This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.
This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.
If my main talk is protected due to vandalism, please leave comments here.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Hi, sorry for tag bombing your new article, I was just looking at new articles in recent changes, and noticed that yours didn't have any sources, so I naturally gave it the unreferenced tag. Apologies about that. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I understand what you're doing, but some editors find it grating to have tags applied when they're in the middle of editing a page (since it can cause edit conflicts). I also don't see a lot of value in simply tagging articles for the sake of tagging them; I'd just as soon solve the problem if I can. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll keep this in mind. Thanks. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia policies, so I'll be a bit more careful in the future. Have a nice day (or night). RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and yeah, I had seen on your userpage you started editing just last year - I'm not a whole lot from 20 years (so I probably ought to keep in mind that not everyone has been around even half that long). Mid-afternoon here, so a nice day is still in the cards, and the same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. It was done in good faith. I didn't see how I was making it less precise or harder to edit. I have been chided by many admins in the past on leaving refs stacked like that. Boo Boo (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk page - "I didn't see how it hurt. Had been taken to task for leaving refs stacked like that. It was done in good faith, and I've never been criticized for putting it in this style. When I edit pages, it is the style I was told to use by admins. The parentheses are to make it more conforming to Chicago MoS. I HAVE been criticized for leaving it in the tsyle it is now, HOWEVER, since you object and are taking ownership of the article, I'll leave it. Take care and have a good weekend. Boo Boo (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)"[reply]
Nerts! I went back and looked at the reversions I missed on this article. I missed your comments. Sorry, again, done in good faith. Boo Boo (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge deal - I was probably more frustrated with IRL stuff anyway - I'm sorry if I came off angry. No harm done, have a nice weekend. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supermarine Spitfire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
