User talk:Yovt

This is Yovt's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Hi Yovt! I would like to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Icop" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Icop 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/2024 September 22 § Icop until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the "Battle of Jabalia" page

Hi, I've made an edir request for splitting the "Battle of Jabalia" page, and you referenced me to WP:SPLIT.
As I'm not extended-protected user I can't start a discussion in the talk page about splitting the page. Could you please help me with that? Thanks Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy Haddad 1! I can indeed give you some assistance. You are right, the Battle of Jabalia’s talk page states that non extended-confirmed users cannot discuss the topic besides making edit requests. I apologize for not having notified you of that on my answer to your edit request. Now the main issue with a split is due to the lack of reliable sources on the Battle of Jabalia article. The sources in the article generally fail to establish the battle’s verifiability, let alone a second battle. In the event that you find enough WP:SIGCOV sources for the Second Battle of Jabalia, ~~I’d suggest following the instructions here in order to proceed with your proposed article, which you can create a draft for.~~ Feel free to ask any further questions or concerns here. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 13:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yovt, draft pages are not exempt from WP:ARBECR / WP:A/I/PIA and Guy Haddad 1's draft was deleted for this reason. There is an exception for "userspace" well-hidden at WP:A/I/PIA's fourth point. This exception does not apply to any other topic area with such a restriction, so normally even userspace pages are restricted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's an additional absurdity described on Guy Haddad 1's talk page now. I did all I could to change this situation to a less confusing one, but I only have one vote. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToBeFree, thank you for notifying me of this situation. I understand now what I have done and take full responsibility. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 13:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, this is pretty confusing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Criticism of David Cross in Alvin and the Chipmunks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Criticism of David Cross in Alvin and the Chipmunks 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/Criticism of David Cross in Alvin and the Chipmunks 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.

CS1 errors (embarrassing)

CS1 error on Mid90s

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mid90s, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Mid90s

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mid90s, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Mid90s

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mid90s, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Lyla in the Loop

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lyla in the Loop, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 42 (film)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 42 (film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Moneyball (film)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Moneyball (film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Luka Dončić trade

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Luka Dončić trade, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyball

Hi there - I have no general objection to your edits to the Moneyball (film) synopsis, but I'm confused by your statement that the synopsis was well over 700 words. I just double-checked the word count on wordcounter.net and it gives me 697 words. Is there some other counter you've been using? Cheers.

Namelessposter (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nameless, I believe what happened here was that I was pasting the text into a google document when I was trimming the plot, and what likely happened was that I pasted the source code rather than the prose. I understand your concern and I encourage you to fix whatever I broke, thank you for reaching out. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't break anything. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't messing up any of the other film articles I've edited. Happy editing! Namelessposter (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Talk:Carousel (film)

Could you explain how you saw a consensus to not move there? It's numerically 3:3, which would default to no consensus and I don't see any particular basis to give the opposing arguments more weight. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pppery, thanks for reaching out. As you know, consensus on Wikipedia isn't determined by a simple vote count but by the strength of arguments. In this case, the opposes provided convincing rationale. "Carousel (film)" serves as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as the page views for the 1956 film way exceed those of other films with the same name. Also, disambiguation conventions allow for partial disambiguation when the topic is highly dominant, which was well supported here. Although adding the year would offer clarity, this argument was subjective, not strongly address consistency. The statement as to disambiguate with "film" implies it's the only film called Carousel was also not compelling to override established primary topic. More input is welcome. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're approaching this totally wrong. consistency with what? The default position is to disambiguate fully. Partial disambiguation is an exceptional situation, and is widely agreed to require more than just being the primary topic (although how much more is subject to dispute). And there's a guideline explicitly saying not to use it for films. While sometimes individual discussions can produce consensus for an exception to a guideline, you can't create such a consensus out of an evenly-matched discussion.

And if you think, by your own words that More input is welcome, then why didn't you relist? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with other primary topic films which do not disambiguate entirely. This current requested move falls under that exceptional situation, and although WP:PRIMARYFILM does mention recommendation, it ultimately falls under consensus on whether to omit it or not. When I said more input is welcome, I was referring to my talk page. However, I do not discourage a move review. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November#Carousel (film) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Yovt! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Leagues Cup labeled map, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diff links in requested moves

Hey there, I really like that you linked the diff of the discussion in your request at WP:RM/TR. Next time, though, it'd be even better if you linked the diff of the discussion right after the close, instead of right before. (Putting this here since I've already removed the relevant entry at RM/TR.) Toadspike [Talk] 18:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I think what happened here was that this script had linked the diff before I closed. I appreciate you reaching out. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh...I didn't know about that script. I might try using it myself! Toadspike [Talk] 18:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Alvin and the Chipmunks into The Chipmunk Song (Christmas Don't Be Late). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Super Mario Bros. Movie

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Super Mario Bros. Movie 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 Ali Beary -- Ali Beary (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello! Hello, dear Wikipedian, how do you create a template for a contributor page? Thank you. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 2008 Wiki X (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 12#From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kline • talk • contribs 02:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge templates should be on article pages

Just a quick note to let you know that merge templates should be on article pages, and not on talk pages. I noted that you edited the talk page on Talk:History of Fox News. However, the template was correctly on the article, and shouldn't be on the talk page too (this makes maintainance lists unduly complicated); nowiki was there deliberately to stop the template working. So, templates on the article, discussion on the talk page; see WP:MERGEPROP Step 2. Klbrain (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) 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 1989 -- 1989 (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)

The article Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . 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:Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) and Talk:Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 1989 -- 1989 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 42 (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wendell Smith. 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) 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 42 (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 42 (film) 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 GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Pixels (2015 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pixels (2015 film) 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 Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Super Mario Bros. Movie

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Super Mario Bros. Movie 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 Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Super Mario Bros. Movie

The article The Super Mario Bros. Movie you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)

The article Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) for comments about the article, and Talk:Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)/GA2 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 1989 -- 1989 (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect I'll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda. 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/2025 January 21 § I'll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda. until a consensus is reached. Blethering Scot 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect I'll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda 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/2025 January 21 § I'll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda until a consensus is reached. Blethering Scot 21:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Yovt. Thank you for your work on Batman Rises. Another editor, Utopes, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

No mention of "Batman Rises".

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Utopes}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review how copyright works

Copyright means that one has to examine copyright at every level when dealing with creative works, not just who was the person who took a particular photograph. In this case, the Lego Movie film set is technically a sculpture, a creative work to which copyright automatically attaches by operation of law. The set was likely built as a work for hire for the production company that made the film, and then the right to depict it was licensed by that company to Warner Bros.

I deliberately uploaded my photo of the film set to the English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale and not Commons because I am not a Warner Bros. Entertainment employee. I do not have the power to license the right to depict the film set to the Wikimedia Foundation. It's obvious that the person who took that photo on Commons didn't have that power either, so that latter photo is going to have to be deleted. In the meantime, I've reverted your edit to The Lego Movie article. Coolcaesar (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Coolcaesar, thanks for bringing this up. The photo you speak of that you restored, File:Thelegomovieset.jpg, is indeed under a not free license and is thus required to have a lesser resolution. On the other hand, the clearer image I added (set to |thumb here) would be of more encyclopedic value. If you claim the image does not have the appropriate license, I suggest bringing this up to Commons along with the other images File:The Lego Movie movie set at legoland ca DSC 8563 (14501619997).jpg, File:The Lego Movie movie set at legoland ca DSC 8587 (14684885111).jpg, and File:The Lego Movie movie set at legoland ca DSC 8562 (14707951843).jpg to see if you can get consensus to delete those. If you cannot do so, I will restore the file I added previously. Thanks, 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Elephant_Man_(film)

Again you've closed a discussion as "not moved" in favor of partial disambiguation when there wasn't a consensus for that. This discussion has very similar numbers and arguments to Talk:Carousel (film) which was overturned to no consensus at move review, so "not moved" seems like it's really reaching. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, with all due respect, you did not even participate in the Elephant Man RM you mention. Neither of the participants there have reached out to me regarding the closure. Additionally, This discussion has very similar numbers and arguments to Talk:Carousel (film) seems like the reaching statement here. If I were you I would consider asking the participants of the Elephant RM if the closure was appropriate. I can give my own 2 cents as well, but I would rather inquire with the actual participants of the article renaming discussion in question. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not required to have participated in a discussion to challenge its closure. In this case I apparently missed the discussion until the page was added to WP:Partially disambiguated page names, which is on my watchlist - if I had participated I would have opposed. And dismissing my statement as reaching without more substance feels wrong.

Contrary to your claim, uninvolved users are actually better at assessing consensus than involved ones, which is why closers have to be uninvolved. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

uninvolved users are actually better at assessing consensus than involved ones Agree, that's why I closed the discussion.

If substance if what you're asking for then here it goes:

The nominator Tbhotch only cited the WP:NCF guideline
The sole supporter Erik noted ... unless there is preference to make the Lynch film the primary topic.
Supporters Station1 and Amakuru brought up page view comparison and WP:INCDAB as well as WP:CONLEVEL, claiming The Elephant Man (film) is the primary topic (with Station 1 proposing to move to The Elephant Man).

The supporting parties overall claim that there is preference to make the Lynch film the primary topic (thus Tbhotch's stance could have changed, maybe ask) due to contrasting statistical (pageviews) and broader-guideline (that being WP:INCDAB) perspectives. INCDAB states: In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic...

Overall, this discussion was rightfully closed as Not Moved because it just wasn't moved. If you still believe this wasn't a warranted closure, I would't recommend taking this to WP:MR without first discussing it with the RM participators, but that's really splitting hairs. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Move review/Log/2025 January#The Elephant Man (film). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the same request, so I'm glad someone else has already gotten to it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you (edit: solved)

Per the editorial discretion you gave, I merged Italian Ethiopia/Italian occupation of Ethiopia to Italian East Africa with a bold move; the two articles covered the same and the 1st was contained in (and derived from) the 2nd with copied content. Initially I did not realize it and very much misread your comment; I was changing it to "Ethiopia in Italian East Africa" for MoS:clarity to do the various administrative and infobox corrections noted by users in the talk page. I fixed this by abandoning the changes I was making and redirecting it to Italian East Africa. So basically I created an intermediate redirect page that was not needed, just to inform you. Barjimoa (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I fixed this by redirecting the previous ones to Italian East Africa and not to the intermediate one. Now it's fine.Barjimoa (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz

Hi, why did you revert my edit on the talk page of The Wizard of Oz? Jorge906 (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jorge, thank you for reaching out. On Wikipedia, one must be a significant contributor to what they wish to nominate for Good Article. Looking at the Top 50 authors list for The Wizard of Oz, you do not even appear, and GA requires the nominator to either be rank 5 or higher, or contact a significant contributor. In the event you make enough contributions to that article, or contact a significant contributor and have their permission to move forward, them you may nominate The Wizard of Oz. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

im on the top 50 for the Judy garland article Jorge906 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"What is wikipedia about" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect What is wikipedia about 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/2025 February 6 § What is wikipedia about until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I'm not intentionally following you, even though I've started 3 discussions about your actions in the last few weeks - this came to my attention via a report for titles created as a suffix of a salted title, not anything specific to you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Yovt! The thread you created at the Teahouse, "Combined footnote" help, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump began his second presidency by restoring biological truth to the federal government.

That's what you made the article say when you made this edit: Special:Diff/1276224026

Please check out the concept of WP:WIKIVOICE regarding such statements. There are things we can stay in own voice and things we can't. To say that Trump restored biological truth to the federal government, we would need a secondary source about how this event occurred, not on paper, not as an officially proclaimed aim, but as the physical truth, the ground truth, the truth about the shared reality. Sincerely—Alalch E. 23:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That's what you made the article say" sounds like the WIKIVOICE statement to me. To clear up, I piped Executive Order 14168 in there, whose full title was "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government"; the addition was per the titling. I understand my addition would seen not neutral, and believe a better addition may have been Trump began his second presidency by rolling back federal recognition of genders besides male and female, or something more concise; hmm... 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 03:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion would have worked. We don't even have to see it as a neutrality issue, because the statement fails already at verifiability. The statement "Trump began his second presidency by restoring biological truth to the federal government" is a statement of fact which is not verifiable. —Alalch E. 04:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork on México

Hi, old timer here. Thanks for supplying the ref for the president of Mexico. I'm contributing in my cell phone, and it's hard to copy and paste and format, etc. Uncle Ed (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and I find a smartphone editor with over 59k edits impressive. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Pixels (2015 film)

The article Pixels (2015 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pixels (2015 film) for comments about the article, and Talk:Pixels (2015 film)/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 Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Carl Azuz

Thank you for your help with Draft:Carl Azuz. The bit about Azuz’s genealogy comes from an interview with him from the homeschool curriculum company Sonlight. We know Azuz produced content for Sonlight, the video is from Sonlight, we know Azuz is in the video, therefore I feel like it is a quality source. The channel it was posted on has is an established account (joined YT in 2008) with over 8,000 subscribers and 600+ videos. I’m not sure how YouTube verification works, but that would appear legitimate to me. Pveclaire (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Jd v" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jd v 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/2025 February 26 § Jd v until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 42 (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Chapman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Knight page move

Hi Yovt! I noticed you closed the discussion for Heather Knight but moved the page Heather Knight to Heather Knight (disambiguation), but didn't move the article about the cricketer. I suggest you revert one of these moves or move Heather Knight (cricketer) to simply Heather Knight. Thank you. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Mt mc" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mt mc 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/2025 March 7 § Mt mc until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Mt ev" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mt ev 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/2025 March 7 § Mt ev until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

A redirect or redirects you have created 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/2025 March 18 § 0.99999.... until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael Jordans" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Michael Jordans 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/2025 March 18 § Michael Jordans until a consensus is reached. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Seven Days in Utopia

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Seven Days in Utopia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Islam box" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Islam box 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/2025 April 2 § Islam box until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 42 (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 42 (film) 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 Plifal -- Plifal (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of JD V

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on JD V, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
It is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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. —ADavidB 04:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: File:42 Reese-Robinson scene.png

Hello Yovt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:42 Reese-Robinson scene.png, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not qualify for F1 - images are not the same (differenrt frames). Thank you. Whpq (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I must have intended {{Db-f5}} instead, thank you. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 03:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of active arbitration remedies

I reverted this edit of yours here. Instead of posting a talk page message discussing your edit and waiting 24 hours from the time of the talk page message (see active arbitration remedies warning on the talk page), you repeated the edit, were reverted by a second editor and repeated the edit for a second time. Please self-revert. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it — sorry about that. I'll will make sure to use the talk page with the 24-hour wait in mind next time. Thanks for the heads-up. — 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 42 (film)

The article 42 (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:42 (film) for comments about the article, and Talk:42 (film)/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 Plifal -- Plifal (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Yovt! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Editing Wikipedia files, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you?

A few days ago I saw your message and considering your statements I added another topic called Disambiguation where I just added what does disambiguation means in my opinion. If you think I shouldn't've written *Goated Page Btw* You simply could've removed that part. I'm re-sending that part and Plz for the love of God do not remove it.

-XarftoneYT XarftoneYT (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello XarftoneYT, thanks for reaching out. The complete part you added to Talk:Disambiguation (disambiguation) is:

What I think about Disambiguation is When there is a specific topic that may lead to many results, Disambiguation helps it separating from getting confused.Disambiguatikn may also lead to many meanings.but this is the only Disambiguation meaning I know.

Your comment was removed because talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Besides errors, your personal opinion of the topic does not contribute to editing the article constructively. Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to better understand how to participate productively. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 04:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what is The Angler Fish contributing to the page? XarftoneYT (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It clarifies whether "disambiguation" could refer to Angler Fish reproduction. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 23:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade RM

Hi there. I saw your close at Talk:Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade § Requested move 10 February 2025 You wrote: Ultimately, neither side presented a clearly dominant policy-based argument ... However, supporters mentioned WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE. On the other hand, Davis being an All-NBA player is not directly a naming criteria (arguably more WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), and I don't see any other specific guidelines mentioned. Can you update the close rationale (if not the close)? Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the close rationale, if you would like to take a look at that, and I thank you as well. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 02:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yovt. Thanks you for the follow-up. I have a subsequent question on the portion of the close that reads "This discussion is too evenly split to warrant a change". The policy at Wikipedia:Consensus § In talk pages says:

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments ... and existing policies and guidelines
...
consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)

Similarly, WP:RMCIDC says:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

Multiple supporters of the move mentioned article title policies such as WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE, while opposers don't seem to mention any specific P&Gs. In that light, can you explain whether the discussion is still "too evenly split" for a move or not? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you need to clarify, I can certainly explain:

keep "Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade" - Both players are extremely notable. This trade is historical because two All-NBA players were traded midseason. Davis is a key piece in the trade, and the article should reflect the full context. It’s necessary to include both players in the title to maintain a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Namelessposter, Keep voters, and others emphasized the significance of Luka and AD.

change to "Luka Dončić trade" - Luka is the focal point of the trade, receiving most media attention. The trade has been widely discussed in the context of him being traded, and there’s a precedent in sports articles to highlight the headliner player. Duyneuzaenasagae, FunkyMonkey143, and others argued that the trade’s significance is more tied to Luka and his status.

Therefore, this discussion was quite close, and policy was not the only decisive factor. If a move review seems best to you, at least you know my rationale. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your time. I'd personally apply WP:NPOVNAME more, which doesn't imply that Davis necessarily needs to be in the title. But yes, I at least understand your angle better about "evenly split". Best regards. —Bagumba (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although it feels somewhat impolite to pop into a conversation uninvited, I want to state for the record that I did, in fact, collect several news articles supporting my position per WP:COMMONNAME, and contrary to what's been implied above, I have explicitly cited to policy. (You can ctrl+F for "Anyway, bringing this back to the actual discussion, per WP:COMMONNAME most of the reporters we've cited on this page have called it the Luka-AD trade or the Doncic-Davis trade"...) Bagumba may disagree with my interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME or downplay the sources I've collected, but "opposers don't seem to mention any specific P&Gs" is a stretch. The disagreement between me and Bagumba re: WP:YESPOV is essentially downstream of our disagreement about WP:COMMONNAME.

More broadly: I've always said that the best course of action is to wait to see if common usage decisively shifts towards a one-name discussion, which I don't think it has at present. And I've also said that I'm happy to reconsider my position if new sources are available that aren't specifically focused on the Mavericks. I agree with a close on the grounds of no consensus, without prejudice to resuming the discussion at a later time. Namelessposter (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Namelessposter: I should have more accurately wrote "opposers don't seem to mention many specific P&Gs", with the usual caveats about making generalized statements. No worries about butting in, nobody owns discussions here. And it's generally helpful that we all don't think alike, but it can make things spicy too. Happy editing. —Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, @Bagumba. Namelessposter (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Resolved

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saddam Hussein. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

~~Points to note:~~

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash Copying and pasting a warning template doesn't seem to be the best approach here. I made one revert (so it's not an edit war, and there are no plural reverts), which I hope you assume was in good faith. Okay, I didn't check the history of the article's infobox image, which seems to be at conflict, but I reverted because of an inadequate edit summary by Abo Yemen; I am in just as much confusion here. In any case, however, placing such a conspicuous warning on my talk page without good faith discussion isn't constructive, and I hope you don't do so to any other editor making a single revert, thank you. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I was dealing with repeated disruption and misread your revert as part of the same pattern. Appreciate your response and it's all good on my end. Skitash (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Photoshopped promotion image

Can you explain why you're using this image again after our previous discussion? TheWikiholic (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikiholic, I believe I did not participate in this "previous discussion", and was unfortunately unaware of this, believing this file was good to use since it's extracted from an image marked as "superseded". I suggest starting a deletion discussion on Commons to avoid any misunderstandings in the future, I appreciate you reaching out. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it later. I've reverted the changes on one page and recommend removing it from any other pages where it may have been added. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson stuff

I didnt change anything at all. I was surprised to find out i make a change in a page i didn't even read. Maybe my account was hacked. Gasybeaugosse2020 (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

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

— Wug·a·po·des 05:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]