This talk page is archived. To browse the archives, press "Show" and select the month of posts you want to view. 2020 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move, so it's leeky's turn – check back later! (last mover: CopperyMarrow15)

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I try to respond to people in a timely manner, but being onwiki is often a lot to juggle – so I keep an inbox list! My apologies if your message has been languishing for too long.

story · music · places

I liked your RfA comment! - Today I am happy about a singer on the Main page (at least for the first hours), after TFA the same day last year. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I made today's story I was sure Alfred Grosser would appear on RD today, which may happen or not but I go to bed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with the community's conclusion, thanks for doing your part to close the discussion based on consensus (that there was none). Buffs (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a good job! Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bon courage and Buffs! :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed that your essay "It's okay to be wrong" has been redlinked on your user page. I have found the page it was moved to, and it would be greatly appreciated if you could fix the link. Out of respect, I will not edit it myself. Thank you! 2003LN6 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2003 LN6: thanks for the heads-up! honestly, I think that one needs to go through the meat grinder and back if i'm gonna put a correct link there, but that really is something I should do someday :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to remove the two RfCs regarding reformatting discussions at RFA? As far as I could tell, although the civility discussion had concluded and been withdrawn, these other two discussions were still active and had not yet reached a consensus either for or against. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now I see that you did, in fact, intend to merge them onto a single page. Disregard my question! _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	WP:RFA2024. That's the barnstarn. I jest. I don't want to jinx anything, but to paraphrase a wise man, the very fact that we're still talking about RfA reform is promising. For getting this off the ground, enjoy this barnstar! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank ya, HouseBlaster! And backatcha – thanks for helping open the floodgates :) this is a chance to do something real, I hope. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this, I too hope that something can be done, even though my experience has left me a bit disillusioned with that process. Hopefully something good will come of this, though I personally doubt that anything substantial will be carried out. Either way, certainly a brilliant idea and maybe we will finally do a major change. The Night Watch (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initiative! Such a smart idea to go with trials for a phase I :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Femke! The Night Watch, I would also be pretty disillusioned if I sat in the seat of your RfA – I know the whimsy got beat out of me at my first RfA. But I'm optimstic that this could be the path to some real change for those who come after us :) good proposals doing well! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 23:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theleekycauldron. Several long-time users have protested against your block of Dicklyon, but I see you're defending it. In my opinion it's an unreasonable block for a fairly mild comment. I agree that Dicklyon's earlier attack on GoodDay was nasty, and I reproached Dicklyon for it at the time; perhaps I should have blocked. Anyway, subsequent to my comment, he got a block for it. A previous unacceptable comment, for which he has already been sanctioned (and has apologized), is not a good reason to block him for a comment about GoodDay being "obstructive". Please undo your block. Bishonen | tålk 10:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Per my comments just now at Dicklyon's talk page, I disagree. The block was a good one. Editors have the right to go to WP:RM/TR and argue that unilateral page moves contradicting previous closed RMs should be reversed pending a fresh RM, without having their motives questioned and aspersions cast against them for doing so. If someone has an issue with a particular editor, WP:AN/I is the place to air that, not a technical requests venue.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-blocked editor or blocking admin comment) The fact that several supporters users have appeared at their talk, must be unsurprising to say the least. Critics—perceived opponents—are surely liable to be accused of gravedancing or merely reverted. If the discussion was elsewhere, other opinions might be heard. AN or that other page, perhaps. Unfortunately they always say the right thing (e.g. this to Vanamonde93, or this to The Wordsmith, etc) and then do a complete reversement. That's what needs to be addressed. ——Serial 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that several supporters users have appeared at their talk, must be unsurprising to say the least." Bad-faith aspersion. "Critics—perceived opponents—are surely liable to be accused of gravedancing or merely reverted." Several "perceived opponents" have posted at Dicklyon's talk page. Their motives as well as their posts have been left alone. More bad-faith aspersions. Where is this admin's decorum-based sensitivity now? Primergrey (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Might I suggest, at the very least, posting this for review on AN? I wouldn't have placed this block, but I think it's an open question whether the community supports it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Amakuru; this is a totally reasonable block considering the circumstances. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur fully with this block. Dicklyon needs to stop making personal remarks about GoodDay, and evidently this lesson was not learned through the prior block. These capitalization disputes provoke a lot of controversy (with very little payoff in return). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen et al.: Goodness, quite the stir to wake up to :) first things first: I've read through the criticisms of my action carefully, and on the balance, I do still think that my block of Dicklyon was justified. Accusing another editor of acting in arbitrary bad faith in a forum not suited to process that claim is not constructive, and not something we should expect editors to deal with. Legitimate grievances about another editor's conduct should be posted in the appropriate place and manner such that it can be constructively actioned upon, not vented to the atmosphere. That said, my opinion is certainly not the end of the discussion. Vanamonde's suggestion of an AN review, for one, is a good idea. I might prefer to settle the matter out of court, as it were – if Dicklyon were to file an unblock request (ranging from an "actual innocence" appeal to reversal), I would be happy to consult with unblocking admin on shortening to time served. If a consensus can't be reached that way, an AN review would be appropriate. Alternatively, I'm considering shortening to 24 hours, whether an appeal is filed or not, but I'd rather the other option. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want all that action and consensus-building and consideration before going to AN, the block is likely to run out first. IMO the best and most straightforward thing would be to post there right away. Well, actually, the best thing would have been to post it to AN/ANI either before, or instead of, blocking; you must have known it was a pretty controversial block. Posting now is next best. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Filing another concur with the block. Again, this is the fourth time this year that he’s been blocked over something relating to the capitalization issues (whether PA, edit warring, or otherwise) - these blocks are the only way to forcefully tell him to cool down his actions. The Kip 23:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I had unilaterally moved Major League Baseball draft & American Football League draft (for two examples) to uppercase, instead of going the RM route. It (quite rightly) would've ruffled feathers & any editor would've (correctly) gotten such page moves reversed. So... I wen't the RM route & even though the results weren't what I had hoped for? at least the RM results exist. Now, should anybody go to those two pages & ask why are they're lower cased? Well, the RM results will help show why. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]