User talk:Poirot09: Difference between revisions

Hi Poirot09, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you’re not alone! Sohom (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on getting Dominic Sessa to GA! Let me know if you ever want me to review another of your GAs. Also, you should definitely nominate it for DYK!

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! And I will follow your suggestion. Poirot09 (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Dominic Sessa has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the “Did you know” section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives — DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you’ve made to Winx Club. 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. JBW (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for correcting my edit about Petrification. But could you please clarify what you mean by “it is just used as a verb to comply with MOS guidelines on fiction”? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see MOS:INUNIVERSE, imo capitalising “petrified” means adopting an in-universe perspective, since the spell does not actually exist. Poirot09 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If we use lower-case “petrify”, then aren’t we implicitly using the dictionary definition of the word, which would be inaccurate for the plot summary? Perhaps we should include somewhere on the page the specifics of what “Petrification” means in Rowling’s books? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]