User talk:Cagliost

ITN recognition for Zara Rutherford

On 21 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Zara Rutherford, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Your edit to Heather Hancock has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

National airworthiness authorities

Hi Cagliost,

I see you are systematically moving through Wikipedia’s aviation articles changing the expression “national aviation/airworthiness authority” to “civil aviation authority”. For example, diff. Presumably you are doing this because Wikipedia’s relevant page is titled “Civil aviation authority”; and National aviation authority and National airworthiness authorities redirect to Civil aviation authority.

For many of the articles you are editing in this way, the reliable published source is the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s Annexes. In particular, Annex 8 relating to Airworthiness of Aircraft uses the expression “national airworthiness authorities” (in two places):

• Annex 8, 3rd paragraph: Annex 8 includes broad standards which define, for application by the national airworthiness authorities, the minimum basis for the recognition by States of Certificates of Airworthiness for the purpose of flight of aircraft of other States into and over their territories, thereby achieving, among other things, protection of other aircraft, third parties and property. It is recognized that ICAO Standards would not replace national regulations and that national codes of airworthiness containing the full scope and extent of detail considered necessary by individual States would be required as the basis for the certification of individual aircraft. Each State is free to develop its own comprehensive and detailed code of airworthiness or to select, adopt or accept a comprehensive and detailed code established by another Contracting State. The level of airworthiness required to be maintained by a national code is indicated by the broad standards of Annex 8 supplemented, where necessary, by guidance material provided in ICAO's Airworthiness Technical Manual (Doc 9760).

• Annex 8, 7th paragraph: To assist States in establishing contact with appropriate national airworthiness authorities, necessary information has been provided in an ICAO circular (Circ 95) which is available on the ICAO-Net.

Here is a web link to ICAO’s Annexes 1 to 18 inclusive. ICAO Annexes. If you search for “civil aviation authority(ies)” and “civil airworthiness authority(ies)” you will find nothing. Conversely if you search for “national airworthiness authorities” you will find the above two quotations.

Wikipedia’s guidance material indicates things should be given the name most commonly used in reliable published sources rather than the title of the most appropriate Wikipedia page. Before I raise the issue for consideration by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation, do you have any comments that might indicate that “civil aviation authority” is more appropriate than “national aviation/airworthiness authority” when referring to matters for which ICAO provides a reliable published source? Dolphin (t) 11:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dolphin, I've finished my sweep, so feel free to revert any changes you think appropriate. There's sometimes a distinction between airworthiness authorities and aviation authorities, some countries have a single body but other countries have several bodies regulating aviation. In the ICAO Annexes pdf you link to, it refers to national airworthiness authorities but not to national aviation authorities or civil aviation authorities.

I think it depends on context. For example, you link to Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles where I think my edit is correct. cagliost (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I agree that each instance depends on context. I will think further on the issue. Dolphin (t) 22:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The Levanter moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Levanter, 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. scope_creep^Talk 16:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This article should not have been moved to Draft. It passes WP:NBOOKS: "2. The book has won a major literary award." It does not meet any of the criteria at WP:DRAFTIFY, in particular, it meets WP:STUB. cagliost (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Levanter (March 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Levanter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Levanter, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cagliost! Having an article 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! Bkissin (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Levanter has been accepted

The Levanter, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 11:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Linehan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter Linehan 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 Legobot, on behalf of Asilvering -- Asilvering (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Linehan

The article Peter Linehan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Peter Linehan 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 Legobot, on behalf of Asilvering -- Asilvering (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Graeme Rocher for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Graeme Rocher is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graeme Rocher until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

MarioGom (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Lift-induced drag

HI Cagliost. The article presently contains the sentence “A two-dimensional wing can still reduce drag for a given lift, by travelling faster and reducing its angle of attack, therefore reducing profile drag.” It is tagged “citation needed”. On 22 April you responded by providing an in-line citation pointing to a NASA web site. See your diff. Thanks for providing that.

I have perused the text you cited in support of the sentence but I can find nothing to support the sentence quoted above. If you still believe the NASA website contains some words that are truly relevant to the sentence in question, please let me know which words you have in mind. You can do so by quoting the words exactly, like this: “To separate the effects of angle of attack on drag, and drag due to lift, aerodynamicists often use two wing models.”

Secondly, I would appreciate your view on why you think a sentence dedicated to reducing profile drag deserves mention in a sub-section titled “Reducing induced drag”. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 13:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ten days have passed so I will remove the offending sentence. Dolphin (t) 11:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The source provided, titled "Inclination Effects on Drag", clearly states "as angle increases, drag increases". It's relevant because lift-induced drag is not the only cause of the effect where (at slow speeds) drag decreases as speed increases. It's helpful to the reader to understand that there are other causes of this effect, otherwise they might be left with the impression that lift-induced drag is the only cause.

This discussion belongs on the article talk page where others can see it. cagliost (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll copy this discussion to the article talk page, please respond there. cagliost (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Lift-induced drag. Dolphin (t) 01:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of C. N. H. Lock

Hello! Your submission of C. N. H. Lock 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! ISD (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Julian Hans

Hello, Cagliost,

Thank you for creating Julian Hans.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs more references to satisfy notability for biography of living persons - AND FOR WP:NSPORT What is needed are references giving significant coverage about this person, and independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are reliable - WP:RS; that is your guide.

You may also read WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources.
Pages of photographs, mentions of this person on pages about other topics do not garner notability.

A more comprehensive guide is WP:BASIC ... People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Lack of attention to the above is likely to mean that the article may not be suitable for inclusion.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Air Forces Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Peck.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Thanks for contributing to the article Staff College, Camberley. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Cagliost

Thank you for creating Ekolot KR-010 Elf.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

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) 04:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for C. N. H. Lock

On 29 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article C. N. H. Lock, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that C. N. H. Lock was a British aerodynamicist, after whom the Lock number is named? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/C. N. H. Lock. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, C. N. H. Lock), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rising from the ranks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fitzroy Maclean.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Cagliost, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed' and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned prolific creators of articles where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Center of lift

Hi Cagliost. In at least two of your recent edits you have inserted the expression “center of lift”. This is inappropriate. Reliable sources never use this expression; they use “center of pressure” instead. There is a good reason for this: the aerodynamic force on a wing is defined to act through the center of pressure; the aerodynamic force is arbitrarily decomposed into two forces – lift and drag. Lift and drag add to form the aerodynamic force, and they both act through the same point – the center of pressure. Wikipedia does not acknowledge the use of the expression “center of lift” or “center of drag” and there is no article dedicated to either of these. Center of lift redirects to center of pressure. Please remove “center of lift” from those places where you have inserted it.

Thanks for the explanation of why they are not synonymous. I have fixed it in Flight dynamics (fixed-wing aircraft) and Longitudinal stability. If there are any more articles, please tell me and I will take a look. Alternatively, rather than pedantically sending me personal messages, you could make the one-word change yourself, it would take you less time. cagliost (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

In this edit you wrote “A typical aircraft will have its center of lift behind its center of gravity.” As you know, this is incorrect. Contrast it with a similar statement in Longitudinal stability#Center of gravity and neutral point which says “In a conventional aircraft, the center of gravity is forward of the neutral point.” Note the incorrect switch from neutral point to center of lift/pressure.

Changed to "center of pressure". If we want to change this to "neutral point" (and also make the change in Longitudinal stability), it will require a rephrase to avoid a circular explanation. cagliost (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

On 30 June 2022 I left a message for you at Talk:Static margin. See my diff. I did not ping you, assuming you would have this page on your Watchlist. You have not responded so perhaps you haven’t seen it. I suggest you respond – you have deleted a large amount of text without either an edit summary or an explanation of why you removed so much text. This is always an invitation for some other User to revert your edits and restore the original version! Dolphin (t) 01:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking now. Please ping me next time, I don't have every page I've ever edited on a watchlist. cagliost (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

1. In this edit, in the first sentence you inserted “In aircraft analysis, static margin is defined as the distance between the center of gravity and the neutral point of the aircraft, …” In the next paragraph you inserted “Conventional aircraft have the center of lift behind the center of gravity , …”
2. When I see you make a significant error I prefer to let you know so you can learn from the experience. If I fix the error you learn nothing. There are too few competent young Users working in the field of aerodynamics so when one comes along, such as yourself, I am keen to mentor and assist. That is the way Wikipedia works.
3. You have written that if we want to change center of pressure to neutral point "it will require a rephrase to avoid a circular explanation." I see no risk of any circular explanation. Reliable sources on the subject of longitudinal stability use the concept of neutral point rather than center of pressure. We are all required to use explanations and descriptions used in reliable sources; you may have a personal preference for “center of pressure” but that doesn’t allow you to insert material that is at odds with reliable published sources. More importantly, I assume you are aware that the center of pressure moves in response to changes in airspeed? As airspeed reduces the center of pressure moves forward so it is unreasonable to assert that the center of pressure is always behind the center of gravity; it is certainly not supported by any reliable source that I am aware of. Dolphin (t) 11:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Impersonation on Rationalwiki

A user with the same username on Rationalwiki is impersonating me, presumably due to my edits on Edward Dutton (author) (since deleted). I am not that user. cagliost (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for David Davies (test pilot)

On 24 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Davies (test pilot), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David P. Davies was the chief test pilot for the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority for 33 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Davies (test pilot). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, David Davies (test pilot)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Cagliost. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Peck (RAF officer).
Message added 03:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Peck (RAF officer)

On 20 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard Peck (RAF officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the de Havilland Mosquito was almost cancelled in 1940, but Air Vice-Marshal Richard Peck persuaded Air Marshal Wilfrid Freeman to continue the programme? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Peck (RAF officer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Richard Peck (RAF officer)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Ekolot KR-010 Elf

Hi Cagliost, The Empty wt is too low. Reasonably sure it should be around 120 Kgs (not 120 lbs). This is a typical empty wt of aircraft aiming to comply with ultralight specifications, such as the US FAR Part 103. I examined the revision all the way back to the creation of this article, to find this error was introduced at the creation. cheers, PlainsSoarer (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Preview – Consolidate – Summarize

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 23:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Michael Fabricant Wig

Hello Cagliost, I am reaching out to you today to settle the content dispute. I think it is pivital that anyone who stumbles across Micheal Fabricant's page is told the whole truth. The whole truth must contain the fact that is commonly agreed he is wearing a wig, Despite his denial. Many Thanks, Zep Ecu zep (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Contagium vivum fluidum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page E. B. Wilson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Airports in Haute-Normandie

A tag has been placed on Category:Airports in Haute-Normandie indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

MS Sis

Hi, Wasn't vandalism by Akbotas, the original cite actually says 31 November! My fault for not noticing the mistake in the original text. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Nonetheless there is no such thing as 31 November. I'm beginning to suspect user Akbotas is an AI experiment! New account, prolific editor on a wide variety of unrelated topics, most edits are of dubious value (mainly just adding commas), some edits are valuable, but a high rate of mistakes: wrong links, incorrectly "correcting" typos, copy-editing quotations. cagliost (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Multi-crew pilot licence

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Multi-crew pilot licence, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Please don't add a naked URL as a reference. Generally, the ref should contain the name of the author, the date of publication, the title of the book, the publisher's name, and the page number, among other things. See Help:Referencing for beginners.

Also, please avoid WP:Primary sources such as Theodor Morrell, who is also not a WP:Reliable source. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2022

Hey, you stated in the Ryanair article that Ryanair Sun was rebranded to Buzz in 2019. Do you have a reference for it? WikiPate (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Bond 26" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bond 26 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 September 18 § Bond 26 until a consensus is reached. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

License tagging for File:SHELL.png

Thanks for uploading File:SHELL.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaroslav Hunka

In this edit [1] you struck a comment by @MAINEiac4434, I assume this is a mistake, since MAINEiac4434 does have extendedconfirmed rights?

Thanks for letting me know, I have apologised for my mistake. I see that it is fixed. cagliost (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Also this [2] appears to be inappropriate modification of other people's comments, per WP:TPO. People are allowed to express that they strongly think X should happen to an article, and "Strong foo" comments are commonly seen in all kinds of XFD discussions. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Strong keep", "weak delete" etc are commonly seen on deletion discussions, but they should not be. See WP:NOTARG and WP:STRONG. The arguments are what counts, not the fervour with which they are expressed. cagliost (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an essay arguing that a "strong keep" is equivalent to a "keep" is a particularly strong justification for editing other people's comments in an AFD debate, it is the job of the closer to asses the merits of each comment and discard/devalue those with little basis in policy. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

you putting it on delete is highly suspicious. Gorgonopsi (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Just curious...

Are we supposed to retroactively strike out existing !votes from non-extended-confirmed users after extended confirmed protection has been enacted?[3] I don't think I've seen that before, but I could be out of touch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know whether there's policy on it, but I don't see why an IP editor should be taken into account just because they got in before the page was protected. cagliost (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge See the Extended-confirmed protection provision of WP:GS/RUSUKR:

non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area ... Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations ...

On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Carl von Schirach

Hello,

I have just added some pictures on Carl von Schirach's wiki page, could you please check to see if everything is alright? I would also like to introduce his sabre as one of his last personal objects that have been kept, as i have talked with his relatives and it seems like they only have an early picture of him, with no other personal objects. Believing that you are more experienced, i think you would do a so much better job at introducing it, only if you also think thats a great idea. Personally, i think that would be a nice addition. The sabre is currently in my collection and here his a small description of it:

It is a modest dove's head, without much ornamentation. What makes it really special are the engravings with the Schirach family coat of arms, the initials C and S, the Freiherr (baron) crown and the WKC-made damask blade. Also, on the spine you can see the name of the merchant who sold it and the city (Erfurt) which matches the path taken by Carl. The sword is accompanied by a very rare royal dragon made of metal wire. An interesting thing is the ring attached to the head of the sword, which is believed to be something specific to cavalry swords.

I am looking forward to hearing something from you, thank you very much!

Greetings, LP Luklittleboy (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Gottfried Müller (politician)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gottfried Müller (politician), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Gottfried Johannes Müller (10 April 1914 – 26 September 2009)

I would like to see my draft article on Gottfried Johannes Müller (10 April 1914 – 26 September 2009) adopted (and bettered). I have nurtured this article for a long time. I do not have a direct connection with Salem or Müller (or his family), but I have twice visited the Salem Village in Rumney, New Hampshire when Thom Hartmann was its Executive Director. I think that he left that work (which was a Christian vegetarian orphanage) because he was (becoming) a humanist (or becaue he wanted to become more overtly involved with political activities. Are you interested in working with that article (toward acceptance)?? MaynardClark (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I had used for my article the same profile photo that is being used in the Gottfried Müller (politician) article. MaynardClark (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldur von Schirach

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Baldur von Schirach 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 Asilvering -- Asilvering (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldur von Schirach

The article Baldur von Schirach you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Baldur von Schirach 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 Asilvering -- Asilvering (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)