User talk:InvadingInvader/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
ANI discussion regarding WikiProject Years
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am notifying you because you were mentioned in a post regarding the ongoing dispute relating to WikiProject Years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chevron Corporation
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chevron Corporation 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 Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chevron Corporation
The article Chevron Corporation you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Chevron Corporation 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 Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Keep my wife's name out your fuckin mouth and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Keep my wife's name out your fuckin mouth until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Video Game Barnstar | |
| For giving a good closing rationale on that Mario Kart 8 Deluxe discussion! The Night Watch (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
- A bit late, but I remembered that whoever would close that trainwreck of a discussion might need one of these. Cheers for that one!
The Night Watch (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Charles III on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Years draft
I've been thinking about what the next steps are for the years articles, and I wanted to know if you have any plans keep working on User:InvadingInvader/Years draft. I'm hoping the RfC on splitting births/deaths will be closed in the next week or so, but little came from the Village Pump discussion about what should actually go into the articles, so we need some sort of next step. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think that comments on the new 2001 would ultimately be a good guiding principle. However, I don't really have too much of the energy to continue it as much as I have (fun fact: I have a life outside of wikipedia lol), but thanks for the check in. You're free to make that draft your own, and I don't mind if you move it to your userspace as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- All right, I just wanted to avoid a situation where multiple editors were working on redundant versions of the same thing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Please stop
Hello, InvadingInvader,
Please stop tagging drafts and User pages for speedy deletion, CSD G13. Neither of the pages you tagged was eligible. Please review Criteria for Speedy Deletion for G13 so you better understand when a Draft article or User page is eligible.
Right now, we have bots that tell us when pages are eligible for G13 speedy deletion the day they are eligible so it is very unlikely that you will stumble upon an eligible page that the bot hasn't already told us about. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Alrighty; sorry about that. Thanks for the reminder. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Successors of Standard Oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
List of Child's Play Characters
Don’t discriminate on cats! 71.7.14.194 (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not trying to, but please provide a reliable source for all you edits. We have policies which require that everything be sourced reliably on Wikipedia with no original research, see WP:NOR and WP:RS. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Profile change
The translation in the article used as citation is "my coach AND the Anisoara Cusmir Stanciu, the Romanian track and field federation president (that was there as an official with the Romanian team), explained what I've needed to improve".
Anisoara Cusmir Stanciu is not his coach, but because she is closed to the Romanian long jumping community (because she was a long jump Olympic Champion in 1984 in Los Angeles), she was only trying to help.
"After the event he gave credit to his coach Anișoara Cușmir for giving him the advice to improve his jumps and win the medal." - This quote is misinformation.
Good luck! 63.231.138.92 (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't really look like it's misinformation. I would encourage you to create an account to gain additional editing privileges. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
"Rock n roll Rishi" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Rock n roll Rishi 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/2023 March 15 § Rock n roll Rishi until a consensus is reached. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Florida House Bill 999 is a very good article. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
372
Hi II. You added some content to the lead of Libs of TikTok cited to a reference named ":372" which isn't defined. Do you know what source you meant to cite? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Heya! Just inserted it now; thanks for reminding me. Likely a technical error; sourcing a Vice article viewable here: [1] InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, InvadingInvader. Thank you for your work on Anti-fentanyl legislation in the United States. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Very nice job on the article.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Onel5969 TT me 10:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me something fun to build off of. The buying Wikipedia lore is growing... Panini! • 🥪 00:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel and Template talk:Australian elections on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sword of the Spirit on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Yale Debate Association on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at User talk:Teknologi Exprt, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Note: When manually adding templates, as you did here, you still need to add your signature. If you have manually added templates to other user talk pages, you will need go back to see if you need to add your signature. Going forward, you should use WP:Twinkle to add temlplate notices like this. - wolf 00:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC) - wolf 00:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
RfC close at Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act
Hey. Will you please self-revert your recent close of the RfC on Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act? Having made a !vote in that RfC you are involved, and given the nature of that RfC it would be best handled by a wholly uninvolved closer following a request at WP:CR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there; and thanks for your concern. I do think that given my "either works" stance at the RFC, that my position remains neutral and I did make a neutral close. My !vote in the RFC did not expressly favor one side over the other. I do not consider myself involved to a degree that it would create a biased closure. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- When read alongside your other comments on the talk page, in particular in the discussion that lead into the RfC it's clear to me that your involved. Your comment on 30 March 2023, in particular the last sentence of it, has a lot of parallels to the closure made today, as the change from the RfC was to attribute the nickname to the bill's critics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also draw your attention to this comment made by Rhododendrites, who also believes that you were involved when you made this closure. Will you please self-revert it, or will I have to take this AN for a review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- As the most active person on that talk page (and all within the last few months!), and someone who has persistently found themselves advocating for a certain POV there, you should not be closing any controversial discussion reltaed to the topic. I've been much less active, but even I'm sufficiently involved that I would never attempt to close something there. That you even participated in the RfC moves us past "obviously involved" and into WP:DE territory. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would recommend that you not overexaggerate my actions into disruptive editing and assume good faith in my closure; nevertheless, per your requests, I've withdrawn it. Turns out that I've forgotten a lot about this talk page lol InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- No exaggeration. I will add to what I said to point out that you have even added the "by critics" language to the article in the past. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would recommend that you not overexaggerate my actions into disruptive editing and assume good faith in my closure; nevertheless, per your requests, I've withdrawn it. Turns out that I've forgotten a lot about this talk page lol InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- As the most active person on that talk page (and all within the last few months!), and someone who has persistently found themselves advocating for a certain POV there, you should not be closing any controversial discussion reltaed to the topic. I've been much less active, but even I'm sufficiently involved that I would never attempt to close something there. That you even participated in the RfC moves us past "obviously involved" and into WP:DE territory. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also draw your attention to this comment made by Rhododendrites, who also believes that you were involved when you made this closure. Will you please self-revert it, or will I have to take this AN for a review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- When read alongside your other comments on the talk page, in particular in the discussion that lead into the RfC it's clear to me that your involved. Your comment on 30 March 2023, in particular the last sentence of it, has a lot of parallels to the closure made today, as the change from the RfC was to attribute the nickname to the bill's critics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
(This isn't a warning or anything -- I just see that nobody has dropped this one here yet). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Could you clarify your closure for this discussion
Hey InvadingInvader. In your closure of Wikipedia talk:No original research#RfC on clarification of WP:CALC for costliest tornadoes, you said, “there is a rough consensus that calculating tornado costliness based off of NOAA, generally due to issues with NOAA itself, does not fall under WP:CALC but more so WP:OR. Costliness of a tornado must have a reliable secondary source attributed to the fact.
” The discussion was about costliest tornado lists per year (at least that is what it was started based on) and not about a specific tornado’s costliness (aka damage totals) from NOAA. Could you clarify if the part that is OR is specifically costliest tornado lists (i.e. X tornado is costlier than Y tornado) based on NOAA data, or is determining a tornado’s costliness from NOAA data now considered OR (i.e. NOAA saying the 1974 Xenia tornado caused $100 million in damage)? The statement seemed to be broadly worded, so maybe a slight clarification would help. Cheers and thanks in advance! Elijahandskip (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sure thing, and I'll add this to the closing statement. Most editors seem to think that due to data issues with NOAA itself, that calculating ranks of tornado damage within a year without a non-NOAA source would violate WP:OR. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I figured it was specific to the yearly damage total lists. But for the sake of removing a problem that might arise down the road, I wanted some clarification to make sure it was for that and not NOAA in general. I appreciate you responding! Elijahandskip (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, InvadingInvader
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mattdaviesfsic, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, God church, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.
If you wish to contest the deletion:
- Edit the page
- Remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - Click the button.
If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mattdaviesfsic}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID
InvadingInvader, thanks so much for closing that discussion. I note that you proposed a discussion to be listed at WP:CENT. There is actually a discussion which already started at Wikipedia:VPP#RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons. starship.paint (exalt) 06:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I noticed that recently; I would recommend that the two discussions be merged in some way. Thanks for letting me know! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chicago CRED on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
DYK for 715 Harrison
On 17 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 715 Harrison, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the San Francisco nightclub City Nights was the target of bombing threats by an alleged supporter of the Islamic State? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/715 Harrison. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 715 Harrison), 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.
—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Is Joal Stanfield notable MagicalPrince863 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- If I have to google them, I don't think they have a clear shot at notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Transsexual Pseudo-RfC
This isn't about the assessment (Thank you, btw! I agree and others won't, but it seemed like an excellent good-faith discussion). It's about the presentation of the archiving on the talk page. Only about half to discussion ended up in the 'coloured box'. The {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} template-tags are in the right places. It seems to have gotten confused by an inline {{reflist}}. I didn't want to bother you, but I don't know enough about the template to see how it could be fixed, and can't find any resources on that template. Sorry, Last1in (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Likely it was an issue with the source editor since it restricts editing space – I just skipped to the "end" of the discussion with Command A and an arrow key. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note, I'm uninvolved with the merge request, though have edited the article and had it on my watchlist for some time.
- I'm not entirely sure I agree with the closure. The way that the close is worded makes it seem like a supervote in part though not in whole, as there's a lot of your own opinion in there, relative to the description of the discussion itself. Could you expand briefly on how you weighed the supports and opposes against each other? Particularly the POVFORK arguments made by those supporting the merge, as in my opinion those were very strong and not really refuted by those opposing the merge. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how my closing of No Consensus is a supervote. I think that what I saw is something that more so needs further refinement, with equally strong arguments on both sides. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry to have let this sit for so long. Would you please consider self-reverting the close of Transgender/transsexual merge request? Per comments here, both myself and CaptainEek would have closed this as a successful merge as we both felt that the arguments for merging were significantly stronger than those opposed to it.
- If not, I'll likely be a close challenge at AN per the usual advice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- To add on to Sideswipe, after further discussion, RoxySaunders proposed what is I think a good solution to the merge problem: the current content of Transsexual gets largely merged into Transgender, and Transsexual continues to exist, instead focusing on its history as a term. There seemed to be general support for that approach, and I think an amendment to your close could reflect that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Could I suggest a BOLD merger? Since it's phrased as a pseudo-RFC, I do think that a more formal merger procedure would be better. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean? If you mean that one of us should boldly merge the articles absent a change of the close, I respectfully decline. I'm not going to spend the many hours it will take to merge the articles, just to have it undone as going against consensus. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Understood. In fuller response to the request, I do think that Roxy has a good idea for a proposal in his/her/their partial merger idea, which I think should be put for its own RFC or merger discussion as a sort of compromise, one which I do think will have consensus. I do think that the POV fork is a good rebuttal to the opposers of a merge, but I do ultimately have to factor in the opposition, and with that I stated No Consensus. Last1n in particular makes several points which I do see the opposition center around: that this is a slippery slope, and this could be seen as a POV Merge. If you view this as too cautious, you're free to do so, but I would much rather be overly cautious and underperform rather than jumping to a conclusion which has potential to offend. It goes without saying the nature of the topic at hand is, put lightly, extremely sensitive to some.
- Again, Roxy's idea seems like a fair compromise which should be proposed before the wider crowd. If y'all want to organize the RFC or discussion around it, go ahead; if you prefer I do it, I am willing to do it once I get access to a laptop and I'm not responding to discussions on an iPhone. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean? If you mean that one of us should boldly merge the articles absent a change of the close, I respectfully decline. I'm not going to spend the many hours it will take to merge the articles, just to have it undone as going against consensus. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Could I suggest a BOLD merger? Since it's phrased as a pseudo-RFC, I do think that a more formal merger procedure would be better. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- To add on to Sideswipe, after further discussion, RoxySaunders proposed what is I think a good solution to the merge problem: the current content of Transsexual gets largely merged into Transgender, and Transsexual continues to exist, instead focusing on its history as a term. There seemed to be general support for that approach, and I think an amendment to your close could reflect that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how my closing of No Consensus is a supervote. I think that what I saw is something that more so needs further refinement, with equally strong arguments on both sides. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Second Outerbelt moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Second Outerbelt, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. SounderBruce 03:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, InvadingInvader. Thank you for your work on Go woke go broke. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:
Hey y'all! I sure hope y'all are havin' a mighty fine day today. I just wanted to say a heartfelt thank you for takin' the time to contribute to Wikipedia by creatin' that there article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Now y'all can rest easy and enjoy the rest of your day, along with your kinfolk! Y'all take care now, ya hear?
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Frank Morano on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Uchronia on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive |  |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
Concern regarding Draft:Smartphone cinematography
Hello, InvadingInvader. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Smartphone cinematography, 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) 00:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Sommer Ray
Hello, InvadingInvader. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sommer Ray, 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) 21:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)