This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.
This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.
If my main talk is protected due to vandalism, please leave comments here.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Ugaria's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I was so reckless in editing pages that I was a fool to realize that I was doing so without going to external sources. If NavSource is on the external sources for ship awards, I would have been likely to edit, but with caution. I like to add ribbons because I want people to visually see for themselves what awards the ships had been. But I am sorry for editing too much. I'm not asking you at this time to unblock me, but please read this statement. Ugaria (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for tag bombing your new article, I was just looking at new articles in recent changes, and noticed that yours didn't have any sources, so I naturally gave it the unreferenced tag. Apologies about that. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I understand what you're doing, but some editors find it grating to have tags applied when they're in the middle of editing a page (since it can cause edit conflicts). I also don't see a lot of value in simply tagging articles for the sake of tagging them; I'd just as soon solve the problem if I can. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll keep this in mind. Thanks. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia policies, so I'll be a bit more careful in the future. Have a nice day (or night). RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and yeah, I had seen on your userpage you started editing just last year - I'm not a whole lot from 20 years (so I probably ought to keep in mind that not everyone has been around even half that long). Mid-afternoon here, so a nice day is still in the cards, and the same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. It was done in good faith. I didn't see how I was making it less precise or harder to edit. I have been chided by many admins in the past on leaving refs stacked like that. Boo Boo (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk page - "I didn't see how it hurt. Had been taken to task for leaving refs stacked like that. It was done in good faith, and I've never been criticized for putting it in this style. When I edit pages, it is the style I was told to use by admins. The parentheses are to make it more conforming to Chicago MoS. I HAVE been criticized for leaving it in the tsyle it is now, HOWEVER, since you object and are taking ownership of the article, I'll leave it. Take care and have a good weekend. Boo Boo (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)"[reply]
Nerts! I went back and looked at the reversions I missed on this article. I missed your comments. Sorry, again, done in good faith. Boo Boo (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge deal - I was probably more frustrated with IRL stuff anyway - I'm sorry if I came off angry. No harm done, have a nice weekend. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supermarine Spitfire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
Congratulations on yet another GA review, Parsecboy! I thoroughly enjoy your writing style and research, and this is no expetion. At this rate, I feel that you should have autopatrol rights for the GA process, thus elevating every article published to GA status :) GGOTCC (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Giants, I'll take a look at the list before then and make sure no dust has gathered, but it should be in good shape, as it isn't that old. Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh - does it actually say Perseus Press? The version I saw on Google Books said it was published by Basic Books, an imprint of Perseus Books Group (and the Perseus Books Group page doesn't list a Perseus Press as a current or former imprint). The Worldcat entry for the bookdoes list the publisher as Perseus Press, but I've known Worldcat to be sketchy on details (and you'll note they misspelled the author's first name!) Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
See also section should not contain "red links" per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. French cruiser Linois is a set index article i.e. the same as a list article (not a disambiguation article which has other rules). Set index article should have references like other list articles. SMS Sperber (1888) is not ambiguity title because it has a disambiguater. The example in the WP:NOHAT has Water (wuxing) as an example which should not have a hatnote to water because "Here, the hatnote can be removed. A reader who is following links within Wikipedia is unlikely to end up at Water (wuxing) if they were looking for other meanings of water, since water does not redirect there.".
Hello, I saw your name at Recently Active Administrators. I'm wondering if you could help a dispute at Talk:Mid-Atlantic accent: the most recent two sections, for reference. On the talk page the last couple months, editors decided to make Mid-Atlantic accent into a dab page and then split most of the page's content into a new article Good American Speech. However, this new dissenting user reverted all that and insists that we need a full RM to (re)perform these actions, while three of us are trying to show the user why this is not the case. I'm no expert on WP policy. Can you be of any help? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the statement in that list is cited to a fairly low quality book. Oddly, the author of the list ignored Langensiepen et. al. who also state it was only 2. I can correct it later today. Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 9 reviews between January and March 2025. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
; see Talk:SMS Albatross (1871) for comments about the article, and Talk:SMS Albatross (1871)/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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
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 Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Wolf (1878) and Talk:SMS Wolf (1878)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Oversighter changes
Bureaucrat changes