the Gigachad Award by adding {{subst:Gigachad}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Harvici (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chaotic Enby,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Avalon assemblage. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because the article is incomplete and lacks context. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle I'm contesting the draftification, the article establishes context (one of the three Late Ediacaran biota assemblages), references are enough to establish notability, and an article being a stub alone isn't a reason for draftifying. (cf. WP:DRAFTIFY, criterion 2a-i). Plus, I'm already planning on expanding it further (cf. the {{Under construction}} template on the page). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can move it back whenever you feel it is appropriate for mainspace, but I would suggest doing that after you've completed your plans of expanding it further. At the moment it is borderline A1 speedy eligible (not enough context to identify the article subject). Stifle (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am trying to add a page for Francois Stemmet( marked for speedy deletion). Notability seems to be the issue. He is clearly notable, having been on tv,radio etc. for over 50 years. He is well known, however I cannot find specific articles other than a bio on tvsa, google books and countless other external sources. Any ideas on how to proceed from here. NiekieM (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Help:Find sources gives a lot of places you can look into for finding secondary sources about him. Also, as this falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, all claims must be cited (to primary or secondary sources, with secondary sources being needed only if the claim could reasonably be doubted). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but I would really like to leave it as is, and have complete control over it's editing. In some circles, Milner (said with an emphasis on "M") is a very controversial figure, something like George Curzon; just too tough, too secretive, and too aloof. The detail will help put those fears to rest. Here's an example: https://www.amazon.com/Lord-Milners-Second-War-Rhodes-Milner/dp/1481940325

Some say he's responsible for the Second Boer War, when he was High Commissioner for South Africa, and responsible for nearly 50,000 civilian deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps

...while others say David Lloyd George stole the title, "The Man Who Won the War", from him (see first paragraph of the article). Of course, this was World War I.

Thanks for your consideration. No matter what draft, long or short, is approved, I would like to have sole custodian over it. Do you know how to arrange that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner (talk • contribs)

You cannot have sole custody over an article, I suggest you read WP:OWN. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You (rightly) declined Draft:Kunle Falayi. You'll see that this is now rather better than it was when you declined it (Good!) but that your decline template and comment have gone (Bad!).

It was me who deleted the pair, when I deleted the draft. What you now see derives from a rather different draft. (For a bit of background, see the foot of this page.)

Though I'm a reviewer, I haven't evaluated this draft and don't intend to. You're most welcome to do so, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pudella carlae, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first extant deer discovered in the 21st century is only 15 inches (38 cm) tall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pudella carlae. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pudella carlae), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 9,924 views (827.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work on articles and AFC! Geardona (talk to me?) 14:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love the page, its beautiful!

Also, thanks for catching that comment on the Iranian strikes talk page. Amyipdev (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, and you're welcome! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: geniva convention 76.81.148.71 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cladonota, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cladonota's extravagant dorsal structures have been called both "grotesque" and "particularly charismatic"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cladonota. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cladonota), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Just want to show my upmost appreciation for the work of pushing me to improve Karl Schädler to GA, and now on DYK today. Could not of done it without you. TheBritinator (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Congrats on the DYK! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 April 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ichthyotitan, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

isn't today your account's 2 year anniversary? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks a lot! ^^ Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 April 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Voyager 1, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 19:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Chaotic Enby! I came across WikiProject AI Cleanup and found it very meaningful. I am working on a project to understand how different communities (e.g., English Wikipedia) respond to the use of generative AI and whether people have developed community policies that regulate AI usage within their community contexts. Would you be open to me reaching out to you via Discord to learn more about WikiProject AI Cleanup and the current AI policy on Wikipedia? Thank you! Tzusheng (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Feel free to reach out by Discord, you can find me on the Wikimedia Discord, or by my Discord username quarknova! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious 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 the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming 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 topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox feud has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Is there any way a casualty section (like on the civil/military conflict infoboxes) can be added to Template:Infobox feud? It would be really helpful for the East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry article, as I was planning on adding the infobox. Thanks! GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I initially removed it when forking the infobox (to avoid additions like this), but it can be added back! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GLORIOUSEXISTENCE Done! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can I — I originally looked for Category:Redirects to a millenium to see if such a category existed, then wondered for a bit about why it had been G7ed :) {{self-trout}} ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to the best of us! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor is User:Wikishovel If that editor isn't blocked, I'll do it. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember that, the only interaction I've had with a vandal recently was sending User:71211.21User to SPI. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User 28062F033EOF457DC93EEFAABBET2C3 § 09 May 2024. I think I found a new sock. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, I'll take a look! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kiso 5639, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Skyrocket Galaxy has been described by NASA as looking like a "July 4th skyrocket"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Skyrocket Galaxy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kiso 5639), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for the article! - Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory -- (forgot to sign)

today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the messages! Great job, keep up with the stories! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've already asked one admin, but I'm here for a second opinion; this edit has been removed but should be REVDEL'd because I think it's clear apologism, in wikivoice, for at least war crimes. Something that even just in edit history is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Chaotic Enby is not an admin and therefore cannot handle revdel requests. I've performed very few revdels and would thus be hesitant to do so myself especially since another admin has already declined to do so. Reading WP:CRD, the most convincing way to present your argument would be to say you think it meets #2. If you wish for a second opinion, I'd suggest trying to find an experienced admin that deals with revdels, maybe ScottishFinnishRadish? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - not sure why I thought Chaotic Enby was an admin then! Yeah, #2 is the usual reason for such removals. Since you've pinged ScottishFinnishRadish here, I'll wait for such a reply before going through my mental list of admins again. Kingsif (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that meeting the threshold for a revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, then. Kingsif (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin but I'll agree with SFR on this one, I wouldn't call this revdel-worthy. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Kingsif, in the future, you can go to the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-revdel for a fast reply from actual admins! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently active admins also works, if you find IRC confusing like I do. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding secondary sources from google books, after completing sourcing, I will inform you. 202.134.10.142 (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: please check now. 202.134.10.142 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still very difficult to read, and a lot of claims are made without saying who they come from. You shouldn't call some writing "apostasy" or "shirk" in Wikivoice, it should clearly say whose opinion you are quoting. A lot of the time, it is not clear whether you are quoting someone's opinion, describing the book or doing your own analysis on it (Wikipedia:Original research). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you don't have to list every single print edition of the book. Only those that are discussed in secondary sources and have new relevant information/analysis can be discussed (according to the sources on them), but shouldn't just be given in a raw list like this. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: please check again now. 202.134.10.142 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is already better, but please see my last advice about the list of "explanations", and please limit yourself to describing (not listing) those described in secondary sources. While the explanations are secondary for the Kitab al-Tawhid, they are primary for themselves and thus not self-notable (see Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability or User:PerfectSoundWhatever/Existence doesn't warrant a statement). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chaotic Enby Any chance you could give me a few pointers as to why you rejected my draft, any help would be much appreciated Thanks NBLS man (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Skeleton panda sea squirt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Skeleton panda sea squirt for comments about the article, and Talk:Skeleton panda sea squirt/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vortex3427 -- Vortex3427 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Nama assemblage at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step III of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chaotic Enby, You have rejected my draft (Draft:Novus Glass). It would be helpful if you could give me some insight as to whether there are any particular errors in the content that look promotional. Please let me know if the error is in a particular section or line. AminChauhan (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not a specific word or phrase, but the article appears to be aimed at promoting the company rather than discussing it neutrally. If you want examples, wordings like more than 1,000 points of contact worldwide or how the company was established out of Dr. Frank Werner's frustration with repeatedly replacing his windshield are usually not encyclopedic. Furthermore, the claims should be sourced, and more precisely use secondary sources to limit the article to what is relevant from a neutral, outsider point of view. The "Awards" section isn't really needed, awards are at most only relevant to include when they are notable by themselves (usually, when the award has its own article). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your suggestions. I will work on the content again and make it neutral. AminChauhan (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chaotic Enby, I have implemented the suggested changes in Draft:Novus Glass. Could you please review it and guide me if there are any remaining issues in the article? AminChauhan (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It's already better, but it's best to remove primary sources as references as they are often non-neutral. Things like the number of locations worldwide or the rankings shouldn't be in the lead as it gives a promotional aspect to the article. Rankings from sources like Entrepreneur aren't usually very relevant in general, and honestly shouldn't be in the article. It's also better to avoid press releases as sources if possible. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I have fixed all of that. Should I resubmit it for review? AminChauhan (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you'll probably have another reviewer. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: Thanks a lot! Happy to take on the responsibility, but I'm curious, how did I get the user right? I thought it was obtained through Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, didn't know there was another process for it! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Requests for permissions is how one would request the permission, yes, but administrators are allowed to grant it without a request if they feel a user can be trusted with the user right. I granted it to you because you have a good track record with rollback and new page reviewer, and per WP:PCCRITERIA, if you have rollback (or autopatrolled) rights you're generally a good candidate for pending changes reviewer, as well, as the level of trust necessary is similar. Hope it helps! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  20:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: Thanks again for your reply! I'm going to look up the guidelines to learn how to do this in the best way possible! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm just writing to explain why I made the minor changes to that article. The phrase "commit suicide" carries a stigma by implying that the person did something wrong or evil by taking their own life. Some may perceive this as disrespectful terminology. Suicided is an uncommon word, and perhaps not the best choice on my end. But overall, I think "died by suicide" would be better phrasing. Kodali1404 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! Didn't know there was a stigma about it, feel free to change the wording in this case! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding! Have a great day. :) Kodali1404 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to ask how familiar are you with the current situation in Myanmar, especially Chin state. You seem to have very trustworthy sources. Mind sharing some of those? I am interested also! Ngalliam-salpha (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have specific sources in mind, but your previous edit was reverted because Wikipedia is not a source. Also, phrases like "critics argue" are considered weasel words and should be replaced by a more specific characterization of who argued the claim. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 06:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agreed. I do want to point out that in each case there is an exception clause that states "Do not use articles from Wikipedia...unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources." The wikipedia page I linked has ample sources that can be considered quite reliable. Also with the weasel words it is clear who the critics are, if you read the whole section. The line between a trust worthy source vs one that is not is very murky here, especially since most of the sources are social media posts with differing statements which are very difficult to cite. That goes for the other sources that have been cited there as well. Ngalliam-salpha (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the exception says. It says Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. In other words, if you see something on another Wikipedia article, don't cite the Wikipedia article, check the sources it uses and cite those instead.
Also, social media posts are, in general, not considered reliable. The fact that there are a lot doesn't make it more or less murky. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well did you visit the existing sources there? Just because someone wrote about what someone posted on social media doesn't make it much more reliable either regardless who is writing. That is the same reason why I asked if you got "trust worthy" sources. Ngalliam-salpha (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone wrote about what someone posted on social media doesn't make it much more reliable either regardless who is writing. That's what good Wikipedia:Secondary sources are for, as they put primary sources (e.g. social media posts) into perspective, verifying them and providing analysis/context.
I'm not saying the current sources on the Chinland page are of this quality (I haven't checked all of them), but the presence of low quality sources doesn't mean we can keep adding similar ones. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't eat your cake and have it at the same time. The only purpose of adding the new section was to provide context to what I considered a biased and incomplete description of the political situation in Chin state. The sources provided for the new section come from the same or similar websites/news to shed some light on the differing opinions/contention, so unless you are suggestion we don't trust any of them at all we have to be consistent here. Ngalliam-salpha (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the first time you added the section was that the source given was Wikipedia. So, no, not "similar websites". The new version you added doesn't do that, but a closer look shows a lot of claims and synthesis of claims that are not present in the sources you gave. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: sources you gave in the last version, like The Irrawady, are good. The text you wrote, however, does not reflect these sources. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that last paragraph you added comprises a lot of synthesis and does not reflect the sources you gave. The unnamed "critics" and "allegations" are not present at all, while the criticism (by the Chin Brotherhood) mentioned in The Irrawady relates to the CNF occupation of specific liberated territory but does not mention any regional or ethnic favoritism. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 06:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hang tight and I will include those sources after compiling the various posts made by different organizations . And yeah, that is what you should have done before as well instead of deleting the whole edit. Ngalliam-salpha (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, when you add a claim, the onus is on you to have sources backing it up, not on the people coming after you. Your original edit had most paragraphs only sourced to Wikipedia. You should compile sources first, and then write content that reflects these sources. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did compile what I thought was enough which it seems like is not enough from someone without context POV. I really hope you read all the sources in there. It could be the "curse of knowledge" bias but since there are just the two of us, it is tough tell, if I may say so. Ngalliam-salpha (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, two of your three paragraphs were sourced from Wikipedia. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Define sourced "sourced from Wikipedia" Ngalliam-salpha (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From this edit you made.

−

+

Despite claiming to be the sole representative of Chin interests, the establishment of Chinland and the Chinland Council has not been universally accepted within the Chin community. The Chin Brotherhood Alliance, formed on 30 December 2023 during the Myanmar civil war, comprises several ethnic armed organizations active in Chin State, including the Chin National Defence Force, PDF-Zoland, and various Chinland Defense Forces. This alliance opposes the Chinland Council's authority, criticizing its formation as lacking democratic standards and failing to adequately represent the unity of the entire Chin ethnic group.<ref name=":0">{{Citation |title=Chin Brotherhood Alliance |date=2024-05-21 |work=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chin_Brotherhood_Alliance&oldid=1224954663 |access-date=2024-05-23 |language=en}}</ref>

The only citation you gave for that paragraph is another Wikipedia article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the wikipedia page I linked had all the sources for their claims so I thought you could link the wikipedia page as long as it has reliable sources. Either way I recite all their sources so the same difference. Ngalliam-salpha (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When copying sources from another page, you should look at the sources to see if they are supporting your claims. For instance, you cited this article as a source for:

The Chin Brotherhood Alliance, formed on 30 December 2023, comprises several ethnic armed organizations active in Chin State, including the Chin National Defence Force, PDF-Zoland, and various Chinland Defense Forces, opposes the Chinland Council's authority, criticizing its formation as lacking democratic standards and failing to adequately represent the unity of the entire Chin ethnic group.

But the article barely mentions the Chin Brotherhood Alliance, only saying that The MDF has [...] also joined Chin Brotherhood Alliance to make military and political cooperation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you accepted Draft:Carbonin, which was a redirect submission, at AfC. This has turned that draft into a double redirect, which I have resolved. In the future, decline submissions like that with the "redirect" option on AFCH, and forward the author to WP:AFC/R. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about the existence of WP:AFC/R. Happy to learn! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for starting another thread here, but I thought that you might be interested in Draft:Hungary-Croatia, another draft about a union of two monarchies where none of the sources seem to exist. JJP_Master (she/they) 18:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JJPMaster Thanks a lot! This one seems to be built on pretty much the same template, actually. While a union of the two did actually exist as part of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen from 1868 onwards, there doesn't seem to have been a similar settlement in the years immediately prior to the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. The lands of Croatia were indeed in personal union with Hungary, but this union was much older and there wasn't any settlement in 1846 establishing a specific dual monarchy as the draft claims.
The draft isn't even consistent with reality, claiming of that Hungarian-Croatian monarchy that its dissolution in 1848 was largely peaceful and not due to revolution, which is the opposite of what happened historically to the Hungarian crown in that same year, where Croatians were the first to rise up in rebellion against Hungary.
The citations appear to be all fake, with one talking about "Art Nouveau" in a purported state more than 30 years before the movement appeared. I couldn't find signs of any of them existing. I know that AI large language models are known to introduce fake citations (cf. Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup#Editing advice), and I wouldn't be surprised if this was what happened with these two hoaxes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this draft is G3-worthy as the other one was? JJP_Master (she/they) 19:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd call it as obvious as the other one, as the historical union of Hungary and Croatia was indeed a thing (twice). On the other hand, about everything in the article (from the dates to the sources) is made up and it is definitely a hoax as written. I'm not sure if I'd tag it for G3 myself, but I wouldn't be against it either, especially given the fake references. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have elected to post it on MfD. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, many academic journals publish under some form of open access which may include compatibly licensed material, but not always. So some leave it up to the authors completely. Others allow publication under a few different Creative Commons licenses which include ones which are compatible with Wikipedia, and others which are not (usually it's a non-commercial version). Some papers carry the licensing in the pdf paper itself. Some don't have in the pdf paper, but has a separate licensing statement on the source web page. And others like the IJES just have a general license statement. Which is to say, there's no consistency and so it's messy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should've remembered to check on the website rather than assumed it was copyrighted by default! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chaotic Enby,

I have created a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Digital_product that is really based on the information that is in the public domain. It is written in an acceptable tone.

I have double-checked all links and licences. I confirm that this page has been created under the terms of the Journal and Publisher's licence (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence) and Wikipedia's copyright policy.

This page was created correctly. The article is in high demand, conforms to norms, and expands the categorical and conceptual apparatus of Wikipedia.

Therefore, this article deserves to be added to Wikipedia.

Is it possible to move the article to the main space?

Thanks a lot for your work. Numen Existence (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I mistakenly thought the material was copyrighted. When you copy material from a source with a compatible license, please indicate the source you copied it from, along with the license. It has been added since, so you can see how the template is used to indicate it.
Unfortunately, the article is not ready yet for mainspace, as it only uses references from the same author who coined that broad-concept definition, which is not enough to demonstrate notability of the concept. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheBestGoose has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

TheBestGoose (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	I shall award the Technical Barnstar for your tireless work and help in CSS related pages off- and onwiki, and especially for helping me redesign my userpage! Many thanks again, A09|(talk) 18:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:SPI/User2806. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I found yet another sock, I think. Sorry if I keep bothering you with this, the link is a redirect.[reply]

• Timothyyale009 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cem Mirap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your review.

I am just trying to understand the difference between this page and our content;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Ghazal

We tried to be neutral, like on Joey Ghazal's page.

The published pages are mainly interviews and information pages like Joey Ghazal's.

I would be glad if you could direct us a bit more.

Best regards, Tim

Timothyyale009 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaotic Enby. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Elli (talk | contribs) 00:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship's success was talked about in the news significantly more than Starliner's docking. Why were you so against adding it? Ergzay (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because ITN isn't just about "what is talked about the most", but about "what is in the news and has encyclopedic relevance". Starliner's docking was the maiden flight for the module and all of Boeing, while Starship was just one more incremental test flight. Once Starship is finalized and sees its maiden flight, of course I'll support posting it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except it wasn't "just one more incremental test flight". It was a massive achievement of something never done before. Ergzay (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is already closed, I don't see why you are bringing this to my talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demona was AFD'd, and the result was to merge. You just reverted me with AntiVandal. I do think there's enough there. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:5C3E:C3DA:FDE9:A738 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you because you were repeatedly blanking the article while claiming there was enough material, while this did not appear to be the consensus, and you did not address the merge since your previous revert. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also awkward. That's that sorted. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:5C3E:C3DA:FDE9:A738 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope I am in the right place. I think a user has posted AI generated content. And it seems like the issue is resolved now due to other editors helping out.

However, I feel like that account has to be noted for being a possible sockpuppet or spammer or something along those. How should I, um, report it? There's no evidence beyond it being a new account with that sole, AI-generated edit. MikeEviscerate (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single edit usually isn't evidence of sockpuppetry, but if you believe you have enough evidence to link them to a specific sockpuppeteer, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rupumped (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Renewvia Energy Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your review of my draft page. You were right: I included some peacock terms. I have endeavored to make the entry more encyclopedic and resubmitted the page for review. Please let me know if you would recommend additional edits.

Rupumped (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I self reverted the location as i realized my mistake, thanks for your comment Owenglyndur (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Nice user page design Kelly The Angel (Talk to me) 08:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You slapped a template: peacock on the Veromemanu Foundation page, I was wondering if you can clarify which sentences in that article you found to be problematic so that I can fix the article. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 12:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the article, honestly. Sentences like uncovering intricate connections, important religious lessons, mine the depths of the language, the intricacies of Biblical Hebrew, as well as promotional stuff like Much of their research is available for free online at their webpage. or directly quoting The foundation is devoted to the notion of "Hebrew as the divine language of Creation and Revelation and a belief that within the words of the Holy Tongue there are hidden treasures and life's lessons embodied in every precious word." Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I need your help to make this page encyclopedic if it seems to be promotional. I have not written it in a promotional manner intentionally so please help me out by suggesting me how to make it encyclopedic and please remove this deletion tag Priyanshu Raj1 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 July 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2024 French legislative election, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Chaotic Enby, Please add this information to the Ahir article. For this you can add it in the article through section ==Ahirs as Yadavas== or ==connection with Yadavas==. The term Ahir is derived from Abhira, a clan mentioned several times in inscriptions and Hindu revered books. The term Ahir is often seen as synonymous with Yadav because these are two names of the same community.^[1][2] In the 1881 census records of the British empire, the Yadavs are identified as Ahirs.^[3] The Indian Scholar M. S. A. Rao say that historical evidence exists for equating the Ahirs with the Yadavas. Historians such as P. M. Chandorkar, using both literary and epigraphic sources has argued that the modern Ahirs should be identified with the Yadavas of the classical Sanskrit texts.^[4][5] According to Historian T Padmaja, the Ahirs migrated to South India and established their kingdoms and in inscriptions these Ahirs mention they are from Yadava lineage.^[6] 2409:4085:8197:90E1:0:0:2B34:A0B0 (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please make an edit request on the talk page (Talk:Ahir) instead of asking individual editors to make contributions on your behalf. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An edit request[1] has already been made to the article, but it has not been added to the article yet, sir please pick up this information from here and add it to the article. 2409:4085:8197:90E1:0:0:2B34:A0B0 (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @IP Please stop socking and POV pushing will you? Sohom (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta What is socking and POV pushing here? You have not been invited here so please do not interfere. 2409:4085:8197:90E1:0:0:2B34:A0B0 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, Sohom is very much welcome to tell you to stop. You've already made your case on the article's talk page, my user talk is not the place for this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't know that Sohom is an Indian editor and most of the articles related to Indian castes have been hijacked by some Indian editors, by the way I am sorry to bother you and let's end this conversation here. 2409:4085:8197:90E1:0:0:2B34:A0B0 (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I know is that you're starting to be uncomfortably racist against fellow editors and I don't really want to see this on my talk page, or anywhere else for that matter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of The Alfred Hitchcock Tour episodes (season 10) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting 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 with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Queen of Hearts ^talk 03:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wasn't sure whether to suppress the redirect or not, good call! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gothus teemo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a crab species was named after both an ancient board game and a League of Legends character? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gothus teemo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gothus teemo), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a couple of excerpts through [2]. One was 85% likely,the other higher. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi previously in discussions you wanted to wait further publications on this before acting. Today another paper has come out and I have the difficulty of being an author on it. Hence have potential NPoV issues in this regard. As such I wanted to make you aware of it. [3]

In summary, we found that the lectotype of E. marinus set by Dubois is still existing in St. Petersberg. As such any neotype designation is invalid. So the Neotype set by Rivas et al in their second paper is not a name bearing type. We also managed to narrow down the type locality of this species to Trinidad. By looking at the original Dutch version of Seba 1735. As such even if it could be argued that the lectotype we found is not actually the lectotype, any neotype must be from Trinidad. As such the Green Anaconda (E. marinus) is referable to the northern form and is hence a senior subjective synonym of E. akayima.

If two species are to be recognised one of the southern form names must be resurrected but which one is still debatable. The southern form comes down to 3 names and it is likely a neotype would need to be set to establish which name is valid. Either way akayima is a junior synonym and hence invalid. I am happy to help with sorting this out but as you had spent much time on this page I thought a better approach would be to send you a message fist.

By the way I am glad you removed the addit by by the editor who went on about Dubois ' paper not being peer reviewed (it is, I am well aware of how Alain Dubois handles his own publications in Bionomia, it is peer reviewed. Also the issue of using the indiginous name is not the main issue in the Rivas et al paper. It was commented on out of necessity, but the big issues were poor taxonomy and illigitimate nomenclature. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your message. While it seems unlikely that E. akayima is a valid species, I believe that the article is still worth keeping, as it is notable from the standpoint of history of science (meets WP:GNG, with multiple scientific papers discussing its (non)existence), and makes clear that this was a controversial proposal for a now disputed species. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Apex (dinosaur), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Stegosaurus fossil sold for $44.6 million? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Apex (dinosaur). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Apex (dinosaur)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaotic Enby! Since you're much more well-versed than me in taxonomy and species-related articles, I was wondering how you'd classify a species thought to be extinct for ~30 years but then rediscovered. Would it be cCritically endangered" or "extinct", since it was, at a time, officially classed as extinct. Thanks! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sir MemeGod! If it's been rediscovered, it wouldn't count as extinct. However, "Critically Endangered" is a IUCN classification, so, if the species hasn't been assessed since it's rediscovery, it's best to leave the field empty – you can look up the species on the IUCN Red List to see their assessment. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the list of The world's 100 most threatened species, so it's definitely critically endangered! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "Critically Endangered" isn't a subjective assessment we make ourselves, but a formal IUCN designation. Not all of the species on that list are classified as Critically Endangered, with for instance Aipysurus foliosquama being Data Deficient. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just joking about it. It has been formally put on the IUCN's Critically Endangered list. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, thanks! You can add it then! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby We got archaeplastidas parent changed to CAM, just letting you know. Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me! Nice! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, rank for archaeplastida is clade now. Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think CAMs taxonomy template will become templates protected in October or November. Cheers! Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	CAM-tributor
	Thanks for being a great CAM-tributor to page CAM! Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your advice to me about the lead image for divine providence. I think it does relate more than you say, because the image of sparrows was used to convey the concept of divine providence in this one of the most important revelations of the concept in Christianity. I don't think the cultural spheres need to align; the image only needs to be illustrative or 'encyclopaedic' as you said. For example, the lead image for major depressive disorder is a van Gogh painting. This doesn't imply that the cultural sphere of depression is 19th-century European/Dutch, rather, it is a wonderful depiction of intense sorrow, and therefore suitable to represent 'depression' although this term diagnosis was never even known to van Gogh. There are many abstract uses of classical art in Wikipedia which I've always admired (e.g., night-watchman state, language, ambiguity) and so I think your criteria may have been too strict for the divine providence article. Violoncello10104 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is comparable to the use of the van Gogh painting. My point about the cultural spheres wasn't that it needs to be specifically a phenomenon from that region, but rather, that it could plausibly be a meaning carried by the painting. At Eternity's Gate is generally accepted by reliable sources to be a self-portrayal of van Gogh's own struggles with mental health, and thus makes sense as an illustration for major depressive disorder. Meanwhile, the sparrow painting doesn't really have anything to do with divine providence by itself – the Bible quote you added does relate to sparrows, but it is very unlikely that an artist in 19th century Japan painted these sparrows (a common motif) with this metaphor, or the idea of divine providence in general, in mind, meaning that it isn't relevant to the article. It illustrates sparrows, but, despite the existence of a Bible verse talking about both, doesn't illustrate divine providence. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, I believe that there are in fact good ways to incorporate an illustration for the concept of divine providence. A common motif in European iconography was the Eye of Providence, of which many paintings and artworks have been made, although other depictions of the Providence can also be found in art.

Pontormo, Cena in Emmaus

All-Seeing Eye on the gate of Aachen Cathedral

Chromolithography depicting the omnipresence of God in Christianity

Pietro da Cortona, Triumph of the Divine Providence (fresco)

Pietro da Cortona, Triumph of the Divine Providence (excerpt)

Jacques Boulbène, Providence, Honor and Vigilance

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification regarding the point about cultural spheres, and it definitely makes sense that the sparrow painting is not suitable since divine providence could not plausibly be represented by the painting as you said. And thanks for those image suggestions, I'll probably put one of them or a similar one in now. Violoncello10104 (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby Just letting you know the taxonomy template for CAM got template protected. 🙂 Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I was the one to make the request for it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude! It’s not very common (only used on about 15000 pages) so maybe extended confirmed would be better, but still! Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Interested inTaxonomy The reason it is template protected is because it is indirectly (through Template:Taxonomy/Archaeplastida) used by every plant article that uses an automatic taxobox, so it is extremely high visibility (changing it would impact every plant's taxobox). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense I guess. Why doesn’t it have archaeplastidas amount (or more) though? Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Interested inTaxonomy Probably just the transclusion counter being slow to update, this already counts 60,000 of them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks! (Unrelated to archaeplastida)I also had to do the tedious process to add it on cryptistas taxonomy template and putting display parent in most subtaxa of cryptista so it shows up to eukarya/eukaryota. Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should say about 100,000 transclusions soon as that’s the amount archaeplastida has. You’re a great CAM-tributor :• Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]