User talk:Amakuru: Difference between revisions

To keep discussions together, I’ve adopted the use of the {{ping}} template, and will reply here if you leave me a message. By using the ping, this ensures a notification will appear for you when I reply to your message. If I make a comment on your talk page, I will likely watch the page for replies, but please do consider using {{ping}} as well. If you do leave a comment here in response, I will respond here rather than returning to your talk page.

Thank you for making it possible, against rules and opposition, that a GA (on its way to FA) could appear on Independence Day, the day for which it was meant. – I guess I will now call on you for miracles 😉 – My story today is about a woman and her husband who played Bach’s Sonatina for us (Rheingau Musik Festival, long ago) on an upright piano, and it made me cry, and I still remember. — Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

… and then I realised that you performed the bassist to ITN miracle also! Great. – I keep hoping for Dieter Kaufmann, last day, as so often. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Yep, it seems there are a few RD ITN nominations falling to the bottom at the moment and there’s no reason at all for them not to be posted, other than admins not seeing them. I don’t watch the ITN/C list on a regular basis, but happy to help where I can. I agree with you that it was a really nice thing for us to get that Nigerian DYK through, I like to try to look at the bigger picture sometimes rather than the minutiae of the rules, if it seems like everyone (and especially readers) would benefit from an IAR situation. I’ll try to take a look at the stories later on! Cheers, and happy Tuesday to you. — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Third miracle one day. If you could look at the last day ITNN before going to bed you could please the readers more from time to time 😉 – While you posted, I listened to them playing once more, and the (good) tears came back. I should make the cantata FA some day. It was performed at the memorial concert for Frank Stähle, and – prompted by a conversation on my user talk – all sang the closing chorale together. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Nielsen (FA by four colleagues, not me) is remembered on the main page! My story on the Germany National holiday is a song calling to trust the new ways, written shortly before the events leading to reunification. I saw a lovely Mozart opera production yesterday, in case of interest. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good story for a Sunday: Martin Neary conducting Purcell. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another miracle: today we have an opera singer DYK that shows her as a thinking person 😉 – see also video. The nomination wasn’t by me, which probably helped. I didn’t see her, but the Carmen production at the Bastille Opéra that she was in last. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Re “The nomination wasn’t by me, which probably helped” that is a sad state of affairs. I think the principle of rewarding good work on articles has been lost a bit in recent years, but I know opinions vary on that… I’ll have a watch of the video later tonight. — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – Happy birthday, Margaret Medlyn! (I found the article – not by me – when searching for someone whose birthday is today.) – I took a cat pic, presented by Rosiestep today. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 50th birthday, Alain Altinoglu!) – I let the video begin with a closeup of the octobass 😉 Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am proud to have brought two performing women to the main page. Sadly, death kept both from performing more, one sooner the other much later. If you have little time just listen to the one who died young and see if it touches you (in today’s story, – I don’t want to sprinkle youtube links outside my user pages). I worked on an interesting bio yesterday, and while today’s video is serious, I found one for children for him, – well, serious also. Keep watching, also on ITNN. – Latest pics from a day to the opera in Frankfurt, and afterwards (because train service is only once an hour) a lovely stroll along the Main river with illumination and the moon reflected. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad that I had to bring two more people there. At least the video in my story is cute, made for children. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

marked to be sung “Happily” —Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thanks for the notes, and sorry for late reply. I have just listened to the Lourdes Ambriz solo, very haunting and emotional… Sad that she is gone so young. As for For the beauty of the earth, I have heard that many times, it seems to have been a staple of school and amateur choirs… a good note to give it a “happy” rendition! Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was a good break of topic. Back to those who died: how many composers are mentioned in the article of Bernhard Klee, to whose conducting of Das Lied von der Erde you can listen? And what to say for a DYK? —Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Hmm yes, always a tricky one. People have accomplished careers, with numerous appearances at famous venues, but somehow you have to find a fact that’s “interesting to a broad audience”. Right now I’m in need of a “miracle” of my own, my RD nomination of Raila Odinga has stalled a little. I can see why people don’t think he warrants a blurb, but I’ve been following Kenyan affairs for quite some time and it’s going to be strange him not being around any more… I will read and listen more about Klee later! — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odinga: thank you for referencing! Two sentences don’t have their ref at the end of the sentence, – that looks like missing something. Otherwise fine by me. Better than pinging admins to post ping those who opposed 😉 —Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And she appeared! Relief! – Can I interest you in the Double Concerto by Brahms, a piece I heard twice this year – see music. – Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My latest: Roberta Alexander, – listen. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t believe that Toshio Hosokawa is 70 already. Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today Sequenza III on Luciano Berio’s centenary. You can listen with the score or to the first performer, Cathy Berberian (link in the work’s article), – I couldn’t decide 😉 —Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

299 years ago, a Bach cantata was first performed —Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gerda Arendt: sorry, I’ve not been on here too much recently. I’ll take a look at the cantata tonight. One year until the 300th anniversary then! — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, would be. It worked today for Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79, on the occasion for which it was written, Reformation Day – it’s not only Halloween today. You are invited to the peer reviews for another candidate, which is close to missing 300. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Independence Day (Uganda), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Stanley.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: ha ha yes, well obviously it is the anniversary, but I did think it would be quite funny to just schedule it way in advance! It’s still less time than my total tenure as a Wikipedian so far though, so I’m sure it’ll come around faster that we think… Now if only I can fill all the POTDs from now up to that date then I can really relax 😂 — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check. Should it be one paragraph or two? The name of the image is “A Reverie”. I filled out the information, but I could trim the part about Tennyson revising the poems if you think that would be better. — Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, thanks for the note and for having a look at the POTD… Speaking personally, I tend to keep the blurb focused on the linked article rather than titling it directly after the image itself. In this case, we seem to have very little information about A Reverie itself, so the blurb would normally give some basic details about The Window first, as the article subject, and then discuss the drawing at the end. Perhaps something like this:

The Window, also known as The Songs of the Wrens, is a song cycle by Arthur Sullivan with words by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Written in 1867–1870 and eventually published in 1871, it consists of 12 poems by Tennyson, 11 of which are set to music by Sullivan, and was eventually published in 1871. The collaboration between Sullivan and Tennyson was suggested by George Grove and agreed over a dinner at Tennyson’s home on the Isle of Wight. John Everett Millais produced illustrations for the poems, but due to an initial refusal by Tennyson to allow publication he sold all but one by 1870, and was then too busy to work any further on the project. This picture, titled The Reverie, is the sole remaining illustration and was published in the first edition of The Window in 1871.

I also like to keep it at one paragraph and just have one bolded topic rather than two. What do you think? — Amakuru (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do not like what you suggest above, because much of that is wrong: First, the name of the song cycle is The Window; or, The Song of the Wrens. It is not “also known as”. Second, it was written in 1857. Period. Your next sentence repeats the publication year again. I don’t think that the fact that it was suggested by Grove is of much importance. Nor is the place where Tennyson agreed to write the poems. Especially, since neither fact has anything to do with the image. It is not clear whether Millais drew ALL the images. He drew at least some of them. Millais sold (or disposed of) whatever images he had 1868, not 1870. We should say that BY 1870, when Tennyson finally gave his consent, Millais had disposed of the images.

As long as it is clear that the name of the image is “A Reverie”, I’m happy with calling it that. Also, one paragraph is fine — I was just trying to focus in on the info about the image itself. — Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: oh right, apologies, I thought those were two separate titles for the work. If that’s the case, shouldn’t be article itself be moved to the longer title, since “The Window” on its own isn’t really accurate? Incidentally, there seem to be variations on the punctuation in sources (and the publication itself doesn’t actually have any punctuation, although the parts of the title are on separate lines). I might slightly favour The Window, or The Songs of the Wrens as the new title myself as it’s simpler than the form with the semicolon in it, but perhaps you know more about the common name than I do. Overall, I don’t mind your revised version of the blurb, although I think it may need a little more copyediting to make the prose flow nicely. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we frequently leave out subtitles in our naming works of art. Everyone just refers to it as The Window. It has to do with the fact that the “or” and the subtitle are on separate lines of type. It is standard among Victorian and Edwardian works to punctuate it the way I do. Go ahead and make your copy edits, and I’ll review late tonight. — Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with your further changes and also with the changes by the other editor who removed the subtitle altogether, which I guess is fine, and helpfully described what the image shows, which is nice for vision impaired readers. — Ssilvers (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: One click after another
Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit “Kantara” crowd the tubes.

@Amakuru

Please can you revert your changes to Tubular-class lifeboats.

It isn’t a standalone page, one of a great many lifeboat pages, which all follow a convention.

Many thanks
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ojsyork: do you have any sources calling it a “Tubular-class lifeboat”? When I checked the sources in the article, I didn’t see that term anywhere, in fact it seemed like “tubular lifeboat” was more of a descriptive phrase, often rendered in sentence case. In general we don’t use names we have invented ourselves, the article title policy says that we should title them according to the most WP:COMMONNAME found in sources. This was also discussed prior to the recent DYK going live, and the hook was amended accordingly, so I regarded this as just a tidy up afterward, although perhaps you didn’t see that chat… Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru

I did see your comment in the thread. However, I didn’t see much evidence of anyone else agreeing with it. The page got 15,000 views the other day, with just one solitary voice who isn’t happy.

I would prefer that you don’t suggest I’m making up names. Tubular lifeboat is most definitely a category of lifeboat. Your attitude is not appropriate. I’ve created about 170 articles now, and work extremely hard to get things right. I may not get things perfect, I do make errors, but in the most part, its well constructed and correct.

It is perhaps fair to say that reference work doesn’t include the term ‘class’. It’s not particularly something they used 100 years ago.

However, the common term these days for varying types of lifeboats is -class.

Shannon-class, Tamar-class, Trent-class, etc etc.

Please check Template:RNLI lifeboat classes

The page is (was) created in keeping with all the other lifeboat pages, MOS:VAR

And I’d very much appreciate you returning it to how it was please.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new discussion on whether Aeroroutes is a reliable source because i am feeling that there are things missed out that werent mentioned in the first one, if you wanna join the discussion to mention on if its a reliable source feel free to do so, the discussion is at WP:RSN#WP:AEROROUTES Metrosfan (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, hope you’re well. Due to a new role I’ve taken on I’m requesting that the edit history and all edit descriptions of User:Footballnerd2007/Userboxes are redacted on all edits before today please? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Footballnerd2007: I’m very well thank you, hope you are likewise. I’ve

Done that for you. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m good thanks, Thank you so much for this! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amakuru. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users’ IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user’s browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account’s name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
- There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
- There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

Impact for administrators

It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won’t be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67’s IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if “reasonably believed to be necessary”. (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can’t be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
- This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account’s activity.
The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Amakuru: I noticed that you “borrowed” and moved the Machu Picchu FP I originally nominated for POTD/2025-11-19 to POTD/2025-09-28. I had specifically chosen that date because it’s the birthday of Hiram Bingham, the creator of the photo and a key figure in making Machu Picchu known internationally. Would it be possible to feature it again on the original date (POTD/2025-11-19) or perhaps on that date next year? Best regards, JustEMV^🦙 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2025 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:

BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,604 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,075 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
Arconning (submissions) with 860 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
History6042 (submissions) with 804 tournament points
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 635 tournament points
TheDoctorWho (submissions) with 386 tournament points
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 373 tournament points
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 362 tournament points

Our high scorers in the final round were:

BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.

Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize, with 10 featured lists total
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
TheDoctorWho (submissions) wins the good topic prize, with 16 good topic entries in total
Arconning (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, with 68 good article reviews in total

A special mention also goes to these users who scored the highest in a particular category in a single round:

Next year’s competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

In [2] this edit you added a very dubious source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Observervoice.com. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No acknowledgment of this? 🙁 ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-31850-11: apologies for that, I thought it was the Uganda Observer, I didn’t realise it was just some almost private source. Thanks for dealing. We’ll have to find other sourcing for details on the independence day celebrations then I guess. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Today I remember a singer who impressed me on stage. – Repeating: you are invited to a peer review after FAC, – in a poll, you could simply mark yes or no for the four open questions. It’s an experiment. The piece has its 300th anniversary on Christmas Day, and should be as good as possible by then. — Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Stan today, with a docu by RTÉ —Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have three biographies on the main page today, miss a fourth one, nominated a fifth, that means little time for other matters. If you have ten minutes, you might take a look at the four questions open from my last FAC (see above), and if you have only five minutes, question 3 about a book source would interest me most. My places now include La Scala, – see music, Verdi three times, and twice in my story! —Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thank you, and apologies for my lack of response earlier. Despite being quite active on my phone with mundane issues lately, I haven’t actually had very much time for serious Wikipedia work, between usual work, having to keep the house up and running during an unusually busy period for my other half, a trip to Cork, Ireland and a recent scout camp I was organising. I will try to find some time for the things you’ve mentioned above ASAP though. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for support in November! – On St. Cecilia’s Day – patron saint of music – I remember a composition by Benjamin Britten, and have a woman on the main page who illustrated songs, with a sense of humour. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, today’s image, – she “portrayed” herself with her husband at the end of the table, – would have been good for Thanksgiving 😉 —Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice exhibition, thanks for the heads up! — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is a Bach cantata, mentioned with the Christmas cantata which is up for FAC again, and the conductor of the video is mentioned by name in movement 1 of the Christmas cantata. Today’s ecumenical service was dominated by brass sound, – I placed a pic on top of the church’s article. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gerda Arendt: I bet that brass sounded loud! And the cantatas sound nice… good luck with the FAC – I assume you meant BWV 110 rather than BWV 10 🙂 — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and yes, 110 of course, sloppy typing. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I appreciate you speaking up for me in the Technical Moves chat. It’s quite remarkable how bureaucratic Wikipedia has become lately. It seems like I’m unable to contribute to anything without it being challenged, no matter how reasonable. I tried to be conservative by submitting the article to the Articles of Creation list, but it seems like doing that backfired on me. Hooky6 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Ince (Manchester) railway station 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 November 11 § Ince (Manchester) railway station until a consensus is reached. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect USA cricket 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 November 13 § USA cricket until a consensus is reached. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw u commenting on @FaviFakes suggestion, I am doing dis on EVERYONE who asked and replied. It’s like a mini interview VZ9999 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VZ9999: I don’t have any complaints, I was just participating in a discussion to decide the question of what the text on the main page should be. I think you’re new here? Welcome to Wikipedia if so… Just as a piece of advice, I think you need to slow down on the comments you’re making in that thread. Wikipedia isn’t really a social media platform where we make comments like “my iPhone’s crashing, lol” etc, and there are some editors who may get annoyed because they like the discussion to stay on topic. Similarly, I’d advise against posting “do you have a complaint” on lots of user talk pages. Nobody is complaining, you just happened to have discovered a rather niche discussion some Wikipedia s are having right now.

I’ve just posted a welcome note on your talk page, which nobody else seems to have done yet since you joined.. If you’re keen to contribute here, I’d suggest following the advice there, get to know the place, start making some small edits here and there etc. I’m happy to help if you need any assistance. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks but, i do get the point. @FaviFake has done a mistake (idk if its done often here) because from is a portion, not a “full” (at least thats one way). but i get it what you mean. thanks in advance (side note: if you want to continue this conversation, heres my talk. VZ9999 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop pinging me. FaviFake (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru,

I am not sure where the aggressivity of this edit summary of yours comes from, but you could have read the edit summary of the edit you reverted before acting: “substitutable templates for discussion require <noinclude> – see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template”. In fact, the rule in question states

If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>

I would suggest you to comply to our policy and self-revert your edits. P.S. Yes, I might “have been told” something already, as you mention, but the user in question might not be very experienced. —Grufo (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Grufo: thanks for the note, but the key point is right there in your comment above. “If the template is designed to be substituted“. The template in question is based on {{age}}, which is generally used directly, not through substitution.

This issue aside, it seems like you’ve been very active in Template space lately, adding a lot of new templates such as the one we’re discussing that don’t seem to be required or enjoy consensus. We encourage editors to be bold of course, but you’ve seen by now that there’s a feeling that most of the templates you’ve added aren’t required. And then you’ve started editing policy pages and fighting editors who’ve questioned those templates with comments such as the one above, spurious filings at WP:AN3RR and generally trying to WP:Wikilawyer the process to get your new templates accepted. You probably don’t want my advice, but you really need to slow down on this and back away from the WP:BATTLEGROUND, because right now you’ll probably end up with a topic ban or even a site ban if you continue fighting against the community in this fashion. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, if I showed “aggressivity” in my edit summary it was only because you’d repeatedly reverted edits by Zackmann08 which conformed to usual TfD norms. Zackmann is hardly “not very experienced”, they have almost half a million edits on English Wikipedia and active since 2011. — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Amakuru. Usually you see if a template is designed to be substituted by checking if it contains occurrences of safesubst:. As for template creation, there is simply no way of knowing in advance whether a template will be popular, except maybe a little bit of educated guesses. However, if most of the templates I created will end up improving Wikipedia, but a selected minority will perish through the X-rays of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, it is still a success, don’t you think? About WP:Wikilawyering, that is really not my passion and it greatly depends on the attitude of my interlocutors. I did revert their edits, but that was only after they started doing very strange things, like editing these templates with dummy edits (a simple new line – #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14), and marking these edits as “Do not hide the TFD. This is included in a template transclusion by convention.” – after which they left that message on my talk page. So I apologise if I can get WP:Wikilawyering at times, but I believe it is my best bet against craziness. P.S. I did not start editing policy pages now; my edit was from June 2025, and it had been peacefully accepted (or at least, I am not aware of anyone protesting) until the user started to bomb the templates I created and to revert my months-old edits. —Grufo (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errata corrigo. The user editing the policy page and the user doing crazy dummy edits are two separate users (my bad). —Grufo (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference (as the user editing the policy page you are referring to), while I don’t have half a mill edits like good old Zack, I’m sure my 263,694 edits (of which 15,815 are to the template namespace and 6,989 to the module namespace) can possibly vouch for my editing skills. Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Gonnym, nobody questioned your editing skills. —Grufo (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another classic case of Grufo barking at others because they aren’t getting their way… Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru I apologize if I did not answer this point earlier, but obviously it must be central for you since you have not reverted your edit yet: The template in question is not based on {{age}}, and is a perfectly substitutable template, The use case of using it as a substitution is that of snapshotting (and freezing) a time interval. —Grufo (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru. Since you have been somewhat involved, I would like to ask for your honest opinion, as an admin, concerning this behavior. —Grufo (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Grufo:, well, narrowly, there is no specific offence known as “reverting an admin” – admins have the same standing as anyone else when it comes to content disputes. But equally it should be fairly clear to you now that there is a consensus against using noinclude to hide the TfD message. You said that the template is “designed to be substituted”, but since nobody apart from yourself has identified a reason for why this should exist in the first place, and it seems likely to be deleted soon, I don’t think there is a case that it is “designed to be substituted”. The project page WP:TFDHOW is not specific on what is meant by that phrase, but I don’t think it gives you the unilateral right to declare your new template as designed to be substituted when others disagree. I didn’t revert you myself because it seemed a minor matter, but I do think Zack is in the right on this one. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Amakuru. There can’t be consensus on violating the rules. What would we do if a bunch of users found consensus on bullying a user? The rules come first, and here they are crystal clear:

Concerning the use case as a substitution template, the text “This template may be substituted” has always been there, since its creation. Whether this is a good template or not, there is a discussion ongoing. All this does not mean, however, that we can mock template creators in the process. And I believe you are enabling, with your behavior, exactly that. —Grufo (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t class this as bullying, but if you think it is then you’re free to raise an issue at WP:ANI. As for “the rules come first”, that isn’t really true – one of Wikipedia’s pillars says that we have no firm rules, backed up by the WP:IAR policy. I don’t understand your motivation here if I’m honest. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I’m sure you can be a very positive contributor here, as to seem to be at la-wiki. But right now you’re not collaborating, you’re going around picking fights with people over minor things and generally making other editors annoyed. That isn’t going to end well. My suggestion is this – forget about the templates at TFd, they’re going to be deleted regardless of these disputes, and just move on to editing some Articles, participating in a community process, or any other parts of the project where you can work with others to make a better experience for readers. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that! Try to apply your judgement lenses to the user in question. How can dummy-editing fourteen templates with false statements be constructive? In which universe can that be OK? And are you sure your action are not enabling these very behaviors? I am pretty sure that if you had reversed your edit, even just as a fair-play towards a template that is going to be deleted soon (although I still think it was due), the user wouldn’t not feel so emboldened. I understand that we are very lucky admins at lawiki, and English Wiki has a volume of users that often require admins not going too much into details, but hey, this is quite surreal. —Grufo (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grufo: you have now requested so called help in multiple places (here and here) and filed at least one absolutely bogus admin claim here. You have been rebuffed at every location. NO ONE is interested in your whining and complaining about not getting your way. Take the very kind and generous advice that Amakuru has given you and just move on to editing some Articles, participating in a community process, or any other parts of the project where you can work with others to make a better experience for readers.

Your efforts are thus far not helpful, nor are they constructive. I will also note that your attempts to hide your efforts to overturn reverts are not going unnoticed. For example, in my case, you are intentionally not engaging with me directly but instead sneakily going to another user and intentionally not tagging me in your post. Thus ensuring that I would not get notified on the discussion.

You may think you are being smart and sly, but multiple users including Gonnym & Amakuru all see you are simply WP:LAWYERING. You can respond with another statement about how unfairly you are being treated, which I’m sure you will, or you can heed the advice that has been given to you multiple times, in multiple places:

Move on
Work on something else
Actually be constructive

You clearly have technical skills as your write great code. You clearly know how to write wikimarkup as you have significant experience on another language’s wiki. What you seem to lack is any understanding of practices and policies of the English wiki. Your status as an admin on the latin wiki does not give you any special standing or status here.

It would be a shame to loose someone of your talents because you continue to pursue things the wrong way. Thus far you are simply not listening and instead plowing ahead with your own ideas and plans to get your way through any means necessary. I sure hope that changes. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: I am not sure what you want from me now. But since we are here, and you have already shown the tendency of seeing ghosts and conspiracies in the past, I’ll tell you now in advance that this edit I just did (a.k.a. removing a new line) has nothing to do with hiding anything, it is just the correct way of writing the wikitext in question. Please, keep it in mind in future nominations for deletion, whatever they will be. P.S. Admins don’t have a special status that grants them special privileges, they are just normal users who have to do a lot of dirty work. @Amakuru: See what I meant with enabling a user? They are explicitly calling you as one of the examples they are following. —Grufo (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was thinking that since this article got highlighted here, shouldn’t we (User:बडा काजी, myself, User:AmNaTi200 and User:TDKR Chicago 101) get ITN credits for that? Regards. – Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fylindfotberserk: – some admins, for reasons best known to themselves, choose not to post the ITN credits on users’ talk pages after posting an item… and per Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions, that step is optional, not required. Seems kind of silly to me – it’s a very small step given that the links are already available on the nomination, and clearly means a lot to many editors – but it is what it is. I’ve gone ahead and given the four of you the credits myself, anyway. Thanks for your work on this topic. — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I understand. And thank you very much. – Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comix: Madness
It could happen to anyone.

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today’s featured article for 18 January 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today’s featured article/January 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today’s featured article/January 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: thanks! I really need to try and get another FAC in some time soon, my stock of potential main page appearances is going to be exhausted if I’m not careful… — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would be happy to see you back at FAC with something new – ping me when you get back there! – SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Amakuru:! I saw that you took part in a discussion at Talk:2008 India–Pakistan standoff regarding moving the article’s title. I have started a request move at Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts on moving it to India–Pakistan wars and conflicts. If you would like to take part in the discussion, please do so! Birla Kashyap 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organists: I went to see the church in Paris where Guy Morançon worked, quite a place, and wish Happy birthday to Gabriel Dessauer, – enjoy music he played, Dance Toccata, by another Paris organist. — Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you liked Morançon‘s music and playing, listen to his Mendelssohn on a great instrument, illustrated with historic images. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Coventry ring road, introduced (in 2022): “Described as a “roller coaster” and a “Scalextric” by sources over the years, the Coventry ring road is either a marvel of engineering or the world’s worst-designed road and a source of urban decay, depending on your point of view. Its multiple lanes, slip roads and short weaving distances make it a bit of a nightmare for drivers new to the area, something I’ve witnessed first-hand a few times over the years! The article goes into some detail, chronicling the history of the project from its early conception to completion, a mid-project redesign and later remodelling of one of the junctions and the road’s reputation.”! – A good day, first time I was involved in a pictured news item, and a Bach cantata became a GA per an editor’s first review. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gerda Arendt: – much appreciated! I need to get another project like this one going, it was a lot of fun writing that! — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for your information, as you were involved in the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists or the RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT at WT:NOT, I wanted to let you know that the discussed broader RfC has been opened at WP:VPP#RfC – The inclusion of destination lists in Airport articles. If you wish to contribute, please feel free. Many thanks! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

Valereee

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

Hi!

First, there is a thing called WP:BOLD.

Second, the reason you outlined is factually incorrect. In both articles, all the cases deal with communist states.

Thirdly, communist regime and communist states are synonym. The only difference is that the term regime has a negative connotation that the term state doesn’t. As for communist party rule article; it focuses only on the communist states.

We need to make Wikipedia accessible for our readers by having titles that make sense.

Next time, I advice you to read the actual articles before reverting. The comments you made made no sense in relation to what was actually written in the articles. TheUzbek (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+ Just revert my latest move. It was a lame reaction. I will start a pointless RFC. TheUzbek (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I guess File:Dwarf birch spinner (Eriogaster arbusculae) cocoon Dovrefjell.jpg, was replaced for todays’s iamge. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charlesjsharp: yes, apologies about that, I should have notified you… I’ve just been rather busy this weekend and not had a sustained time on wiki. It was removed as a result of the discussion at [3] – basically there was confusion and potential inaccuracy in the blurb about what exactly a pupa / cocoon is, and what was shown in the picture. We can obviously run this again soon, we’ll just need to make sure the image caption is accurate and that we’re properly describimg what’s shown in the photo. Hopefully I will get to this soon. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment