User talk:Adumbrativus

Hi Adumbrativus! I noticed your contributions and wanted 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Neo-Jay (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It said: "The page could not be moved, for the following reason: / The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. / Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. / Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC

• Thanks for the clarification! I'm not sure exactly what the message means technically, but anyway, at worst someone will come along in a few days to handle the requested move. Adumbrativus (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I plan to undo your edits to the Schwarz function article, because they were not improvements, and fatally obscured the simple point of the article as written. Please reply here if you find this objectionable, instead of starting an edit war. Thanks! Eleuther (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eleuther, let's try to find points where we agree. To break it down, I made several changes:

1. To add a hatnote to Schwartz function.
2. To say what a Schwarz function is in the lead sentence rather than in the second paragraph.
3. To correct the fact that it was introduced in Davis and Pollak 1958, not in Davis 1974.
4. To clarify that, despite the name, Schwarz did not explicitly use the Schwarz function.
5. To include examples.
6. To add references.

Among these, what do you agree with and what do you disagree with? Reverting would seem to suggest that you disagree with everything, which I hope is not the case. Finally, I hope you don't disagree merely with the increase in the length of the article. Adumbrativus (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, very sorry, I withdraw my objections and have self-reverted my reversion. On my first two readings I couldn't get past the loss of readability from starting directly with technical language with no background or motivation. But hey, this is Wikipedia, so I shouldn't care about such things. Now that I've read it a few more times, I understand the issues better and would like to thank you for the contribution. In particular, I didn't know about the 1958 paper, which is obtuse of me, since it is cited in the book. I will now butt out and leave you to carry on as you see fit. Eleuther (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Adumbrativus (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider whether to bundle the very similar article Titanic prime at AfD. --JBL (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have proposed Titanic prime for deletion. --JBL (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leonhard Euler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harmonic series. 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) 06:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't undo moves with unanimous support because no one has gotten around to formally closing a discussion, a step which often takes an extremely long time. This is a complete waste of everyone's time, and you're far too inexperienced on Wikipedia to be effectively (if temporarily) thwarting consensus outcomes on a technicality. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear The Drover's Wife, I understand your concern and would like to clarify the reasons for my move. The move which I undid was Clive Palmer's United Australia Party → United Australia Party (2021). The chosen title "United Australia Party (2021)" had no support at the talk page. It may well be that "United Australia Party (2013)" has or will have consensus, but certainly "United Australia Party (2021)" did not have consensus. For these reasons, I undid the move. Lastly, I respect your concern about WP:BURO, and I hope this makes clear that I did not act merely for the sake of procedural formality. Adumbrativus (talk) 20:33, 3 September 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) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Megan (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 22#Megan (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkltalk 13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xinren Wang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yin Hang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adumbrativus, you need to close the RM discussion before moving a page. If not, other editors will assume the RM is still open. Judekkan (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judekkan, I moved and closed within one minute of each other. This is not like if I were to have moved and later closed after taking an hour to write a closing statement or something, which would be problematic and I wouldn't do. I imagine you are writing not because of theoretical concern for the editor who hypothetically might have seen the page during the less than one minute in between and hypothetically might have been confused about why the RM still seemed open, but because you in fact actually did see the page during the less than one minute in between and actually were confused, and for that I am sorry. Thanks, and I hope this addresses your concern. Adumbrativus (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Performing a move without closure can cause a technical issue with RMCD bot, causing the bot to resend notifications to the already-moved pages because the bot does not know the RM discussion is done. This issue is more noticeable on a multi-RM request. What I'm telling you is not hypoththetical, it's based on past-expereices. Judekkan (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't really thought about that aspect. So, if I understand it right, depending on how the timing lines up with RMCD bot's 15-minute cycle, the bot might post a second message on the other talk pages of a multi-move request, or, less commonly, WikiProjects. While this doesn't seem particularly consequential (the messages can be removed, and, in the case of talk pages, are on pages which would have appeared on watchlists anyway), it's not like I had a particularly strong reason to do it the other way either, so all things considered I will avoid it. Adumbrativus (talk) 00:13, 11 July 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Adumbrativus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adumbrativus. Thank you for your work on Tyler v. Hennepin County. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Megan (upcoming film) 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 February 27 § Megan (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adumbrativus. 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 a 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) 08:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Looks like we've both got an interest in keeping these relevant articles up to date as the games continue. I wanted to let you know that there are drafts for the Go at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's team and Go at the 2022 Asian Games – Women's team pages, if you're so inclined to work on them. The games are happening about 14 hours ahead of me, so I might be slow to update them. Thanks! DyinRich (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DyinRich, thanks for the friendly message! I'm happy to see your contributions on these go articles. I haven't been following the team competitions in the rounds so far, but in a pinch we could copy (translate) from zh:2022年亞洲運動會圍棋比賽 or it:Go ai XIX Giochi asiatici – Maschile a squadre / it:Go ai XIX Giochi asiatici – Femminile a squadre. Adumbrativus (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Hello! It may not be much, but thank you for finding Phyllis Gomda Hsi's Chinese name in the collapsed infobox. While it did get pointed out at the RFD discussion that Xi Mude was the Chinese name, you were a big help in finding it on the page and thusly justifying the redirect's existence. I didn't notice that spelling at all when I went by, and did a number of different searches to figure it out; yet, no luck. Thank you for sleuthing out that situation to help save a page! Utopes (talk / cont) 19:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Latin America Highland Games 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 October 9 § Latin America Highland Games until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:37, 9 October 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adumbrativus You can please check the move request. At page Maitraka time of seven days is completed, but any action has not yet been taken by any page mover. Would you like to see the request if possible.?103.138.222.164 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it hasn't yet been a full seven days (168 hours). (Sorry about sounding so bureaucratic!) Also, in ordinary circumstances there's no need to reach out to any individual editor seeking that a requested move be closed, as there are many editors who review the backlog. I'll decline to take action at this time. I wish you the best! Adumbrativus (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adumbrativus. Thank you for your work on Moyle v. United States. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dearest editor,
I saw the recent of my request at WP:RMTR here and I want to ask what to do next. I moved a page and wants it's revert though I have relisted the discussion at WP:RM. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: Hi, I believe I carried out the RMTR as requested. The page title is, at least for now, back at Mike Hall (musician). Let me know if I've misunderstood the request! Adumbrativus (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adumbrativus. Thank you for your work on Women's Guksu. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - editors are currently discussing the topic "Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes?", which you may be interested in. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#RfC: Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes?
Best wishes - 1RightSider (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Dirichlet L-function § On the article of Dirichlet L function

 – Adumbrativus (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre. Thank you. 122141510 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kyle McCord (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You said there was no consensus over moving Steve Miller (author) → Steve Miller (author, born 1967). However, note that we also have Steve Miller (science fiction writer). This is very clearly ambiguous, as "author" and "writer" mean exactly the same thing, and therefore needs disambiguating by any Wikipedia standard. This does not seem to have been picked up on by the opposers, who only focused on Stephen Miller (writer). Therefore, I think there was a consensus to move this article, and one was probably not needed in any case given the clear ambiguity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Necrothesp, I've made the change. I agree that the opposition was around whether there was enough ambiguity between this Steve Miller and Stephen Miller (writer), which distracted me from the argument of ambiguity between this Steve Miller and other Steve Millers. Sorry about the confusion and I hope the result is satisfactory now. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. 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 Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Adumbrativus,

It is our pleasure to invite you to join a study at the University of Minnesota! The objective of the study is to understand how large language models (LLMs) impact the collaborative knowledge production process, by investigating knowledge contributors’ interactions with LLMs in practice.

If you have used LLMs (e.g., GPT, Llama, Claude...) in the process of contributing to Wikipedia (eg. grammar check, finding resources, writing scripts...), we’d love to join the study! You will be engaging in a 45-60 min interview, talking and reflecting about your experience with Wikipedia and your perception/usage of LLMs in Wikipedia. Your valuable input will not only help us understand practical ways to incorporate LLMs into the knowledge production process, but also help us generate guardrails about these practices. All participation would be anonymous.

In addition, if you know any editor who may have used LLMs during their edits, we highly appreciate it if you could share their contact with us, as we can reach out to them.

To learn more, please feel free to start a chat with me in email or take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:How_LLMs_impact_knowledge_production_processes or direcly sign up: https://umn.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bqIjhNRg9Zqsuvs

Thank you so much for your time and consideration!

All the best, LLMs and knowledge production Research Team

Phoebezz22 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. for comments about the article, and Talk:Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc./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 Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is the risk of an edit war starting between 0-1 and 2-1. Am tempted to write 0(2)-1 with a note: "Ke Jie won once and forfeited twice, Byun Sang-il did not win any regular game".

Let me add that the score is a vector with potentially several components. For example the number of jigos. Also, that no definite score can be said to be a fact, since the Chinese Qiyuan does not recognize it. EiichiGo (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EiichiGo, first of all, a warm welcome back to Wikipedia! I appreciate your contributions. Regarding the LG Cup, the table should state the verifiable bottom line of who in fact was awarded with the wins, which is separate from views about the process which led to those wins being awarded. I am not saying that we should present the 2–1 result in isolation without additional context. Indeed, some other editors have added a footnote with some explanation. I invite you to edit that explanation. (I may also edit it at some point but have not gotten around to it. I think in the end it should be part of the main body of the article as a section or subsection rather than just a footnote.) I'm happy to discuss more about the handling of the content, at Talk:LG Cup (Go) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Go. Of course, IP editors and others also need to respect the need to communicate reasons and give acceptable sources, not just drive-by revert with no explanation. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:POSTNOM has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit your moves here. Something is still messed up, probably because the user who started this off started by first moving something to an article incorrectly named "... Edmonton transit..." with a small "t". "Edmonton Transit" is a proper name and should remain capitalized, and the LRT stations are simply one type of station. As it stands List of Edmonton Transit stations redirects to List of Edmonton LRT stations, and the content of List of Edmonton LRT stations includes the stations that are not LRT stations. It should be the other way around, as it started, with the list of all stations (including LRT stations) in List of Edmonton Transit stations, and List of Edmonton LRT stations redirecting to that article. Meters (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meters! Edmonton Olympics boldly added content to the page and changed the title. Then 162 etc., who apparently objects to the expanded scope, went to WP:RM/TR seeking to revert (Special:PermanentLink/1292088373#OA4). My role was just to perform the revert of the title change for now. I don't really have a personal position on the dispute at this time. The next step is for all interested editors to try to reach a consensus at the talk page. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute here. An new editor made a mistake. I would suggest that you actually need to look at what has been done before simply undoing part of a sequence of disruptive edits like that. You left the target article in a clearly incorrect state, and someone then deleted the extraneous information (about transit stations that are not LRT stations). So, now that information is not in Wikipedia at all now. It's going to be a real mess to fix now. Please revisit this and undo the move to the correct version. Meters (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One editor, Edmonton Olympics, wanted to add content about non-LRT stations and to rename the page accordingly. Another editor, 162 etc., opposed both the addition of that content (see Special:Diff/1292191683, reverting Special:Diff/1292045005/1292086745) and the renaming. Both are presumably good faith editors with logically coherent positions. That's a content dispute. I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's no dispute.

An editor who objects to a not-yet-stable undiscussed move may have it reverted to the status quo ante, and the move that was contested can only be done again after a RM discussion. Wikipedia:Requested moves makes this clear, consistent with ordinary principles of WP:BRD. Go to the talk page and have that discussion. Your request to unilaterally redo the contested move is declined. Adumbrativus (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking to unilaterally redo a contested move. I'm attempting to get the original incorrect move fixed. The move you undid was not the correct move. It was just the final step of a sequence of moves that should been contested all at once. Since you deal with page moves and were a participant in this, albeit well intentioned, I'm asking you to help fix this. If you are not willing to help fix this mess then please suggest how to go about this.

user:Edmonton Olympics, a disruptive editor (who is now blocked as a sock, by the way) moved the content of List of Edmonton Transit stations which included, but was not limited to LRT stations to List of Edmonton LRT stations. It was inappropriate, and was immediately challenged by user:162 etc.. You undid something, but not with the correct result, and I and I asked you to revisit this mere minutes after you made your action. Edmonton Olympics did some sort of a round robin move that involved a capitalization change before the final redirect change, and maybe something got lost in 162 etc.'s undo request, but the result is clearly wrong. The content about non-LRT stations ended up in the LRT station article, which before Edmonton Olympics' moves was just a redirect to the full list. Since then the content about non-LRT stations been deleted from List of Edmonton LRT stations (since it has nothing to do with LRT stations), and now the redirect resulting from Edmonton Olympics move of List of Edmonton Transit stations has been deleted as the creation of a sock. So, we have completely lost all of the information about non-LRT stations. How do we recover this, and the edit history? Meters (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're trying to fix thing to be they way they originally were. I don't think your story of the edit history is correct.

Before Edmonton Olympics's actions, there was only one article List of Edmonton LRT stations, and neither List of Edmonton Transit stations or List of Edmonton transit stationsList of Edmonton transit stations existed yet. First Edmonton Olympics moved the page to List of Edmonton Transit stations, then to List of Edmonton transit stations, and then another editor moved it back to List of Edmonton Transit stations. Next, Edmonton Olympics added content to the article, then-titled List of Edmonton Transit stations. Finally I moved the article back to List of Edmonton LRT stations. (Special:History/List of Edmonton LRT stations.)

All the content which Edmonton Olympics added remains viewable in history: Special:Diff/1292045005/1292086745. The diff I've linked is all the edits which were made to List of Edmonton Transit stations during the time when the page was located there. When a page is moved, its history moves with it (Wikipedia:Moving a page#Page_histories). When you look at the diff, note that what's displayed to you at the top is the current title, even though at the time of the edits the title was something else. (The software makes it confusing.) The history has not been lost.

An administrator has deleted List of Edmonton Transit stations, but the only edit history that's deleted is the history of the redirect left behind by a move, not the history of any actual content. If you really want to see that for yourself, I'm sure an admin would grant a request for undeletion. Other than that, all edit history remains visible. I hope this helps clear things up. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, something's wrong. When I looked at what the sock started was doing shortly after they started, there was an article that contain all of the transit stations, and the List of LRT stations was a redirect to that list. Now we have a list of just LRT stations, and the information on the stations that are not LRT stations is no longer on Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had an transit station list with an edit history showing it had been around for quite a while. If I'm wrong and that was the result of a move that I missed then I apologize for wasting your time. Meters (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is or was a transit station list located somewhere else? Non-admin actions can't make edit history be deleted, but it could be in some place that I didn't directly look at, or something else deleted as sock cleanup. I don't have more background familiarity about the content in this topic area, and you could still be right. In any event, sorry for my earlier misunderstanding about what you were looking for. I appreciate your effort and dedication. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the RM there on the false assumption that I am impersonating myself. I have about 20,000 edits and an editing history since 2013. The impersonator is CindereIIa157 - note two capital i s not two lower case L s as in Cinderella157, which is me. Please fix. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Adumbrativus, I might have opened an RM on this but I now see it was the imposter. My head hurts. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm just glad that things are cleared up! Adumbrativus (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your help moving the page - going by the fact it's been reverted, I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't uncontroversial as I first though so I've started a discussion at the talk page instead - see what the community consensus is :-) Fully understand you may not be interested in the subject, but thought it curteous to inform you regardless. Danners430 (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't have a clear opinion but I commented anyway for what it's worth. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Hockey Barnstar
		For all of your page moving and cleanup help in response to Talk:Stanley Cup Finals#RfC/RM on "Final" vs "Finals", thanks. Left guide (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]