Nurg

Failed verification

Hi, your last edit on HighWire Press removed a claim on the grounds that it failed verification, but the claim was already given in the page that was cited: https://www.highwirepress.com/about-us says "over 3000 journals, books, reference works, and proceedings." They used to have a great big list of journals and books, but I don't see it anymore. Is that why you believe the claim fails verification? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The claim was "HighWire Press hosts the largest repository of peer-reviewed content, with over 3500 journals from scholarly publishers". If they now say their platform "supports over 3000 journals, books, reference works, and proceedings", it sounds like it no longer hosts over 3500 journals (excluding other works). Some publishers have left HighWire in recent times, so I believe the number is dropping. Also, the claim to be the largest repository of peer-reviewed content needs a reference, preferably an independent one. By the way, the page cited was https://highwirepress.com, not https://www.highwirepress.com/about-us. I certainly have no objection to reliably sourced, up-to-date info about their scope being added, but as more publishers leave, it is a changing figure. Nurg (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Premier House

Hi Nurg, I was taught a comma was superfluous before a conjunction. Were you taught different? This is a genuine question. I do on occasion remove a lot of commas from some additions to Wikipedia. I guess it depends on usages in the author's home region. This being my home region I thought i'd better ask. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think a comma is sometimes good before a conjunction, and sometimes superfluous. And you're right, there are different styles. Can you quote the bit of the sentence(s) where you think one is superfluous, and I'll see if I agree with you. Nurg (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you? You have provided perfect examples of what I am er, commenting on. You must speak this way, is that right? Very awkward. Eddaido (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Take care when adding categories to templates

I noticed you added Category:Article talk header templates to {{Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand}}. Please be sure to wrap categories on templates in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags to prevent pages transcluding the template from being categorized (see Wikipedia:Categorization § Template categorization for more details). I've wrapped it in the tags. Happy wiki editing! e^πi (talk | contribs) 15:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Move 'Red Gum' to 'Red gum'

I have requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests that the disambiguation page Red Gum be moved to Red gum, as most of the pages disambiguated are not proper names requiring Upper Case. I assume this is uncontroversial, but if you object for any reason, you can move the request to the 'Controversial requests' section. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

2011 earthquakes

Don't worry Nurg, it doesn't take much to confuse me. Mikenorton (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyages

Hi. I would like to start contributing to Wikivoyages pages related to Malta. Any handy tips before I start tackling the process? Thanks for your time. Angie Balzan (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:Angie Balzan. Nurg (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Nurg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— -gadfium 03:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Nurg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Mangatainoka River Seventy Mile Bush

@Nurg: Puzzled by your recent edit. What is your thinking behind it? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I edited several parts of it. Which particular bits are you puzzled by? Nurg (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You were so fast I didn't see your response.

Aside from your stilted re-phrasing of my English in the two related items you changed the caption to "The Mangatainoka River within Seventy Mile Bush" and I was wondering why you did that. I mean you thought it was a good idea? Why? Its misleading. Eddaido (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

And besides the Tui Brewery is the brewery that was put there - you are adding misinformation with "now the . . ". Eddaido (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling from Mangatainoko to Mangatainoka in the caption. Other than that, would you prefer reverting to a comma in the caption, i.e. "The Mangatainoka River, Seventy Mile Bush"?

When the brewery was established in 1889, it was not called the Tui Brewery. According to some accounts, it was called the Wagstaff Brewery. At some point quite early on it was named the "North Island Brewery". It appears it was not named the Tui Brewery until 1922 or 1923, the name being taken from its Tui brand beer, which it had brewed since at least 1907. Nurg (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand districts

I have produced a list of districts in New Zealand that don't have articles here at User:Crouch, Swale/New Zealand districts. Similar to User:Crouch, Swale/District split it might be possible to add more details about the merits of splitting such as when formed, other settlements and relative population/area to settlement. @Schwede66: who also participated in the Commons CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

my subscription

One very quick message -- trouble, sometimes, arguing my personal problem and the same problem that other people are having. I've been blocked. That's okay. In fact, it subtracts one obligation from my huge pile of computer stuff. I wanted to ask about everybody else out there -- usernames, subscriptions, non-delivery, etc etc. 204.62.72.218 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not experiencing any problem. Nurg (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Te Ao Maori" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Te Ao Maori. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#Te Ao Maori until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Kia ora Nurg, as the only (human) editor of this redirect up until now I figured it'd be worth reaching out to you. Mainly wanting to have a chat about whether Māori people is the best target given that te ao Māori is a bit distinct from the people, but I've got more info on the Rfd page if you feel like checking it out. Turnagra (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

---

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Sovereign Individual

Hello, on 3 July you edited the article for The Sovereign Individual by adding a "Self-contradictory" template referring to the talk page for further discussion. Yet, you have not written anything to the talk page. Could you please specify, asap on the talk page, what you mean by the article being "Self-contradictory", please? Thank you. Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the issue. Sorry for the disturbance I may have caused, I didn't understand the reason why you had added the template in the first place, but I figured out that it was a problem with the dates and I have fixed the issue accordingly. No need to write on the talk page. Have a good day. --Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Surname categories

Hello, Nurg,

I hope 2023 is starting off well for you. I just wanted to suggest that rather than emptying out categories, please consider nominating them for consideration for deletion, merger or renaming at Categories for Discussion. There happen to be a number of surname categories being discussed recently and since categories exist in a hierarchy, it can be helpful to consider changing them as a group rather than dealing with them category-by-category. Thank you and please have a pleasant weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Comment noted. I also note though, there's a difference between removing pages that are miscategorised (which may result in an empty cat) versus removing articles that are categorised ok but the category itself is questionable. I have been dealing with the 1st case. I'm yet to deal with the 2nd case, where I would proceed as you suggest. Nurg (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Support for improving Draft:Jason Connor

Hi, thanks for helping out with the draft article. I have provided some support to User:6fourcollective to help with improvements to Draft:Jason Connor, and to explain licensing issues wih photos. See our exchanges on the talk page User talk:6fourcollective. I think that with time and effort, this user will be able to get the article to a stage where it can be accepted, but it has a way to go at present. Please chip in if you wish. :) Marshelec (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't looked at the article very closely and don't really have an opinion on it. I've just done some slapdash improvements to help out a bit. Nurg (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Cranbrie

Hey mate, I saw that your requested entry on Wiktionary was deleted by mistake along with the others, so I found citations for it. I also wrote an entry, but I am unable to submit it because I am banned over there for using the same VPN as someone else.

==English== ===Etymology=== {{blend|en|cranberry|brie}} ===Pronunciation=== * {{IPA|en|/ˈkræn.bɹiː/}} ===Noun=== {{en-noun|-}} # [[brie|Brie]] and [[cranberry sauce]] or cranberries as ingredients in a foodstuff. #* {{quote-book|en|author=Albert Le Roy Bartlett|chapter=|editor=|title=Some Memories of Old Haverhill in Massachusetts|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8TaPjJFVYWEC|archiveurl=|archivedate=|edition=|publisher=Library of Congress|date=December 31, 1915|isbn=9780331955774|volume=|page=79|text=Then came turkeys, pigeons and geese, bisket and oranges, ‘Mince pye,’ ‘'''cranbrie''' tart and fine pudding,’ with no end of ‘sparrib.’ On another occasion there are sent from ‘Mrs. Ayer, lady of ancient Deacon, a cheese new, part of an old cheese, and Diet Bread to assist in the entertainment of our quilters,’ while again, generous soul, she is credited with ‘cabbage, spare-rib, chop of Bacon, Turnips, small legg of Pork,’ and still again, ‘Half old sheep.’}} #* {{quote-journal|en|author=Barker's Fruit|title=BARKER'S Newsletter|work=BarkersFruit.biz|via=Yumpu.com|url=https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/26255511/barkers-newsletter-barkersfruitbiz|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230518011640/https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/26255511/barkers-newsletter-barkersfruitbiz|archivedate=May 18, 2023|format=|publisher=|date=May 7, 2014|accessdate=May 17, 2023|text=Chicken & '''Cranbrie''' Pizza. INGREDIENTS: 1 pre-made pizza base. 1 tbsp (heaped) cream cheese. ¼ cup BARKER'S Cranberry Sauce. 150g smoked chicken breast (sliced). 90g brie (sliced). ½ cup mozzarella cheese. swirl BARKER's cranberry sauce.}} #* {{quote-journal|en|author=West Coast Messenger|title=23 November 2016|via=Issuu.com|url=https://issuu.com/westcoastmessenger/docs/west_coast_messenger_23_november_20|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230224224301/https://issuu.com/westcoastmessenger/docs/west_coast_messenger_23_november_20|archivedate=February 24, 2023|format=|work=West Coast Messenger|date=November 29, 2016|accessdate=May 17, 2023|text=Jumbo Gourmet Pizzas available in three flavours – Chicken '''Cranbrie''', Hawaiian and Meat Lovers.}} #* {{quote-journal|en|author=Nowshin Chowdhury|title=Thanksgiving for one: Spare the turkey and feast for days|url=https://www.cortlandstandard.com/stories/thanksgiving-for-one,22057|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20221126182324/https://www.cortlandstandard.com/stories/thanksgiving-for-one,22057|archivedate=November 26, 2022|format=|work=Cortland Standard|date=November 23, 2022|accessdate=May 17, 2023|text=An abnormal Thanksgiving spread of chicken pot pie, corn casserole, green beans and eggs, '''cranbrie''' biscuits and fruit custard from 2020.}} #* {{seemoreCites|en}}

Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Want to help expand?

Hi!

I’ve recently created the article 9th Strategic Reserve Corps. If you’re interested, I’d welcome help expanding or improving it.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Parentheses around zoological authority

Thanks for taking care of the speciesbox on Waitaha penguin. I saw your question in the edit history. Author citation (zoology) - in the Ranks matters section - says, “The parentheses around the author citation indicate that this was not the original taxonomic placement.” So it would seem that you ought to include parentheses around the authority for Megadyptes antipodes waitaha. Important note: All of the relevant examples in Author citation (zoology) involve moving a species to a different genus. I’m just presuming that the rule would be similar for lower-level taxonomic changes. Columbianmammoth (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I have added parentheses in the taxobox. Nurg (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

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) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

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) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Subsection name

Hi. Following your edit here to Franklin Bulls altering the subsection name of "The Start of something new coming straight out of Pukekohe" to "Establishment", it has since been changed back to a non-neutral tone [1]. Are you able to contribute again or revert the change? Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't do anything right now, but I will see. Nurg (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2024 Kīngitanga election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 Kīngitanga election, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Kīngitanga election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Māori King movement

Hello Nurg, I have seen you removed my most recent edit on Māori King movement. However, I see nothing wrong with removing the template that appears outside the citation and the page number is already included in the ref. Rynoip (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. The page number for this ref is 112, but the page number in the citation is 126. But this referencing is not done well, so I will make it better. I should have time to do this very soon. Nurg (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I have done it. Nurg (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I thought the page number was already added but anyways thanks for fixing it. Rynoip (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

New Zealand First

Hi Nurg, thanks for the idea behind Special:Diff/1286345759, but if you revert, please make sure to have (and to provide) a reason beyond the edit warring itself, as edit warring is obviously not an excuse for joining and you can't enforce a stable revision. Instead, if the only reason for taking action is that people are edit warring, please discuss, invite to discussions or report at WP:ANEW instead. Thanks and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree. Thanks for the comment. It seemed to me a common-sense idea to revert to a pre-war stable revision while the discussion was going on, but if I have gone against consensus practice (unknowingly), feel free to revert my revert. Any pointers to guidelines about not enforcing a stable revision are welcome for my ongoing education. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Reverting you would be equally bad unless you chose a really unsuitable revision. The perceived common sense idea is broken by the lack of protection. While WP:PREFER exists, it's for administrators; there is no policy-based reason for restoring a stable revision as a non-administrator, and joining edit wars is usually not a good idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I even found explicit advice against the idea, which is Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting. at Wikipedia:Edit warring § Handling of edit-warring behaviors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You said "there is no policy-based reason for restoring a stable revision as a non-administrator", but is there a policy-based reason for not restoring a stable revision? Regarding joining the edit war, I did not think of myself as doing that, but maybe there is a policy or guideline that would characterise my revert in that way?? At Wikipedia:Edit warring § Handling of edit-warring behaviors it says Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of [...] limiting themselves to a single revert. I made a single edit (a revert). I have since invited you to revert my edit if appropriate. So I still don't think of myself as "joining" an edit war, although, again, maybe there is a guideline that would characterise it that way?? Regarding page protection, I didn't think the dispute had reached the point where that was necessary, especially as a Talk page discussion had been opened by one of the disputants, and even though that disputant subsequently made another edit-warring reinstatement of their proposed change. The preceding sentence to the one you quote in green says if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without prompting), which would then demonstrate consensus [...]. I saw myself more in the role of another editor rather than as a third edit warrior, although I did not indicate agreement with the pre-war revision (which was up to the Talk page discussion to find consensus on), just that it seemed common sense to restore the status quo ante until the discussion concluded. Nurg (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

bot

User_talk:Audiodude#User:WP_1.0_bot_bot_blocked Polygnotus (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Nurg. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Fee free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I might do that, but not right now. I may be busy with other things for a few weeks. We'll see. Nurg (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries, there's no rush. Feel free to take your time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Your thoughts on article appendices?

Hi! You caught my attention with a revision you made a couple days ago to the see also/references/further reading/notes sections of the article Separation of powers.

It seems to me there is a better way to organize these sections than we usually do at present, which is why I had BOLD-ly reorganized those appendices in the course of my overhaul of the references/citations. I wanted to discuss with you whether there are weighty reasons or consensuses precluding my new way of doing things, and you were consciously reverting my BOLD experiment; or if you were just trying to align the appendices with the dominant structure, and were not aware that the atypical ordering of the sections was intentional.

Essentially, I'm suggesting this: When a system of shortened citations is used, these should be in a section called "notes" at the very end of the page.

This is because I don't think anyone has an interest in reading through all of the individual citations to specific pages in one go; since Wikipedia is NOTPAPER, everyone (to my knowledge) just hovers the cursor over (or taps) the superscript number in square brackets that automatically pops up the relevant footnote. Thus, putting the list of them as far down on the page as possible seems sensible.

Conversely, there does seem ample reason for a reader to familiarize themselves en masse with all of the references cited to in an article. In turn, then, I'd like to promote the references/"works cited" section to just after the "See also" section. "Further reading" and "External links" would directly follow, forming one long reading list for those wishing to dive into the topic more deeply.

(I don't think my idea conflicts with the MOS as it stands, on my reading of the topical passage. I am only passingly familiar with all the stylistic consensuses, though, since my main reason for being here is to contribute substantively – I could be missing something, and would be glad to have it pointed out to me.)

What do you think? On the balance of reasons, should we definitely stick with our usual ordering?

Have a good weekend! —§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 13:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi LegFun. The relevant guide is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, which has the status of 'guideline', meaning it is supported by consensus and editors should generally follow it, though occasional exceptions may apply. I don't see any reason for the Separation of powers article to be an exception. In fact, with 34 citation footnotes, which is much less than some articles, it seems quite unexceptional. It is not clear to me from your comments though whether you think your suggestion should apply to just 'Separation of powers' or to all articles that use shortened citations. Cheers. Nurg (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I missed the pertinent information contained in explanatory footnotes [d] and [e]. The one explains the rationale for placing Notes/References before Further reading (ordering from on-wiki to off-wiki), the other that for putting External links dead last. Taken together, the implication seems to be that present consensus extends to an ordering of the appendices that conflicts with the order I wanted to try out.

And, no, I agree that Separation of powers doesn't require an exception to be made.

Thanks!

—§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 15:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Enormous thanks

Huge thanks for your help with the GA review of Pōwhiri. Your contributions were brilliant and certainly crucial for getting it over the line. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe!

Do you have a suggestion for a did you know fact from the article? David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

simpleflying

A courtesy note to let you know that simpleflying.com is a deprecated unreliable source and should not be used - see WP:SIMPLEFLYING. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments on recentism

Kia ora Nurg, I'm reaching out from Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand. We appreciated your insights around recentism and editing biases over on the NZ noticeboard and would love to share it with our community, so we wanted to ask if a) you would be OK with your comments being shared via our platforms (with attribution), and b) if you might be interested in expanding your comments at all? Please feel free to email me at sophie@wikimedia.nz — thank you!

Hi Sophie. It is OK for you to share my comments. I don't have anything particular to add to my comments at the moment, but you might be able to draw me out. Nurg (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again Nurg, thank you for your response. I have put together some words around this discussion, and would welcome your input if you have any suggestions or additions. You should be able to comment on and edit the Google doc anonymously, or just share your thoughts in reply here. Thanks again! Hillmenco (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hillmenco. Sorry, I forgot about this for a few days. Nothing much to comment on, but I suppose the final quotation should be attributed (not that I am trying to promote my name). Nurg (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much Nurg, appreciate you taking the time to review. This is now published on our website, and will be shared on our channels. Please get in touch if you have any questions. Hillmenco (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Rocket Companies meme stock

Hi Nurg. I see that you've recently contributed to the Meme stock article, so I hope you'll consider looking at this edit request, which discusses Rocket Companies' time as a meme stock: Talk:Rocket_Companies#Additions_to_page

Thanks, Annie13478 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in the topics, so I probably won't act on that, sorry. Nurg (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

December 2025 administrator elections - schedule

Administrator Elections | Schedule

• The December 2025 administrator elections are set to proceed.
• We plan to use the following schedule:
  • Nov 25 – Dec 1: Candidate sign-up
  • Dec 4 – Dec 8: Discussion phase
  • Dec 9 – Dec 15: SecurePoll voting phase
• If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 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) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections - Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• November 25 – December 1 - Call for candidates
• December 4–8 - Discussion phase
• December 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Pōwhiri

On 2 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pōwhiri, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Māori culture a woman can end a speech during a pōwhiri by walking in front of the speaker? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pōwhiri. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pōwhiri), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)