User talk:Wolverine XI/Archive 1

Megacarnivore

December 2022

Hello, I'm UtherSRG. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Impala, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

146 very small edits

What, may I ask, was the point of making 146 small edits to your user page? UtherSRG (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It's very simple, I'm trying to reach 500 edits so I can edit this protected page 20 upper (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Which page? You can request edits on an article's talk page. UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Just a bit of a warning... your userpage is verging on the borders of what is grounds for deletion via WP:U5. Please read that policy. UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest taking the tutorial. UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I hear you, I deleted all my unnecessary personal info on my User page. 20 upper (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Khrincan. I noticed that you recently removed content from Draft:Megaherbivores without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Khrincan (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Megaherbivores has been accepted

Megaherbivores, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

UtherSRG (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. I'll continue contributing to Wikipedia and make more articles. This means a lot to me and I'm grateful. 20 upper (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Good job! I do suggest sticking with the AfC process for at least a few articles to get the hang of it. And I strongly suggest starting all new articles in the Draft namespace so that you have more freedom to put the articles together over time; an incomplete article in the main namespace may easily fall under a speedy deletion rationale. Cheers! UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Hello, I'm Fieryninja. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Feminism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fieryninja (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Walter Donaldson

Hi. I'm really confused - why have you created a second nomination for Walter Donaldson to FAC when it's already an FA, then pass the nomination and claim WikiCup points? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Upper20. At Walter Donaldson, you created a FAC page in Draft, then moved the Draft to a FAC page, and then indicated the article had been promoted by FACbot, when in fact, the article is already an FA, and was never submitted to WP:FAC. The pages you created erroneously have now been deleted. Could you have a look at the FAC instructions so you can avoid doing something like this again? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I didn't mean to cause any disturbances, I really didn't know what I was doing. OK I'll try reading the FAC instructions, again sorry for the disturbances. 20 upper (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Common emerald dove, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jennifer Brown. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

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

Feminism, as but one example, is a gender-related contentious topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed

Not sure why you see Largest non-human primates as original research, and I don't get why I have to add a citation when other similar pages like List of largest land carnivorans, Largest wild canids and Heaviest land mammals provide no such citation. Help me understand, will you? 20 upper (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; offering an example of similar elsewhere on Wikipedia isn't usually a good idea, as the example could be equally wrong (anyone can edit Wikipedia and it's full of policy-breaching stuff). But those articles don't seem to make the same mistakes, which are:

1. List articles are just that, and the criteria for being on the list should be defined early on. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. You can find good samples of featured lists.
2. Yours is an article making an outright claim that: "This is a list that contains 10 of the largest primate species (excluding humans". If you meant the article to be a List of largest non-human primates, it should be named that. The statement, "that contains 10 of the largest primate species (excluding humans)", is uncited. Original research, specifically synthesis, means that you took information from multiple sources and combined it to draw a conclusion not found in the sources. What source states that these particular ten are ten of the largest ?? That is, how can we verify there aren't ten others that are larger than these ten?

It can always be assumed (unless it's a FL, that lists are incomplete. The way you composed this article, the claim is that these are THE 10 larger, and there are no more larger, but that assertion is uncited.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

So I should change the name to make it a Stand-alone list. So there will be no need for a citation if a change the name of the article, right? 20 upper (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving the article to a stand-alone list would be a first step. (I recommend that you personally refrain from moving articles until you have gained more experience, and instead seek assistance from related WikiProjects.) But the lead statement is still original research. The lead would need to define the criteria for list inclusion without making a statement about "10 largest", which is the original research/synthesis part that requires citation. If you consider what the criteria would be, then others will be able to make the necessary adjustments.

More pressing is the question of whether you have taken this time to carefully re-read all of the links posted to you throughout your talk page; getting one article fixed is less important than making sure that you are taking on board how your editing needs to adjust so you don't end up blocked again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

PS, maybe you're a speed reader :) But I kind of doubt that you really read through every link I listed in my post above in 20 minutes, and it is important when you have breached core policies on Wikipedia that you thoroughly read through the links provided in posts to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello, I'm ButterCashier. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hunting success without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ButterCashier (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:20 upper. Thank you. — SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Androphobia (March 1)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: There are at least two problems with this draft. First, it has been developed and submitted almost entirely by a blocked editor, User:20 upper. Second, it has been deleted after discussion three times. See

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphobia (2008). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphobia (3rd nomination) (2015). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphobia (4th nomination) (2017).

It should only be resubmitted by an established editor in good standing who has shown, with an explanation on the draft talk page, why this submission has overcome the issues identified in the previous three deletion discussions.

If this draft or its equivalent is resubmitted by a new account, check whether the account is quacking.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 20 upper! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

<personal attack screed deleted>

You just lost your talk page editing privileges for making personal attacks while blocked. You do not currently have an unblock request in place. You will have to file for one by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
• Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
• FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
• TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
• Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #74376

is declined.  Confirmed block evasion as Dancing Dollar. User is now considered banned by community consensus as per WP:3X. No admin is free to unilaterally lift the block. --Yamla (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I'll be. Ya think you know someone. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@20 upper: In reply to your email. Requesting unblock via UTRS before December 4 would be a waste of time. In that time, you should make constructive edits, at least five hundred of them, on another project such as SIMPLEWIKI. You are WP:CBANned for multiple WP:check user confirmed socks/block evasion per WP:3X, so any unblock request would need to be carried to WP:AN for consideration by the community. As this is a check user block, a check user must agree to unblock you. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Androphobia

Hello, 20 upper. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Androphobia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Androphobia

Hello, 20 upper. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Androphobia".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Email question

You asked via email if you count as a banned user. You do indeed; see WP:3X and WP:CBAN. I have updated your user page to reflect this. The soonest you could apply to be unbanned would be 2023-12-04 and your appeal would need to be made to the community. See WP:UNBAN for more details. --Yamla (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #81911

TPA restored for WP:AN per blocking admin. Yamla cleared from CU perspective. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged and watching. --Yamla (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Thanks, I'm only aware of it today. 20 upper (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC

@Yamla and Deepfriedokra: I think I'm now ready to have the community review my appeal; please carry it over to the Admin's noticeboard. Thanks, 20 upper (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. It is posted. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Regarding your initial query, I have changed my ways. In the past, I've said good things while acting inappropriately. However, I've since realized that socking is wrong, which is why I've chosen to acknowledge my actions and finally abide by the rules. Considering that I haven't socked, complied with the policies & guidelines, and edited Commons while away from Wikipedia, I believe that the block is no longer necessary. How old am I you ask, well, all I can say is that my brain has not fully developed, so yeah. 20 upper (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

(carried over) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I think my appeal is in danger of being archived, please look out for 16:53. 20 upper (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, a user just voted. 20 upper (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Unbanned

Per the community consensus at AN, you have been unbanned under two conditions: you may only use one account, and this is a last-chance unblock; any further misconduct will result in an indefinite block. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop. You were unblocked to make constructive edits on Wikipedia, not to play around on your user page. Almost all of your edits since having your ban lifted have been to your user space. --Yamla (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to start by fixing my userpage in the final days of 2023, before I start creating articles and making useful contributions in the new year. I'll stop editing for today, then tomorrow I'll do some copyedting on animal articles. I'm just waiting to start afresh in the new year, sorry for any inconveniences. 20 upper (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sei whale

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sei whale you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sei whale

The article Sei whale you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sei whale and Talk:Sei whale/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Megaherbivore

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Megaherbivore you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made you a couple of trees, one of them surely incomplete. Would be grateful if you could mark each item on the GA1 page as done or otherwise actioned so I can see where you feel you've got to in the review. Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Megaherbivore

The article Megaherbivore you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Megaherbivore for comments about the article, and Talk:Megaherbivore/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sei whale

The article Sei whale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sei whale for comments about the article, and Talk:Sei whale/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Cetacean FA

After tiger I plan on working another cetacean article, interested? Also, the old FA right whale is on my watchlist to work on and clean up. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Yes, that really interests me. Which article springs to mind? I'm considering narwhals. By the way, fantastic work on the polar bear, giraffe, and elephant FAs. 20 upper (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I was planning on doing beluga whale. LittleJerry (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So, I suppose I'll work with Narwhal for the time being, and after the Tiger FAC, we may collaborate with Beluga whale. 20 upper (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I brought that article to GA but I didn't write most of it. I mostly rearranged some information, cleaned it up and added some text here and there. You should probably comb through the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, LittleJerry. After a full day of work on narwhal, what are your current thoughts? I think there should be a section on captive whales and that the cultural depictions may use some improvement. I may also need to expand the new subsection that I introduced, Evolution. How is the tiger article coming along? 20 upper (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, though I personally think the beluga is more interesting. I don't expect tiger to be ready for PR or FAC until March. I'm taking it one step at a time. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

LittleJerry, because you mentioned that the article looks good, I'm going to presume that it's ready for FAC, and I'll be nominating it for tomorrow. I know it may be way too soon, but I want to experience what an FAC feels like. FunkMonk might be interested in this. 20 upper (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "good so far". I'm not the person to judge whether its ready. I don't do much content reviewing myself. All I'll say is that it is important to make sure all the sources support the text and paraphrasing is appropriate, see here. I would recommend getting a peer review first. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I would certainly take it through peer review first as a first time FAC nomination, to catch anything. FAC isn't a walk in the park. FunkMonk (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Even though this will be my first nomination, I am familiar with the FAC procedure. You make FAC seem difficult when it's really not that onerous; I would have been nominating every other week if it weren't for the incredibly delayed process. I'm more than willing to fail and I have no fear of the FAC procedure. You know, character is forged by failure rather than success. I apologise for bothering you, FunkMonk. I was simply curious about your thoughts on this. I'll try not to bother you again. I've started a peer review and will be waiting for feedback for a maximum of seven days. Again, I apologise for the disturbance. 20 upper (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to bother me, I've nominated 60+ FACs, and while one may be familiar with the subjects, there's a whole lot of formalities and technicalities beside the content itself that need to be adhered to, and it is almost impossible for anyone to get it all right at first try. Very few, if any, take articles directly to FAC without going through GAN or PR first. So this is not to belittle your abilities, it is kind advice from experience. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You may also what to purchase this book. LittleJerry (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

For the next nine days, I won't be able to buy the book because I'm currently on safari in the African savannah and will be leaving camp soon. 20 upper (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but is online on google books. Have a good trip! LittleJerry (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Dark mode

Hi, I can't find the function. The Jack (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: What phone do you use? Cause dark mode is available on my Samsung Galaxy. 20 upper (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indian rhinoceros

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Indian rhinoceros you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indian rhinoceros

The article Indian rhinoceros you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Indian rhinoceros for comments about the article, and Talk:Indian rhinoceros/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brown bear

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brown bear you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

I understand the need to revert over links. For example, we're not supposed to wiklink dates or city names in citations. However, hyperlinking to the journals and authors in citations seems obviously useful and the kind of thing Wikipedia and the web in general is so useful for compared to paper. Am I wrong in this and somehow violating a Wikpedia policy? As for over-emphasizing one author (Stirling), I was planning to continue with other edits linking to the other authors whom I could find existing articles for, but he was the most prominent, so I started with him. Given the rapid pace of edits for such a prominent article, I don't think it's practical to advise editors to wait until they have a mega-edit of linking to every possible author ready before publishing because that almost guarantees an edit conflict with someone else who's already put in an edit in the meantime. Instead, don't you think it makes more sense to go incrementally? Carney333 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carney333: Author name was already linked. 20 upper (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Indian rhinoceros

On 29 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Indian rhinoceros, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an Indian rhinoceros, sent as a gift to Pope Leo X in 1515, was immortalised as Dürer's Rhinoceros after dying in a shipwreck? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Indian rhinoceros. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Indian rhinoceros), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Attention needed at username change request

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Message received. 20 upper (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: If no one responds, please action the request. Plus, I already informed an involved administrator (Deepfriedokra) and he seems OK with it. I'm responding here because I do not wish to edit the Admin's noticeboard, and keep my edit count to that page at zero. I prefer building content rather than editing in a drama-filled area. 20 upper (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

FAC

Yo. Don't get discouraged. It took me a few times to get my first FAC passed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks man. It's hard. I'll give it another go later this year if the nom doesn't end up promoted. I now need to take a nighttime stroll to decompress. Oh! and I still have the Brown Bear GA to complete tomorrow. 20 upper (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey your first FA nom went better than mine, which tanked alot more decisively. Look, it's doable. You get used to it and gets easier. But yeah decompress, have a break and see how you feel. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Casliber, you are a very successful editor with more than a hundred FAs! A large portion of your FAs are in my area of expertise, so can you shed some light on how you were able to achieve all this? 20 upper (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In general, the narrower the topic/subject, the easier it is. So for narwhal, I too was worried about cultural material, which just isn't an issue in many organisms I've done. Some also "come together" alot easier than others and it's hard to put a finger on it. My writing also got better over time - have a look at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing as this really helped. Gotta run now, but will muse on things today. e.g. my thinking would be that Indian rhinoceros might be more achievable than brown bear...maybe at first glance??? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Casliber: Yes the cultural material is my weakest point, other than that I think the article is high quality. I'm not planning on bringing Indian rhinoceros or Brown bear to FA until much later; I'm solely focused on featuring narwhal by April. 20 upper (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to help. First thing is to double check comprehensiveness, then copyedit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• As I mentioned before, I strongly recommend taking this to WP:peer review before FAC. As I suspected, many of the issues that were brought up during the last FAC were related to various formalities that one mainly pics up after some nominations. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @FunkMonk: I failed FAC miserably, and I now have further problems in real life and have to check on my sister who just burnt herself, like 30 minutes ago from the time of this message, it is really stressful and they are now asking for my help. I am so stressed right now that I can't think about FAC. I'll, however, try to maintain my editing streak through this hardship. 20 upper (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Best wishes, FAC certainly isn't that important. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Everything is fine; it was only a first-degree burn. I must say, where you were during the review when I required your assistance. I will try to fix the article's taxonomy and culture section over the weekend and post it at the WP:Guild of copy-editors. I really want to push chimpanzee to FA after I'm done with narwhal, so if you want to work with me on that, you can focus on evolution, taxonomy, and culture while I tackle the rest of the article. I will ping additional editors to participate as well. June is the suggested date. This project is a necessity as chimpanzees are our closest living relatives last time I checked. 20 upper (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Good to hear. Well, I was here on the talk page, I had already given my two cents; I feared it was going to have problems if you didn't first get it through GAN or PR yourself. I'm still willing to look it over at a PR. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: It already went to PR; you can provide a review on the talk page. I'll be re-nominating it in the near future. 20 upper (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no indication on the article's talk page that there was a PR, and if there was, I should have been notified so I could comment then. A new FAC is premature until all issues raised at the last FAC have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Snowy albatross

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Snowy albatross you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

GANReviewTool

Hello friend. My error logs indicate that the GANReviewTool script you were using failed to finish promotion, twice. Is it possible you are clicking away from the page before the script says "done" or "error"? If you're clicking away early, it could cause this kind of error. Or another possible cause is a bad internet connection. Could that possibly apply? I'm trying to get to the bottom of this bug since it happens a couple times a month to various people. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: For some reason, my browser crashed and loaded a message stating Error, something unexpected happened upon loading the preview. Please close and try again. I don't think my wifi is the problem. Wolverine XI ^{(den • 🐾)} 13:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Brown bear at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step III of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Brown bear

Hello! Your submission of Brown bear at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Snowy albatross

The article Snowy albatross you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Snowy albatross for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Million Award for brown bear

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Brown bear (estimated annual readership: 1,270,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks a lot. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fishing cat

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fishing cat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fishing cat

The article Fishing cat you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Fishing cat for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Fishing cat

Hey, Wolverine. I've been asked to look into your behaviour on the GANs for this article. Please take a step back for a little while - two editors have given some good advice on improving the article, and I'm sure they are both willing to give you feedback on your changes. However, comments like this are both unproductive and unfair to the reviewer. Please remember to remain civil and assume good faith on the part of others. Thanks, — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: Allow me to explain. I'm not attempting to act impolite. As you can see, I modified fishing cat and got it ready for GA. Grungaloo failed the article for lack of broadness without allowing me to comment. All right, so I woke up early the following morning and added what little information I could locate about the species. I then wrote a note on Grungaloo's talk page for it. I nominated it again after following Grungaloo's advice. Fritzmann appeared and quickly failed the article on the grounds that I had not, in fact, followed Grungaloo's recommendations. What struck me about Fritzmann was their statement "the only addition was a section on infections." At GAN nominaters should let the editor make corrections to the article, not to fail it for that reason. In addition, Fritzmann overreacted by criticizing me harshly for my prior behavior even though I had been acting well lately. I think there is a misunderstanding here and that both of us are in the wrong. The aforementioned comment is what really caught my attention. Additionally, the issue with their quick fails is that, despite my best efforts, there is not enough scientific literature to support their claims. Fritzmann, I'd like to talk to you to make things okay. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Brown bear

On 29 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brown bear, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in some rare cases, large Siberian tigers prey on adult brown bears? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brown bear. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Brown bear), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wolverine in Oregon!!

Hi!

Just thought you may want to add this to the wolverine article. Wolverine spotted multiple times in Eugene, Oregon. Wolverine’s are not thought to live in Oregon. https://www.koin.com/video/wolverine-spotted-in-eugene-suspected-to-be-same-one-seen-on-oregon-coast/9580910/

Best,

Doug 2601:1C2:4301:2320:352C:91B4:A7D6:B714 (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Djong (ship) has an RfC

Djong (ship) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Talk:Djong (ship) on a "History and geography" request for comment-- your comment would be greatly appreciated Merzostin (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

note re ideas

hi. i like your ideas, for a possible "hall of fame." i left some comments at village pump Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I see them. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Giant panda

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Giant panda you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Giraffe revert

Apologies, I think it must have been a template issue or something. At the time the infobox was broken in only your (latest) revision but not previous ones, someone else alerted me to it online and the issue was visible for me in multiple browsers and on multiple devices for only that revision which is why I reverted it. I dunno what happened there but whatever it is, it's fixed now (even your original revision I reverted shows up as it should). I thought maybe an odd encoding/parsing issue happened with the comma you added. Sorry for the confusion! Ennuified (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's OK. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)