User talk:Skarmory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey! I'm Skarmory, if you have anything to say just leave me a message. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, YellowSkarmory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\talk 07:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for fixing links in 1961 tornado article...can you do others?[edit]

What you saw in the Tornadoes of 1961 article is the product of me trying to fix and expand an entire article by myself when I was very much a newbie. It did hurt my pride a little bit to see what you put in the edit summary, but I'm glad you fixed it. I would give you a barnstar, but I'm typing this on my flip phone and can't find how to do it. LOL! Could you do of a favor and fix the links in the the other articles too? I'm very busy right now and can't do it myself.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can give the other articles a shot. Knowing how it works, find and replace should make the uncapitalizing a lot easier. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Lindsay Chapman[edit]

Hi Skarmory, I removed the statement about Mr Chapman's case in the personal section as the case was thrown out for lack of evidence. It falls under defamatory statements as it implies he was convicted of the accusation. I know that this for a fact and have removed the statement again. Cheers Dahlia2022 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dahlia2022: Best course of action there is to add the case being thrown out for a lack of evidence and provide a source for that as well. Also, the edit summary "removal of section" is not particularly descriptive – it's better to add an explanation of why you removed the section, e.g. "Removed section because the case was thrown out due to lack of evidence" or something along those lines. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, you also may want to read the essay on verifiability, not truth. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I would be grateful if you would leave my edit in and not re-add that personal section text. I'll have a read of the essay. Cheers Dahlia2022 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dahlia2022: I left it there for a while, while I tried to find anything online, and couldn't. If you have any sources for it being dismissed, I'm happy to add it along with the arrest; if not, discussion should be taken to Talk:Mark Lindsay Chapman, where someone can hopefully find a source. For now, all that's mentioned is he was arrested, and no status of him being convicted or anything is marked there, so I wouldn't say it's defamatory. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dylan Bostic[edit]

Hello you recently left me some messages on a talk page. I appreciate them but don't understand the complete revoke of the article, which held more then enough notable info on his career.

I've now sent this off to review and hopefully I get a positive response from this. LaylaDakota (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LaylaDakota: Hey! For example, the bing video links are not reliable, and very subject to change, as they're a search. You should replace them with an actual video, if applicable, but if the videos are on YouTube it would be better to find something that's not on YouTube, as that's a user generated source. IMDb and Online world of Wrestling are more user-generated sources, and are also not considered reliable. Profiles do not contribute to notability as well – anything connected with the subject does not contribute to notability.
Sadly, just having references to verify all the information isn't good enough. Guidelines such as notability for entertainers (which includes wrestlers) exist, but they do not supersede the general notability guideline as a whole. If you can find significant coverage of him (not passing mentions, like in the hollywoodwrestling source) in sources which are not self published, databases and/or interviews, that'll be good – the general standard for that is three sources. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving articles to draft space[edit]

Hi Skamory. I am Itcouldbepossible, whom you have met earlier. Last time I told you about moving articles to drafts like Draft:xxx(2). But today I saw one problem, and wanted to let you know about it. For example, if you can move Testing article to draftspace easily. But next time when you move you might get an API error. The userscript automatically adds "Draft:" before the page name in the Move to Draft: field box. so on moving it will be like Draft:Draft:xxx(2) . That is not allowed. So while entering the name of the new draft that you want the article to be moved to, then you have to remove the Draft: from the Move to Draft: field. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. So when the script automatically appends Draft: to the page name, just manually remove it. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 11:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay – I'll keep that in mind. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for fixing Talk:Sool... not sure why that didn't move too.. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



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.

This is for all of the idiotic things you've done over the past year, Skarmory. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[April Fools!]Reply[reply]

Untitled message (moved from top of page)[edit]

Hi Skarmory, we were in contact at the start of the year - I have just noticed that the following message still shows on the page 'Islamic Reporting Initiative'. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Is there anything I can do to speed up the process of resolving this? Is there anything I can do myself? Thank you so much in advance! Julianross CSR (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Julianross CSR: I don't think you personally can do much, unfortunately. The article isn't in awful shape, and I may take a look at it later to clean it up more (been going through a lot health-wise as of late, so it may take a while), but considering you do have a COI there's not much you can directly do. Edit requests on the talk page would work from your end (see Talk:Geoff Morrell (spokesperson) for an example of some of these in action), and once the article is eventually cleaned up, the tag can go. (Sorry if this is vague and/or confusing – I'm tired and I'm also not exactly sure when the tag should ultimately be removed, but I'll make that call later on.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your user rights[edit]

Hi, I am Itcouldbepossible, whom you might remember. Earlier, I had given you a small tip while draftifying articles. Don't know if you remember it or not. Today I have come here to enquire about your user rights. I have seen that you have many user rights. But what I want to know is, from where did you get some of them from. For example, I don't find any request made by your to become a page mover or file mover at the file mover request page or at the page mover request page. Using the 'edits made by a particular user' tool, I can see that you had not made any edits to the page, which means you had not requested it there, but you still have the right, that too granted by good administrators. Same applies for your file mover rights. There is nothing that worries me, for you are a good editor and I am really fine with you having these rights. But, what I want to know is that, from where are you getting these permission requests accepted, I mean where are you actually requesting for these right? How are the administrators seeing your request? Is there a separate place other than the generalized permission granting page? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 09:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It came from an off-wiki discussion; not really sure how much I should share here, so I'll leave it at that (not well-versed in wikiquette in this area).
I can tell you that the way I got it would not exactly be possible to replicate. I've still always gone through those venues outside of this one time, and when my page mover runs out, I plan to request the extension there. (I haven't used file mover, and I'll let it run out; maybe one day I can use it before it runs out, but I doubt I'll use it much and I don't need it necessarily) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Skarmory -- I've deprodded this and intend to do further work on it. I can see why you thought the article needed deletion, the creator is clearly promotional in intent and the modern house is unlikely to be notable. However, the lodge is clearly notable as being grade II* listed, the surviving park also appears significant,[1] and the former hall has some book coverage. Got to go offline now but I'll see else what I can dig up tomorrow. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serves me right for pretty much blindly following a flowchart's instructions. I would've been much more hesitant if there wasn't a duplicate draft out there already – I'm also not used to the terminology and notability guidelines around buildings, so I'm not particularly surprised I missed something. Thanks for improving the article though – it's looking much better now! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been trying to get into NPP after the not-so-subtle appeal to lazy admins to help out with the backlog, but that flowchart just makes my head spin! I used to live in Cheshire and so have a print copy of de Figueredo & Treuherz, which is the best source on country houses in Cheshire, as well as the Cheshire edition of the Pevsner Architectural Guides. I don't think either are up on Google Books.
Sadly the editor who created it is busy trying to wreck it again; if you could keep an eye out that would be appreciated! Their talk page message made me smile. Actually I realised after I deprodded it there's actually an existing article on Astle Park, so the two probably need to be merged, but there's no point in doing that until the other editor decides to desist, or that will just get trashed too. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I thought I responded to this, huh. Anyway, the flowchart for me was the easiest way to keep track of what exactly I should be doing and checking in particular. I figure that's less necessary with more experience on Wikipedia as a whole, but I don't have that yet. It wasn't too hard for me to track by just following the exact path I needed.
I'll pay attention to make sure nothing goes horribly wrong, thanks once again for putting in the effort to save Astle Hall! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slenderman spotted Near the Modesto Arch[edit]

Hey there! Thanks for reminding me about adding a source on my edit! I believe this is the correct source. ModestoArchFan (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you.[edit]

 – nonsense added by user blocked soon after
Modesto Defender
This is an award for defending Modesto. Thank you. ModestoArchFan (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, here is one for you next request[edit]

I read you want to make a next request. Do you have any page were you prepare this? Here are a few worth checking. Jessica Biel-Timberlake, Leigh Allyn Baker-Kauffman,

Avril Lavigne-Kroeger, Madge D. Walters-Sinclair, George A. Ruthenberg, Rhea Seehorn-Larson, Deborah Larson, Deborah Seehorn-Larson. You'll likely find more. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've looked at most of these already (I'm working systematically through all married name redirects created by this user, gotten through a decent portion so far, hoping to bulk nom the ones which don't really pull results once I'm done), but there are a few new ones I need to check there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, anyways! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archiving your talk page[edit]

Hello, just a friendly request to archive your talk page. Your talk page is quite long (161kB where the maximum recommended in 75kB), and this can be an issue for mobile editors and editors with lower-powered machines if they try to load your talk page, as it can buffer and crash their search engines. You can get assistance at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thank you! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 11:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I was running into slowdowns editing the full page, probably a good idea. I like leaving as much out in the open as possible, but collapsing newsletters isn't going to be much different from archiving them. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liberian Heritage[edit]

Thanks for your question! Unfortunately I can't help you. Ten years ago I was working with a Liberia-focused archive, but that job ended in 2014; I don't even live in the same country anymore. Since then they've moved the collection physically and administratively (it was part of a different entity at the time, and I think it's been moved to a different building), and the current website says that the whole collection is closed at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note — since you thanked me really quickly after I left this note, you may not have seen that I expanded it. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2023 NPP Drive Awards[edit]

The Reviewer Barnstar

This award is given to Skarmory for collecting more than 200 points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worm Gear Award

This award is given to Skarmory for collecting more than 28 points per week doing reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Regarding this edit, Chahak was not done; it still had 3 incoming links. You need to check Special:WhatLinksHere to confirm. (It's done now, so you won't find any incoming links any more.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@R'n'B: Oh wow, that's embarrassing. I just autopiloted to hiding transclusions and links because I only really use what links here to check for redirects to a title. I had already used DisamAssist to see if there was anything I could fix, and saw nothing, but still... woops. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for rating my article! Do you have any advice for how I can improve it and raise the class rating? Evansknight (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Evansknight: I'd have to take a closer look, but my immediate impression is that the lede is really short (there's gotta be some more biographical information you can put in there), and the article itself feels a bit short (though there may just not be much more information out there on Wigand than what's already in the article). It'd probably be worth it to look at the B-class criteria and to try and meet them where you immediately notice things that don't reach the criteria. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request move[edit]

Hello, please move this page as it was previously. Proposed in talk page. 2023 Social Democracy leadership election. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThecentreCZ: You opened an official requested move on the talk page before coming to me. Given there's an official RM discussion open, and the main article for the party was also recently moved to Social Democracy (Czech Republic), I don't see any harm in waiting the 7 days right now for the discussion to officially end.
FYI, you may want to create a request to revert an undiscussed move or a normal requested move for the main article on the party if you want it to be moved, since it looks like that was an undiscussed move. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I saw that you are active in reviewing redirects on AFCR, and I would like to contribute in this area as well. DreamRimmer (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's how to start reviewing at AFC/R: install User:Eejit43/scripts/AFCRHS. Congratulations, you now have an interface to accept, decline and comment on requests.
Some things to keep an eye on:
  • The script asks you to append a redirect category template when accepting. They aren't necessary, but I'd strongly encourage adding them. If you're not sure which one(s) to add just by the name, the best place to look is the template index for redirects. Just ctrl/cmd+f for the template you're looking for and look at its description.
  • The script by default only allows one redirect category template to be added with the accepted request. If you want to add multiple redirect category templates, you can get around this by selecting "Custom – prompt me" and inserting multiple templates in the format 1}}{{2 or 1}}{{2}}{{3 (if you add the surrounding brackets, you end up with the result I just got at Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty).
  • The script also includes category requests, as they're made at the same venue, though quite a bit less frequently (there were only 9 requests in May, and 5 were a connected group). These are a bit more complicated than redirect requests, and often take some more manual or semi-automated work, as you usually have to manually add the categories to the supplied pages. The script does take care of parent categories, though.
  • Commenting on requests feels a bit funky, because it prefixes your comment with the redirect you're commenting on (even if there's only one in the request), and it autofills a trailing period (so if you automatically type a sentence with proper grammar and a period at the end, it duplicates). Could just be my opinion, though.
  • If you're not sure on whether a redirect or category should be created, either leave a comment or leave it for another reviewer. (Pretty similar to other areas, and probably fairly common sense.)
Feel free to ask any more questions – I tried to cover the stuff that seemed like it would be generally useful to know and potentially confusing. While WP:RFD experience would probably help with some of the more complicated cases, it's definitely not necessary, and I'd say this is a relatively easy area to just hop into and start helping out. You don't even really need prior qualifications.
If you're still interested, welcome aboard, DreamRimmer! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, thanks. I will try to help in this area on a regular basis. DreamRimmer (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you read my !vote correctly - it was in opposition to the proposed action, with a detailed rationale. Just because I didn't state the term "Oppose" in bold that doesn't make what I said any different :) Please reconsider. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Joy: I probably shouldn't have gone with the "no stated opposition" statement in the close, but knowing that was 100% meant to be an oppose doesn't change my close. I did clarify that the wikinav discussion gave me hesitance but wasn't enough to stop me from closing it as moved, and now knowing your comment was 100% equivalent to an !oppose !vote doesn't change anything. I will try to improve on potentially ambiguous closing statements in the future, though – I thought this one didn't feel great. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Raktabeej for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raktabeej 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/Raktabeej 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just wanted to drop by and thank you for signing my guestbook! I really appreciate it. Also, you have technically interacted with me before, just not under this IP address. Thanks again! (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Therese Patricia Okoumou, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Cut and CBS Austin. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


for such a well explained close at Talk:Ptolemaic Kingdom#Requested move 30 May 2023. I get sick of the one sentence close rationales "Closed with (no) consensus to move". – Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, a lot of closes could use more explanation, especially with long and complicated discussions like this. Glad I can help out some with that. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023[edit]

Hello Skarmory,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023


Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).


Move review for Operation Gideon (2020)[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Operation Gideon (2020). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. WMrapids (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Heather[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Heather 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, Llapi is the definitive form of Llap in Albanian. They are the same name. Since the other Kosovo geographic articles use definitive forms, Llapi as proposed by the OP is the one in line with Kosovo naming conventions. I used Llap instead of Llapi in my comments just for ease of writing, not that it is different from Llapi. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you see consensus to move, IMO the discussion should be closed because it has been open for almost a month with only 2 !votes apart from the OP. The OP proposed Llapi, I supported Llapi (I used Llap instead of indefinite Llapi in my comments just for ease of writing) and the other !vote (KleovoulosT) supports the proposal without mentioning the form Llap. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ktrimi991: Sounds good. I agree this discussion warrants a close sooner rather than later, I just didn't see a consensus between Llap and Llapi (due to the somewhat interchangeable nature, as I'm not familiar with definitive forms of Albanian, and per the comments). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your review of the discussion and the close. Albanian grammar is difficult; even among Albanian editors many can't tell the difference between definite and indefinite forms. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Heather[edit]

The article Hurricane Heather you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hurricane Heather for comments about the article, and Talk:Hurricane Heather/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking me out of limbo![edit]

I've been trying to get my table of herbs (and spices) out of draft limbo for *years*. Thank you. Tamtrible (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah... draftspace can be rough, and so can weird policy loops, especially when you don't have the technical ability to perform the correct action and not many people are going to do it for you. I think the best solution in this case, if you couldn't get someone to move the page over the redirect, would be to move it to a different but still acceptable title and then propose a move at WP:RM/TR; still, I wouldn't do that unless you're sure the page is ready for mainspace (it feels like barely skirting around guidelines, though I can't think of any it would directly violate, and this would be a good case of WP:IAR anyway). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New pages patrol needs your help![edit]

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Skarmory,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.


Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello! Can you please review this page? It has been up for a while and still remains unreviewed. Thank you so much. Maxen Embry (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old user page...[edit]

Tried to edit as instructed, only that a HUGE WARNING template appeared and can't edit my old page to state what happened.Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) 😭Reply[reply]

@Nuclear Sergeant: Ah, there's an edit filter against non-autoconfirmed users editing other users' user pages... I think the best way to proceed is just placing a notice on your current account's user page, wait until you gain autoconfirmed, and leave the note on your previous account's user page then. Skipping the latter step is probably fine (if for some reason anyone was concerned, they'd see the declaration on your current account's user page), but WP:COMPSOCK does recommend it (which I actually didn't know existed until this reply, though I'm not surprised). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter[edit]

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Skarmory,

I did the page move you requested. It was an odd one but I gather you wanted to retain a page history from a page move to a bad title. But now the page redirects to itself. Can you fix this to what you envisioned you wanted with this page? I know it shouldn't be a self-redirect but I don't know how you were trying to fix this. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed; this was the end of a process of cleaning up an improvised round-robin move by a non-page mover that didn't really know what a round-robin move was, which is why the page history was at the bad title. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Skarmory,

I'm not sure why you moved this article to this page title. I'm sure there are LDS members in the country of Georgia and this might be confusing to readers. We have always distinguished Georgia (state) from Georgia (country) in our categories and articles but recently an editor has been undoing what has been years of consistent practice.

One of my first mistakes when I began regularly editing in 2013 was changing all of these "Georgia (state)" pages to plain old "Georgia" and, boy, did I hear about it from veteran editors! Please consider reverting this move or at least opening up the page move for discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that there WAS a discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Georgia#Requested move 6 July 2023 but I'll leave my comment here any way in case the issue comes up again in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liz: Yeah, moves like that will attract attention... no way I make a move like that unless there's consensus for it, or there's no article that covers any of a topic on the country/state (depending on which way the move goes). I was still a bit hesitant, but the consensus there was clear and based on naming conventions, so there was no real reason to not close the discussion as moved unless I felt strongly about the title either way (in which case I would have !voted instead). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My sandbox[edit]

Hi, I think I made a lot of progress on writing things so they are clear. Can I ask you to take a look at it and see if it something that would make sense to be posted to the talk page for discussion? Saikyoryu (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's very long for a talk page message; walls of text/long lists can often get ignored or glossed over (you'll notice pretty much every comment on that talk page, aside from a couple edit requests, isn't much longer than two paragraphs). If you plan to post a large portion or all of that at once, I'd collapse it using {{collapse}}. Can't say much about the content itself – I try to stay out of these controversial political discussions (not my thing, they tend to get pretty heated), and I haven't really looked at much of anything here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem I am seeing is that sources are posted and then there are a few editors who reply things like "How is it related to the film," or "There is no evidence that the film is in anyway connected to QAnon" so I wanted to put the quotes together to show the important parts. How they relate to the film, that the comments are made in the context of scheduled appearances promoting the film. Saikyoryu (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it would be better in a table? I saw links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Would that be a good way to present the list of sources for a point? Saikyoryu (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a table would be better here, if you want to post the whole thing. I'd personally just comment with the most relevant quotes in context, as that's more likely to be read than a full table (doing both is also fine). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried making tables. How do they look? Saikyoryu (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That increased the readability a lot more than I thought it would! The one thing I'd note is whether these are all direct pulls from the source or not, as the use of quotation marks within some of these quotes could make that distinction confusing. Just putting a sentence along the lines of "All quotes are directly pulled from the source." above everything should be good enough. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are one or two where I summarized because the full quote would be half or more of the article. Is there a good way to make those obvious if I put what you suggested at the top? Saikyoryu (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably put it in the site & source cell? Either that or above the quote itself inside its cell. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try later today. Thanks for your reply. Seeing Wolfquack's difference in behavior below is just wow, makes me mad. Saikyoryu (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry I thought the RfC wasn’t active, as the last post being four days ago. Is there a certain time frame for that? thanks Wolfquack (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Saikyoryu (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:PA Wolfquack (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also I have no reason to apologize to someone whom I asked to get off my talk page. You will not make it very far here if you expect everyone to apologize to you. Again if you want to do something do it yourself. Wolfquack (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Ok I was taking you seriously until" - rude and uncivil is all you have been. You have every reason to apologize and you never did. Saikyoryu (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn’t apologizing? Wolfquack (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I will apologize if my wording offended you." And you never actually apologized after I told you your words were completely offensive. Instead you got worse. Saikyoryu (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also calling someone a dick is nothing compared to I said. Wolfquack (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RFCs has it pretty much covered. In this case, someone uninvolved should determine the consensus from the RFC and close it, because it's a fairly big and contentious debate; it should also have a specific close of some sort (include the content, don't, or no consensus; one of those three), because of the participation and contention, it's not a good one to just let go without having a statement on wht the discussion brought. (FYI, the last comment at the time of the section being collapsed was Red-tailed Hawk's, which was around 24 hours old.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, that makes a little more sense. I closed some discussions before in separate articles but that was in previous months, and I genuinely forgot the “when”. I think next week however I will close it if it doesn’t get’s a discussion for at least another five days. Or maybe even archive some of the discussions. Wolfquack (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Hurricane Heather[edit]

On 29 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Heather, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hurricane Heather caused the normally dry Santa Cruz River to reach a 100-year flood stage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Heather. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hurricane Heather), 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Camera articles by Fryn[edit]

Hi, Skarmory. If you have the time, could you please have a glance at these lists by User:Fryn and review them?

Elominius (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elominius: I usually don't do much with lists in NPP that aren't splits from large pages, as I tend to find them hard to review, but I might as well learn if I'm going to review. Here, I'd wonder if there's a good place to put them, potentially in a parent article, though I'm not immediately finding a good parent article for any of these. (Maybe they could be converted into a broader scope? I'd accept them as lists in that case, though.)
The one I'm most concerned about is List of vlogging cameras, as the topic doesn't feel particularly encyclopedic to me, the grouping feels a bit loose, and the sourcing isn't independent/reliable enough for me to feel like it supports the article... but that happens to have been reviewed by another NPP reviewer. I'll figure out what to do later with that one. (The other three remain unreviewed – I'll take a closer look at them tomorrow if life permits and if they're not reviewed by then, but they seem to at least have more solid groupings.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Doing the needful has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Doing the needful until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect To do the needful has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § To do the needful until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Redirect Barnstar
Thank-you for your diligent work creating, reviewing, and discussing redirects! Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aw, thanks! :) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Skarmory,

I don't understand why this page is tagged as part of a deletion discussion. You might want to remove this tagging. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz: Still trying to figure out exactly what to do with the history here – it was deleted at RFD, but I think the history needs to be attributed somehow. I'll blank the page for now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter[edit]

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
  • Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
  • Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page 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.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • 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) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Original Barnstar
I was thinking about giving you a Barnstar for all your efforts at RfD and around the Wiki eventually, as I've been seeing you do good work! (Although it just so happened that I checked your userpage and found out that somehow, against all odds, we have the exact same number of edits which I've never seen happen before.) So, I thought I'd send it to you earlier than planned to commemorate that and also say thank you for all you do! Cheers, Utopes (talk / cont) 19:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, quite a coincidence! Or fate... 👀 either way, thanks for the barnstar! An occurrence like this probably deserves one :) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter[edit]

Hello Skarmory,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]