Dingolover6969

Extended content

🫥This user prefers not to have a user page.

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Dingolover6969. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 09:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Terror (TV series

A tag has been placed on The Terror (TV series requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Big Floppa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gosha. 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) 05:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Dracula

Hey! I just wanted to say I reverted most of your edits on the article per the sources available. You mention a 1993 DVD (?) for your source, but The film was only released on VHS by that time, can you tell me some specifics? I've removed the Spanish-language part of the lead, as I feel the second paragraph in the lead explains the Spanish-language situation a bit better for unfamiliar readers. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure! After I submitted that edit note, I realized that I typo'd the date on the DVD. I just have a regular DVD copy from the year the DVD release was made (or, presumably, a re-release of that same content from a later year)--I can double-check the date on the box later.

There is possibly a deeper issue that I don't know how to deal with: I have no way to verify that the cast title card of the DVD is equivalent (ie, has the character name "Drácula" spelled the same way) to the title card of the original theatrical release of the spanish-language Dracula. In fact, the copyright notice is on that card, and that's when I noticed the copyright notice was from the '90s instead of the '30s, in the first place. I don't know how relevant that is, or how worried I should be about it. I wouldn't want to contribute to revisionist history about how to spell spanish Dracula's name, but if his name really has had an accent mark in it the whole time, it would be good to include that detail on the page. The sources are mixed about this, and I don't think any make definitive statements on the matter. It's very common for English language sources to simply drop accent marks out of names for typographical convenience; similarly, it would be quite possible for someone with a familiarity with the Spanish language to simply add an accent mark to the appropriate place once they had heard the pronunciation of "Dracula" in the film; so I don't think either the sources with or without accents in Dracula's name are definitive proof of anything. But the DVD having an accent on Drácula's name is pretty suggestive.

A similar worry also applies to other character names, although less so... I find it difficult to believe that the film would in dialogue refer to a character as "Lucía Westron", as this film does, but refer to her character name officially as "Lucy Westerna" on a title card or elsewhere; I find it far more likely that when and if a secondary source refers to this character as "Lucy Westerna", they are speaking metonymically, as Lucía Westron is based on Lucy Westenra.

Regarding the title of the film, however, I think it's pretty clear in any case that the lede should include ", also called Drácula,", because a fair number of the sources already cited on the page use that title, and Wikipedia usually lists not only the most common or official title for something but also any other common names for it.

Moving about the qualification / explanation of Spanish-language is fine by me; I thought perhaps it should be in the first sentence because it's one of the features that most usefully distinguishes it from the other Dracula film of the same year, but I don't have very strong feelings about it.

Those are all my thoughts, of both immediate and questionable usefulness :). Perhaps I should have put these on the page's talk page. I would be happy to hear any thoughts you have on these subjects, as well. Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Checking now, I find that my DVD box ("Universal Studios Classic Monster Collection: Dracula", online listings available on Amazon and DVDs 'n such) lists copyright 1931, 1999. The opening title card ('Carl Laemmle presenta "Dracula"', etc) lists a copyright of 1992. (The copyright text doesn't flicker slightly like the main text, and is in a different font, suggesting it's been superimposed on the original title card—although, we already knew this.) Presumably the 1992 copyright is from the 1992, which was used for the VHS version and later this DVD version, and the 1999 copyright is for the DVD release itself. Hope that clears that up! Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Code2000 update

James Kass requested update even further, and you still do not know it:

HOWTO: https://www.code2001.com/Code2000_Wikipedia_update.txt

REQUEST: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code2000&oldid=1055684985#Updated_information

Please fulfill his request on this editprotected page, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.156.111 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, thanks for bringing this to my attention. However, I am not involved involved enough with the page's unique history and context to feel able to resolve the situation confidently. Good luck! Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way for James to make information available to Wikipedia would be to talk to some publications, such as, uh, typography and computing magazines(?), which could then publish the information, which Wikipedia could then cite. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you placed in Code2000 fake link to fake impostor website, while real homepage of James is here: https://www.code2001.com Please fix these lies, ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.156.111 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Look, fonts are developed through end of 2022 year, even into having NEW Code2003 font in its family: https://www.code2001.com/#dn And now Wikipedia still cites some fraudster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.156.111 (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, you know, yeah, I should do something about that. I will do so in a while. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if all other wikis Wikidata:Q1105549 already updated their Code2000 articles, leading English wiki still is obsolete in regard to it. How long will take this "while" in article link update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.156.111 (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, probably a couple days so I can cross-reference the sites and see what's up. I should be done in no more than a week, if I figure out what to do at all. I've removed the reference to the imposter current code2000.net to tide you over ;) Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, I put in a link to code2001.com because it's a good website, and removed the link to code2000.net because it's a bad website, but I didn't do any of the other proposed changes mostly because I can't vet the information about fonts (ie, presumably the font file itself is a fine source about whether it supports, say Balinese script, but it would be painstaking for me personally to verify this). I decided this almost immediately, but waited to see if I changed my mind about it—I have not. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dracula (1931 Spanish-language film) credits (from DVD).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dracula (1931 Spanish-language film) credits (from DVD).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine. I assume no one will see this message so I'm mostly making it as a note to my future self: This was expected and proper. Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Andre🚐 04:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Andre🚐 04:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) (Note, I see you did an leave an edit summary but you still removed sourced content and your reasoning wasn't valid, thanks.)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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)

Proposed deletion of Book of Lamentations (Kriss)

Hello, Dingolover6969

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Justiyaya, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Book of Lamentations (Kriss), for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Justiyaya}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Justiyaya 08:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Solitaire (solitaire)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Solitaire (solitaire) 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 5 § Solitaire (solitaire) until a consensus is reached. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Script forms of letters

When you are adding material about the mathematical lettering, you really should explain it because the vast majority of readers don't understand the details. I suggest you use something like this:

script letter P (uppercase and lowercase, respectively), used in mathematics. (In other contexts, a script typeface (or computer font) should be used.)

You are doing a lot of these and you shouldn't leave it to other editors to add the clarification. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Dingolover6969 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alt

Template:Alt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Textblock for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Textblock 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/Textblock 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.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Binary file, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bits.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Doh! Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Note to self

I do a lot of {{unichar|XXXX|html=|nlink=}}. Possibly I could create a template Template:Unic as a shorthand for this? That seems like a really easy case for a template. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

"U+205E" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect U+205E 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 May 27 § U+205E until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Canonical name in unichar calls

For many people, having the name in the call is a useful mnemonic. So, even though it is no longer used by the template, it does no harm (even if it is wrong). So IMO it best to let existing usages stand (like you didn't at pilcrow). Feel free to disagree. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Eh, sure, might as well. Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on The Capitalist Manifesto (Norberg book)

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

• A 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) 13:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blue Öyster Cult, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Umlautadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

So true Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Template:Nota bene, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Artbook for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Artbook 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/Artbook 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.

11WB (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Wen

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 Template:Wen 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, such as at Articles for deletion. 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. Gonnym (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Just what is the point?

I think we have another chicken/egg situation with our articles on points and picas. If your reading turns up some solid evidence, it would be good to improve them. And Traditional point-size names is a bit of a mess too. I will keep an eye out too but I don't have any resources to hand. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable conclusion. I also have no resources to hand, and I'm unlikely to do any research on the matter. If I were to spend time researching, it would be the on the interpunct 🙂 Dingolover6969 (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Your RFC

It might be a good idea to add a note to explain that Word divider will be one of the concepts in the broad concept, not wp:CFORK? Maybe append to your last reply, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, well, if you think it's not clear perhaps I should. I really mean the opposite of what you've written here, though, I think. I intend that Word divider will be its own page, covering every word divider, and medial point (or whatever) will cover every dotmark. Naturally, to avoid WP:CFORK on the obvious overlap (dotmarks used as word dividers), one or the other of these pages will just have a short mention of this and link to the more expansive treatment on the other page. Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Please do not add unsourced content to an article when you know a citation should be provided. Far better to add it to the Talk page asking whether anyone can provide a source, at which point it can be added to the article. DonIago (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Based on context clues, I assume your message is regarding this diff, which means that your objection is slightly misphrased (and perhaps was sourced from a generic message). But, I understand the meaning that you intend. Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Jujutsu Kaisen (TV series). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

RfD terminology

Re this edit summary, yes "refine" means changing a redirect to point to a different section of the same page it currently targets (most commonly when there isn't a section link at present) while "retarget" is used for changing a redirect to point to a different page (although it does sometimes get used as a synonym of "refine"). It's very unlikely though that someone will misunderstand if you use the wrong word and will explicitly seek clarification if your meaning is unclear so don't worry about it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding whether to link "Soviet Union" in the "early years" section of Lena Katina's article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Lena Katina".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion discussion formatting

Hi! When commenting on a deletion discussion, like at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_June_16#Sexs, it's generally more convenient for the closer if you use a bolded !vote at the same level of indentation as everyone else, rather than replying to another commenter. In this case, you might have instead said "*Retarget to Biological sex per BDD." Not a huge deal, but makes my life as a closer easier when I'm trying to do an first-pass evaluation of the consensus. Rusalkii (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take it under advisement. Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

MOS:CURLY

The reason why I had switched to section links here is because footnote [h] (As per MOS:CURLY…) is used in the section and elsewhere in the style guide, which leads to an odd case of circular linking when clicking on the link while reading that section. Any ideas how we can improve this? ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You know, @Oklopfer, you're right, and I didn't consider this predicament fully enough the first time. There's also the interesting situation we're in that the footnote says "As per MOS:CURLY, curly quotation marks and apostrophes are deprecated on the English Wikipedia because straight quotation marks and apostrophes are easier to type reliably on most platforms." but the only support for that latter half of that footnote is... the footnote in MOS:CURLY. Actually I'm not even sure that makes any sense as a justification, given that we like to use correct characters like {{prime}} even though they are not as "eas[y] to type reliably on most platforms". Anyway, this gives me an idea:

Idea 1:

move the latter half to MOS:CURLY itself and stop using the footnote in MOS:CURLY. So the footnote would read "As per MOS:CURLY, curly quotation marks and curly apostrophes are deprecated on the English Wikipedia." and MOS:CURLY would read "Use "straight" quotation marks, not “curly” ones. (For single-apostrophe quotes: 'straight', not ‘curly’.) Curly quotation marks and curly apostrophes are deprecated on the English Wikipedia because straight quotation marks and apostrophes are easier to type reliably on most platforms."

Idea 2 (in addition):

Perhaps the bit about apostrophes in that verbiage could be split out into the apostrophe section itself.

Idea 3 (following on the other two):

It could also make sense to just remove this footnote altogether. What is it really adding? If we say in MOS:CURLY why curly quotes are discouraged, and in MOS:' why curly apostrophes are discouraged, the only other use of the footnote is in Whenever quotation marks or apostrophe-like variants appear, add a redirect for the same title using apostrophes. It's not even clear to me that this is the right thing to say here. Shouldn't this just be "in case a user tries to access the page using the common apostrophe"? Or maybe this footnote is trying to tell you to use a straight apostrophe when doing this, in which case we could just say that? Dingolover6969 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The footnote reasoning doesn't really seem like it belongs in MOS:CURLY, it is mostly for the redirect titling. There is probably a better way to describe that though, along the lines of "Straight quotes and apostrophes are more accessible for linking, so alternates with those should be created." CURLY is about a different aspect of formatting and has overlapping reasoning, but it doesn't explain itself well, and I think the footnote is trying to do double duty to cover that base. We could improve both the footnote and MOS:' & CURLY's explicit reasoning. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Dingolover6969 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Waw

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Waw, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

G2 is "Test pages This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself, pages in the user namespace, or valid but unused or duplicate templates." which would not apply to that template. The template was even in use on Wikipedia, last I checked, which makes the misclassification odd. Alas, it was deleted a couple of minutes ago — very speedy. I guess the easiest way for me to contact the deleting administrator about this is to end this message with @CoconutOctopus Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I deleted the template as the only content it contained was {{{1}}} and it had not been edited in a day. This appears, to me, as a test or error. I apologise if that was not your intention; I suggest creating the template in your sandbox and moving it to template space when it is ready for use. CoconutOctopus talk 17:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The template had no transclusions when I tagged it. If you create a template, a good way to avoid it being tagged by other editors is to follow the template guidelines, specifically creating documentation, adding a template category, and naming the template so that the template function [is] clear from the template name. Also, check to see if the function you want is already available in another template, in this case {{Yesitalic}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Donkey. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Bro, you reverted me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother templating you back, because I'm not a child, but I'm amazed at the audacity of using one that says "you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree". You reverted my change that answered a citation challenge. You obviously must know I think the content belongs on the page! And yet you chose not to collaborate on it. Dingolover6969 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

And, by the way, I think it's perfectly fine, no harm no fuss, to have a small discussion via the edit history of reverts instead of the talk page — as apparently you also believed, until about 15 minutes ago. Dingolover6969 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I was about to template you, when I see that you have already been templated. You're edit warring. Cut it out. Tarl N. (discuss) 08:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)