Archives (A talk page archive comprises 50 talk page sections.)

1, 2, 3

	Requested move barnstar
	Hi, even though I disagree with the overall outcome as the nominator, I really appreciate how you closed the RM at Talk:Falcon (comics) with a detailed consideration of all viewpoints and rationales. IronManCap (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IronManCap: Thank you, this means a lot to me! I attempted to render a decision that would be as fair, comprehensible and all-inclusive as possible. I'm sorry that it had to end this way, and that you had to wait almost 2 month for a closure. I personally would have even preferred your suggested title (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say that) but the opposers' reasoning had the upper hand in this RM; and I'm intentionally choosing the term "upper hand" instead of "prevailed", as it really was a narrow one. I only regret having closed it as "not moved" instead of "no consensus", since the literal definition of consensus is still "general agreement" and there was clearly no such thing here. Anyways, thanks for your feedback! Colonestarrice (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I am definitely satisfied with how you parsed the discussion, hence the barnstar. I think future discussions may be needed over the guidance at WP:NCCOMICS, not necessarily because the guidelines are failing but rather how to corroborate this guidance in line with general naming conventions and guidelines. For me, "not moved" and "no consensus" have the same weight btw, and I certainly have no issue with the closer "picking a side" if they provide a detailed rationale and evaluation of the discussion. Thanks, IronManCap (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool barnstar, I hadn't seen that one before! Just dropping by to say I also liked your close, which was steps above what I typically see from non-admin closers. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Following the deletion of hoax article, could you please restore the article in order to add it to this page. Thanks.--Renvoy (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Renvoy:, I believe you meant to write to User:Geschichte, the deleting administrator. I just supported your nomination and I'm not an admin. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you`re indeed right, sorry--Renvoy (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you saw I started a new thread in VP:Policy and you linked to an existing discussion over at WT:ANRFC. However, I think the discussion should probably be moved to VP with a collapsed mention of the existing text in WT:ANRFC as I feel the discussion might be better suited to happen in VP:Policy. What is your opinion? Also pinging The Gnome. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm OK either way but whatever is going to happen must happen a.s.a.p. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll leave that up to y'all as I am not familiar with the process of solving issues like these. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Useful links:

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

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colonestarrice,

Just a reminder for any page move you do, don't forget the article redirects AND the article redirect talk pages. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your incorrect close of the request to move Horndon-on-the-Hill to Horndon on the Hill. Your closure remark claimed it to be uncontested, but that is plainly untrue - I contested it with my remark that was moved to the talk page. See also my comment higher up the talk page in the section headed "Untitled". Thanks. --188.30.193.10 (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC) (previously 188.30.212.32)[reply]

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --188.30.193.10 (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sebastian Kurz 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 Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sebastian Kurz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sebastian Kurz for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Colonestarrice (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Colonestarrice! The list you nominated, List of chancellors of Austria, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Colonestarrice. I'm just posting to let you know that List of chancellors of Austria – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 29. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Supreme Court of Justice (Austria) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are unreferenced sections which would be a quickfail, since we have had prompt communications lately, I thought I'd give you a headsup first in case you can fix them Mujinga (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Supreme Court of Justice (Austria) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Supreme Court of Justice (Austria) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Director of Public Prosecutions (England and Wales), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Maule.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Colonestarrice! I just wanted to say that, as most SPI clerks and people involved with SPI will confirm, this is rarely a good idea. The effectivity of many SPI investigations involving LTAs depend on the LTA in question being blissfully unaware of the nature or even the existence of SPI. You may have just alerted a sockmaster who has been very easy to trace for more than a year now.

On the other hand, it's very rare for someone falsely suspected of sockpuppetry to successfully state something in their own defense, precisely because most users don't understand what's relevant for SPI and what not. The best defense really is to let those who are experienced with SPI do their work. If the evidence is not there, users will in the great majority of cases not be blocked: as elsewhere on WP, AGF is a very important principle in SPI.

In the rare event that someone does get blocked for sockpuppetry they did not commit, they can appeal by e-mail to arbcom where they can freely discuss off-wiki evidence (arbs also have CU permissions). Another reason why it is much better that way is that users defending themselves from accusations of sockpuppetry tend to out themselves, which they may later regret.

Let me also note that Wareno should not have mentioned sockpuppetry on the article talk page ([1]) in the first place. Don't alert possible sockmasters, don't accuse editors of sockpuppetry outside of SPI.

Thanks for taking this into consideration. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to e-mail me. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Apaugasma:,

and thanks for the advice. Though I believe anyone has the right to be informed if they're being investigated, I'm not overly familiar with the SPI process, so if you tell me delivering such notices is suboptimal, I'll take it to heart. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect King of the United Kingdom 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 July 30 § King of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. . This listing also covers Queen of the United Kingdom. You are being notified because you have contributed to one or both of these pages in the past by changing or setting the redirect target. Thank you! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]