Hello, YellowSkarmory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Thank you for fixing links in 1961 tornado article...can you do others?
What you saw in the Tornadoes of 1961 article is the product of me trying to fix and expand an entire article by myself when I was very much a newbie. It did hurt my pride a little bit to see what you put in the edit summary, but I'm glad you fixed it. I would give you a barnstar, but I'm typing this on my flip phone and can't find how to do it. LOL! Could you do of a favor and fix the links in the the other articles too? I'm very busy right now and can't do it myself.ChessEric (talk·contribs) 01:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skarmory,
I removed the statement about Mr Chapman's case in the personal section as the case was thrown out for lack of evidence. It falls under defamatory statements as it implies he was convicted of the accusation. I know that this for a fact and have removed the statement again.
Cheers Dahlia2022 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dahlia2022: Best course of action there is to add the case being thrown out for a lack of evidence and provide a source for that as well. Also, the edit summary "removal of section" is not particularly descriptive – it's better to add an explanation of why you removed the section, e.g. "Removed section because the case was thrown out due to lack of evidence" or something along those lines. Skarmory(talk •contribs)21:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would be grateful if you would leave my edit in and not re-add that personal section text. I'll have a read of the essay. Cheers Dahlia2022 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dahlia2022: I left it there for a while, while I tried to find anything online, and couldn't. If you have any sources for it being dismissed, I'm happy to add it along with the arrest; if not, discussion should be taken to Talk:Mark Lindsay Chapman, where someone can hopefully find a source. For now, all that's mentioned is he was arrested, and no status of him being convicted or anything is marked there, so I wouldn't say it's defamatory. Skarmory(talk •contribs)18:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Bostic
Hello you recently left me some messages on a talk page. I appreciate them but don't understand the complete revoke of the article, which held more then enough notable info on his career.
@LaylaDakota: Hey! For example, the bing video links are not reliable, and very subject to change, as they're a search. You should replace them with an actual video, if applicable, but if the videos are on YouTube it would be better to find something that's not on YouTube, as that's a user generated source. IMDb and Online world of Wrestling are more user-generated sources, and are also not considered reliable. Profiles do not contribute to notability as well – anything connected with the subject does not contribute to notability.
Sadly, just having references to verify all the information isn't good enough. Guidelines such as notability for entertainers (which includes wrestlers) exist, but they do not supersede the general notability guideline as a whole. If you can find significant coverage of him (not passing mentions, like in the hollywoodwrestling source) in sources which are not self published, databases and/or interviews, that'll be good – the general standard for that is three sources. Skarmory(talk •contribs)01:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving articles to draft space
Hi Skamory. I am Itcouldbepossible, whom you have met earlier. Last time I told you about moving articles to drafts like Draft:xxx(2). But today I saw one problem, and wanted to let you know about it. For example, if you can move Testing article to draftspace easily. But next time when you move you might get an API error. The userscript automatically adds "Draft:" before the page name in the Move to Draft: field box. so on moving it will be like Draft:Draft:xxx(2) . That is not allowed. So while entering the name of the new draft that you want the article to be moved to, then you have to remove the Draft: from the Move to Draft: field. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. So when the script automatically appends Draft: to the page name, just manually remove it. ItcouldbepossibleTalk11:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skarmory, we were in contact at the start of the year - I have just noticed that the following message still shows on the page 'Islamic Reporting Initiative'.
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
Is there anything I can do to speed up the process of resolving this? Is there anything I can do myself?
Thank you so much in advance! Julianross CSR (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Julianross CSR: I don't think you personally can do much, unfortunately. The article isn't in awful shape, and I may take a look at it later to clean it up more (been going through a lot health-wise as of late, so it may take a while), but considering you do have a COI there's not much you can directly do. Edit requests on the talk page would work from your end (see Talk:Geoff Morrell (spokesperson) for an example of some of these in action), and once the article is eventually cleaned up, the tag can go. (Sorry if this is vague and/or confusing – I'm tired and I'm also not exactly sure when the tag should ultimately be removed, but I'll make that call later on.) Skarmory(talk •contribs)23:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your user rights
Hi, I am Itcouldbepossible, whom you might remember. Earlier, I had given you a small tip while draftifying articles. Don't know if you remember it or not. Today I have come here to enquire about your user rights. I have seen that you have many user rights. But what I want to know is, from where did you get some of them from. For example, I don't find any request made by your to become a page mover or file mover at the file mover request page or at the page mover request page. Using the 'edits made by a particular user' tool, I can see that you had not made any edits to the page, which means you had not requested it there, but you still have the right, that too granted by good administrators. Same applies for your file mover rights. There is nothing that worries me, for you are a good editor and I am really fine with you having these rights. But, what I want to know is that, from where are you getting these permission requests accepted, I mean where are you actually requesting for these right? How are the administrators seeing your request? Is there a separate place other than the generalized permission granting page? ItcouldbepossibleTalk09:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It came from an off-wiki discussion; not really sure how much I should share here, so I'll leave it at that (not well-versed in wikiquette in this area).
I can tell you that the way I got it would not exactly be possible to replicate. I've still always gone through those venues outside of this one time, and when my page mover runs out, I plan to request the extension there. (I haven't used file mover, and I'll let it run out; maybe one day I can use it before it runs out, but I doubt I'll use it much and I don't need it necessarily) Skarmory(talk •contribs)23:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Skarmory -- I've deprodded this and intend to do further work on it. I can see why you thought the article needed deletion, the creator is clearly promotional in intent and the modern house is unlikely to be notable. However, the lodge is clearly notable as being grade II* listed, the surviving park also appears significant,[1] and the former hall has some book coverage. Got to go offline now but I'll see else what I can dig up tomorrow. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serves me right for pretty much blindly following a flowchart's instructions. I would've been much more hesitant if there wasn't a duplicate draft out there already – I'm also not used to the terminology and notability guidelines around buildings, so I'm not particularly surprised I missed something. Thanks for improving the article though – it's looking much better now! Skarmory(talk •contribs)06:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to get into NPP after the not-so-subtle appeal to lazy admins to help out with the backlog, but that flowchart just makes my head spin! I used to live in Cheshire and so have a print copy of de Figueredo & Treuherz, which is the best source on country houses in Cheshire, as well as the Cheshire edition of the Pevsner Architectural Guides. I don't think either are up on Google Books.
Sadly the editor who created it is busy trying to wreck it again; if you could keep an eye out that would be appreciated! Their talk page message made me smile. Actually I realised after I deprodded it there's actually an existing article on Astle Park, so the two probably need to be merged, but there's no point in doing that until the other editor decides to desist, or that will just get trashed too. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I thought I responded to this, huh. Anyway, the flowchart for me was the easiest way to keep track of what exactly I should be doing and checking in particular. I figure that's less necessary with more experience on Wikipedia as a whole, but I don't have that yet. It wasn't too hard for me to track by just following the exact path I needed.
I've looked at most of these already (I'm working systematically through all married name redirects created by this user, gotten through a decent portion so far, hoping to bulk nom the ones which don't really pull results once I'm done), but there are a few new ones I need to check there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, anyways! Skarmory(talk •contribs)08:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving your talk page
Hello, just a friendly request to archive your talk page. Your talk page is quite long (161kB where the maximum recommended in 75kB), and this can be an issue for mobile editors and editors with lower-powered machines if they try to load your talk page, as it can buffer and crash their search engines. You can get assistance at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thank you! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 11:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was running into slowdowns editing the full page, probably a good idea. I like leaving as much out in the open as possible, but collapsing newsletters isn't going to be much different from archiving them. Skarmory(talk •contribs)18:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liberian Heritage
Thanks for your question! Unfortunately I can't help you. Ten years ago I was working with a Liberia-focused archive, but that job ended in 2014; I don't even live in the same country anymore. Since then they've moved the collection physically and administratively (it was part of a different entity at the time, and I think it's been moved to a different building), and the current website says that the whole collection is closed at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note — since you thanked me really quickly after I left this note, you may not have seen that I expanded it. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May 2023 NPP Drive Awards
The Reviewer Barnstar
This award is given to Skarmory for collecting more than 200 points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm Gear Award
This award is given to Skarmory for collecting more than 28 points per week doing reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@R'n'B: Oh wow, that's embarrassing. I just autopiloted to hiding transclusions and links because I only really use what links here to check for redirects to a title. I had already used DisamAssist to see if there was anything I could fix, and saw nothing, but still... woops. Skarmory(talk •contribs)18:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Evansknight: I'd have to take a closer look, but my immediate impression is that the lede is really short (there's gotta be some more biographical information you can put in there), and the article itself feels a bit short (though there may just not be much more information out there on Wigand than what's already in the article). It'd probably be worth it to look at the B-class criteria and to try and meet them where you immediately notice things that don't reach the criteria. Skarmory(talk •contribs)22:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThecentreCZ: You opened an official requested move on the talk page before coming to me. Given there's an official RM discussion open, and the main article for the party was also recently moved to Social Democracy (Czech Republic), I don't see any harm in waiting the 7 days right now for the discussion to officially end.
Here's how to start reviewing at AFC/R: install User:Eejit43/scripts/AFCRHS. Congratulations, you now have an interface to accept, decline and comment on requests.
Some things to keep an eye on:
The script asks you to append a redirect category template when accepting. They aren't necessary, but I'd strongly encourage adding them. If you're not sure which one(s) to add just by the name, the best place to look is the template index for redirects. Just ctrl/cmd+f for the template you're looking for and look at its description.
The script by default only allows one redirect category template to be added with the accepted request. If you want to add multiple redirect category templates, you can get around this by selecting "Custom – prompt me" and inserting multiple templates in the format 1}}{{2 or 1}}{{2}}{{3 (if you add the surrounding brackets, you end up with the result I just got at Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty).
The script also includes category requests, as they're made at the same venue, though quite a bit less frequently (there were only 9 requests in May, and 5 were a connected group). These are a bit more complicated than redirect requests, and often take some more manual or semi-automated work, as you usually have to manually add the categories to the supplied pages. The script does take care of parent categories, though.
Commenting on requests feels a bit funky, because it prefixes your comment with the redirect you're commenting on (even if there's only one in the request), and it autofills a trailing period (so if you automatically type a sentence with proper grammar and a period at the end, it duplicates). Could just be my opinion, though.
If you're not sure on whether a redirect or category should be created, either leave a comment or leave it for another reviewer. (Pretty similar to other areas, and probably fairly common sense.)
Feel free to ask any more questions – I tried to cover the stuff that seemed like it would be generally useful to know and potentially confusing. While WP:RFD experience would probably help with some of the more complicated cases, it's definitely not necessary, and I'd say this is a relatively easy area to just hop into and start helping out. You don't even really need prior qualifications.
I don't think you read my !vote correctly - it was in opposition to the proposed action, with a detailed rationale. Just because I didn't state the term "Oppose" in bold that doesn't make what I said any different :) Please reconsider. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: I probably shouldn't have gone with the "no stated opposition" statement in the close, but knowing that was 100% meant to be an oppose doesn't change my close. I did clarify that the wikinav discussion gave me hesitance but wasn't enough to stop me from closing it as moved, and now knowing your comment was 100% equivalent to an !oppose !vote doesn't change anything. I will try to improve on potentially ambiguous closing statements in the future, though – I thought this one didn't feel great. Skarmory(talk •contribs)18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raktabeej 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 until the discussion has finished.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Therese Patricia Okoumou, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Cut and CBS Austin. 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.)
Hey, Llapi is the definitive form of Llap in Albanian. They are the same name. Since the other Kosovo geographic articles use definitive forms, Llapi as proposed by the OP is the one in line with Kosovo naming conventions. I used Llap instead of Llapi in my comments just for ease of writing, not that it is different from Llapi. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you see consensus to move, IMO the discussion should be closed because it has been open for almost a month with only 2 !votes apart from the OP. The OP proposed Llapi, I supported Llapi (I used Llap instead of indefinite Llapi in my comments just for ease of writing) and the other !vote (KleovoulosT) supports the proposal without mentioning the form Llap. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: Sounds good. I agree this discussion warrants a close sooner rather than later, I just didn't see a consensus between Llap and Llapi (due to the somewhat interchangeable nature, as I'm not familiar with definitive forms of Albanian, and per the comments). Skarmory(talk •contribs)00:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review of the discussion and the close. Albanian grammar is difficult; even among Albanian editors many can't tell the difference between definite and indefinite forms. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Hurricane Heather you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hurricane Heather for comments about the article, and Talk:Hurricane Heather/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... draftspace can be rough, and so can weird policy loops, especially when you don't have the technical ability to perform the correct action and not many people are going to do it for you. I think the best solution in this case, if you couldn't get someone to move the page over the redirect, would be to move it to a different but still acceptable title and then propose a move at WP:RM/TR; still, I wouldn't do that unless you're sure the page is ready for mainspace (it feels like barely skirting around guidelines, though I can't think of any it would directly violate, and this would be a good case of WP:IAR anyway). Skarmory(talk •contribs)18:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nuclear Sergeant: Ah, there's an edit filter against non-autoconfirmed users editing other users' user pages... I think the best way to proceed is just placing a notice on your current account's user page, wait until you gain autoconfirmed, and leave the note on your previous account's user page then. Skipping the latter step is probably fine (if for some reason anyone was concerned, they'd see the declaration on your current account's user page), but WP:COMPSOCK does recommend it (which I actually didn't know existed until this reply, though I'm not surprised). Skarmory(talk •contribs)10:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did the page move you requested. It was an odd one but I gather you wanted to retain a page history from a page move to a bad title. But now the page redirects to itself. Can you fix this to what you envisioned you wanted with this page? I know it shouldn't be a self-redirect but I don't know how you were trying to fix this. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; this was the end of a process of cleaning up an improvised round-robin move by a non-page mover that didn't really know what a round-robin move was, which is why the page history was at the bad title. Skarmory(talk •contribs)06:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you moved this article to this page title. I'm sure there are LDS members in the country of Georgia and this might be confusing to readers. We have always distinguished Georgia (state) from Georgia (country) in our categories and articles but recently an editor has been undoing what has been years of consistent practice.
One of my first mistakes when I began regularly editing in 2013 was changing all of these "Georgia (state)" pages to plain old "Georgia" and, boy, did I hear about it from veteran editors! Please consider reverting this move or at least opening up the page move for discussion. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Yeah, moves like that will attract attention... no way I make a move like that unless there's consensus for it, or there's no article that covers any of a topic on the country/state (depending on which way the move goes). I was still a bit hesitant, but the consensus there was clear and based on naming conventions, so there was no real reason to not close the discussion as moved unless I felt strongly about the title either way (in which case I would have !voted instead). Skarmory(talk •contribs)01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My sandbox
Hi, I think I made a lot of progress on writing things so they are clear. Can I ask you to take a look at it and see if it something that would make sense to be posted to the talk page for discussion? Saikyoryu (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's very long for a talk page message; walls of text/long lists can often get ignored or glossed over (you'll notice pretty much every comment on that talk page, aside from a couple edit requests, isn't much longer than two paragraphs). If you plan to post a large portion or all of that at once, I'd collapse it using {{collapse}}. Can't say much about the content itself – I try to stay out of these controversial political discussions (not my thing, they tend to get pretty heated), and I haven't really looked at much of anything here. Skarmory(talk •contribs)21:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I am seeing is that sources are posted and then there are a few editors who reply things like "How is it related to the film," or "There is no evidence that the film is in anyway connected to QAnon" so I wanted to put the quotes together to show the important parts. How they relate to the film, that the comments are made in the context of scheduled appearances promoting the film. Saikyoryu (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a table would be better here, if you want to post the whole thing. I'd personally just comment with the most relevant quotes in context, as that's more likely to be read than a full table (doing both is also fine). Skarmory(talk •contribs)22:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That increased the readability a lot more than I thought it would! The one thing I'd note is whether these are all direct pulls from the source or not, as the use of quotation marks within some of these quotes could make that distinction confusing. Just putting a sentence along the lines of "All quotes are directly pulled from the source." above everything should be good enough. Skarmory(talk •contribs)00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are one or two where I summarized because the full quote would be half or more of the article. Is there a good way to make those obvious if I put what you suggested at the top? Saikyoryu (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought the RfC wasn’t active, as the last post being four days ago. Is there a certain time frame for that? thanks Wolfquack (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have no reason to apologize to someone whom I asked to get off my talk page. You will not make it very far here if you expect everyone to apologize to you. Again if you want to do something do it yourself. Wolfquack (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Ok I was taking you seriously until" - rude and uncivil is all you have been. You have every reason to apologize and you never did. Saikyoryu (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I will apologize if my wording offended you." And you never actually apologized after I told you your words were completely offensive. Instead you got worse. Saikyoryu (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RFCs has it pretty much covered. In this case, someone uninvolved should determine the consensus from the RFC and close it, because it's a fairly big and contentious debate; it should also have a specific close of some sort (include the content, don't, or no consensus; one of those three), because of the participation and contention, it's not a good one to just let go without having a statement on wht the discussion brought. (FYI, the last comment at the time of the section being collapsed was Red-tailed Hawk's, which was around 24 hours old.) Skarmory(talk •contribs)21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that makes a little more sense. I closed some discussions before in separate articles but that was in previous months, and I genuinely forgot the “when”. I think next week however I will close it if it doesn’t get’s a discussion for at least another five days. Or maybe even archive some of the discussions. Wolfquack (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Hurricane Heather
On 29 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Heather, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hurricane Heather caused the normally dry Santa Cruz River to reach a 100-year flood stage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Heather. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hurricane Heather), 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.
@Elominius: I usually don't do much with lists in NPP that aren't splits from large pages, as I tend to find them hard to review, but I might as well learn if I'm going to review. Here, I'd wonder if there's a good place to put them, potentially in a parent article, though I'm not immediately finding a good parent article for any of these. (Maybe they could be converted into a broader scope? I'd accept them as lists in that case, though.)
The one I'm most concerned about is List of vlogging cameras, as the topic doesn't feel particularly encyclopedic to me, the grouping feels a bit loose, and the sourcing isn't independent/reliable enough for me to feel like it supports the article... but that happens to have been reviewed by another NPP reviewer. I'll figure out what to do later with that one. (The other three remain unreviewed – I'll take a closer look at them tomorrow if life permits and if they're not reviewed by then, but they seem to at least have more solid groupings.) Skarmory(talk •contribs)07:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Still trying to figure out exactly what to do with the history here – it was deleted at RFD, but I think the history needs to be attributed somehow. I'll blank the page for now. Skarmory(talk •contribs)02:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar!
The Original Barnstar
I was thinking about giving you a Barnstar for all your efforts at RfD and around the Wiki eventually, as I've been seeing you do good work! (Although it just so happened that I checked your userpage and found out that somehow, against all odds, we have the exact same number of edits which I've never seen happen before.) So, I thought I'd send it to you earlier than planned to commemorate that and also say thank you for all you do! Cheers, Utopes(talk / cont)19:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions
Hello Skarmory,
I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages .
The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.
If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.
If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.
This award is given to Skarmory for collecting more than 25 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Skarmory. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Mountain People, 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.
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.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.
For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.
Hello Skarmory, I'm awarding you this barnstar for your tireless efforts in making Wikipedia great. Yesterday, I was impressed when you politely asked me to revert an edit. Although I have had bad encounters with some editors, your approach needs to be studied in a school syllabus. I sincerely appreciate your efforts. Let's make Wikipedia great. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place15:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameremote: Thanks for the barnstar! Wikipedia could be vastly improved if people took time to think out messages and be nicer about explaining policies and processes, especially to relative newcomers who probably don't have as much experience with them. I try my best to be as kind as possible on here, so I'm glad to see it helping people. Skarmory(talk •contribs)20:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon. I notice you have commented in the previous move discussions proposing Hamilton Bulldogs be moved to Brantford Bulldogs; your comments were on the basis that the relocation was a temporary one, which it was believed to be at the time. However, now the Bulldogs have announced a 15-year lease agreement with the city of Brantford, officially making their relocation a permanent one. As such, another move discussion is underway based on this new information; this message is to invite you to participate once again, giving your feedback on what should be done now. Feel free to comment at your earliest leisure. Thank you. Tom Danson (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page swap
Hey @Skarmory, I've noticed you had swapped talk pages of Talk:Dyson (operating system) and Draft talk:Dyson (operating system) per this RMTR. The page was actually at the right place, an IP had done a WP:CUTPASTE move to the main and talk page. Swapping put the main history and attribution in the draft redirect page, you had to just revert to the last version before the ip edits. I have now swapped the pages back and fixed the redirects. Just thought to send you a note reminding about looking at the history as well before swapping. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bunnypranav: Oh, dang, did I? I definitely checked the history on at least one of the talk pages (it was an unusual request so I specifically wanted to look at how it happened), I guess I somehow just missed it or glossed over it? Thanks for notifying me, always good to be reminded to be more careful. Skarmory(talk •contribs)23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG){kind=small}
