User talk:Johnbod/50

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romanticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberals.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Most often" and "infrequently"

Hello Johnbod!

You have reverted my edit to River Thames frost fairs, resulting in the following sentence (highlighting by me): Most were held between the early 17th and early 19th centuries during the period known as the Little Ice Age, when the river froze over most often, though still infrequently.[1] This makes no sense, because "most often"[2] and "infrequently"[3] are opposites. You cannot have both at the same time, can you? Renerpho (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. I suggest you consult your English teacher. Johnbod (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho - (talk page stalker), standing for your English teacher, what the sentence is saying is: "during the Little Ice Age the Thames froze over more frequently than in any other period, but even then such occurrences were rare." That is, it happened more often in the Little Ice Age than at any other time, but it still didn't happen very often. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Head..., well really Tombstone

Apologies for undoing your rebuild of the lead there but (a) I do rather like the version I did more and think it fixes several problems your version would've left and (b) I don't really see how to incorporate your ideas. Being outdoors isn't necessary at all and, if there are other specific terms for wall tombs, well... what are they? I'd think funeral stela &c. that I was in the process of adding covers most of the bases for anything that isn't a full-on statue (like you were pointing out) but maybe there's something intermediate that we should list in this article instead of just pointing at funerary art. — LlywelynII 21:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, too late to look at this now - I'll probably just revert you, as usual. As I said, there are a number of articles (or at least sections) we need & don't have - tomb monument for one. You don't get headstones indoors, to take the most obvious... Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input request @ Talk:Jinn

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
An input request has been relisted to have more inputs about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?.

also Pre-RfC stage info:

Also A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn.

As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section.

This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Islamic culture (Xtool) or talk page there of. Bookku (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Met:→In America: An Anthology of Fashion

Greetings, Johnbod. Re your "do we need this in fact?" point. Indeed, we don't. No reason to single out this exhibition from the plethora held in 2022: undue weight. Cheers, —Protalina (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June music

Today's story is about the TFA, by sadly missed Vami_IV. You helped in the FAC in 2018, thank you! In my support, I hoped to do justice to Schloss Köthen next - which I will begin today, finally, promised. For more related thoughts and music, look on my talk for 1 June. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stalking me?

Just out of curiosity, because this can't be a coincidence, why are you reverted all me edits? I saw you reverted my edit at the Rembrandt article and then at the Pieter Bruegel article. What exactly are you doing? Are you following me around to check my edits to see if you agree with them or not? It feels like a form of harassment to be honest... Nico Gombert (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "reverted all me edits", or even looked at them. Let's face it, you've only edited about five pages. You'll see that I've edited both the ones you mention over several years, & so they are on my watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot be a coincidence that you reverted both of my edits, so again my question: why? And immediately another question: why do you revert changes back and refer to the talk page without actually going there yourself? You did that at the Rembrandt article, now you're doing the same at the Pieter Bruegel article. Why? Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not the project where only John decides what's being written or not. Nico Gombert (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is for the person proposing a change to raise the issue, imo anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nico Gombert: It is quite common for users who have been around for a while to have long watchlists (I currently have more that 5,250 pages on my watchlist), and so have many articles in a topic area that they are interested in on their watchlist. I often see a single user edit dozens of articles on my Watchlist in a single day. There is absolutely nothing unusual in a user reverting multiple problem edits from the same user in one day. You need to assume good faith and stop accusing or implying that Johnbod has stalked you. Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, but our policies and guidelines constrain how we write articles, and users who have been around for a while tend to understand those policies and guidelines fairly well, and are free to act on their understanding. Donald Albury 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith", I'm sorry but that is precisely what John is not doing. Sentences like: "...if helpful edits are what you do!" underline that.

"And are free to act on their understanding"... Does that mean ending a conversation with only one response like: "You've made your position clear, but so have I, (...) Back it goes." There is very little collaboration going on with such an attitude. And the same goes for his habit of reverting edits and directing users to the talk page, without actually going there himself. Nico Gombert (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet - now blocked. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for making me smile today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tobias and the Angel

On 10 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tobias and the Angel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that depictions of Tobias and the Angel (example pictured), unusually for a religious subject, typically show Tobias's dog? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tobias and the Angel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tobias and the Angel), 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.

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Malden

You mentioned being a resident for over 25 years and you have never heard it before? I find this quite strange as I have lived here since 2006 and people rarely call it New Malden around me. The Korean community reference it as that so it is correct. I will change it back now as it is right. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most people don't. You placed it far too prominently, & your references aren't really WP:RS. You didn't say that this was what Koreans call it. Don't get into an edit war over this. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would say you are completely incorrect. Pretty much everyone does. I don't know where you have gotten "most people don't" from, all the citations have proven you wrong, even a quick google would or perhaps even speaking to any individual present in the community or on the high street.

I have written a dissertation on this. I don't hear or use New Malden anymore. Local koreans like me call it Korea Town and Little Korea.I wrote this in my edit. In my sources I showed you local Koreans saying it. 3/4 citations were referencing Korean Locals and 1/4 was a non-Korean local. It is a shame because if you actually looked at my sources you actually find I am correct. It just seems like you don't want accept that you were incorrect and are now barring me no matter what I do despite having very reliable sources. One of them is literally a BBC article.

I don't want an edit war but you are clearly wrong which is a shame because now the page isn't factually correct. Furthermore, they are all reliable sources because they are sources used by the locals in the community I know the people in it. I think sometimes certain editors don't really accept more personal local based sources because they actually require you to look for the credibility and do some due diligence.

Also I really doubt you do live here because otherwise you would be more aware what is going on. Robert Kim is literally the councillor for our area?? If you don't know him then can you really say I'm wrong? The old and young generation alike use this term. Both the Korean/Chinese community, Tamil community, Arabic community and the white British community. I would appreciate if you did research this as maybe you could learn something new. Everyday is a learning day.

Here are more sources for you:

Korea Town on Wikipedia

https://clok.uclan.ac.uk/47747/1/2%20Jihye%20Kim.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/37835336/The_Paradox_of_Recreating_the_Authentic_Taste_of_Home_Critical_Heritage_Perspectives_on_North_Korean_Immigrants_in_New_Malden?sm=b

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67356103 Bigbotnot2 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGF please - many Wikipedians know where I live. You now seem to be saying it is a term used within the Korean community, which may be the case, but you did not include in your text. I will ask my sons, who grew up in NM, & often went to Shangri La etc. If you think a BBC web page is a gold standard source you are sadly mistaken. Note that at present the lead does not mention the Korean community at all (which it should), so your addition there came out of the blue, with no context. Note that according to the article Koreans don't account for 20% of the population in any council ward (Kim is one of 3 councillors for that ward, which isn't the only NM one). Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

You were already over WP:3RR. I'll undo my last correction so you can revert your own last edit. (Cf. Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule.)

Jeez, especially don't revert in ways that remove the new citations, corrections to mucked up pinyin, etc. You can be annoyed at me for whatever but you know better than that. — LlywelynII 16:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not. You didn't add much, & are free to do anything using the established system. It won't take you long. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

I have nominated Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Medieval garden

On 5 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Medieval garden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that much of what we know of medieval gardens comes from illuminated manuscripts (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Medieval garden. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Medieval garden), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

That was a lovely DYK, thank you! My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart if you click on "music" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, 11,314 views, despite the deplorable picture foisted on it. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your image would have been better! - Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. (DYK nom open for hook suggestion or review.) If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of marginal seats before the 2024 United Kingdom general election

So, before I go to AfD, what to do about this? It's not a good article at the moment. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP (especially lists) is chock-full of not good articles. It could do with a little post-election analysis, & removing the many hundreds of overlinks to parties would reduce the length a bit. Don't try Afd on notability - that won't fly. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd far prefer something on the lines of 'Seats that changed hands in the 2024 UK GE'. That is factual and easy to reference. The words 'marginal' and 'target' both have problems. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not all of them did. I'm copying this to the article talk. Please continue there. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Folk arts, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I'm afraid. We have too many wikiprojects that are near-dead. People set them up, waste a lot of time doing the project page(s), tagging & so on, & then nothing happens. I'm mainly interested in (visual) art, and not centrally folk art, so "oral tradition" is rather off-base for me. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

I understand that some of my lowercasings might not be obviously correct. But on the Florentine school, it's very clear that sources much more often use lowercase in all relevant contexts, so we should, too. I re-did that one. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are very fond of making unsubstantiated claims about what is "very clear" - to you perhaps, but not to everyone. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but instead of talking about me and my presumed mental state, can you address my assertion that "on the Florentine school, it's very clear that sources much more often use lowercase in all relevant contexts"? Can you show evidence that casts doubt on that clarity? Or say why you reverted there, if you had a reason other than your presumption that if I lowercased something I must be wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't considered usage stats yet, consider this. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funerary art

Hi Johnbod, Just touching base on the Funerary art article, and the talk page thread about a possible rerun at TFA in October. I'm starting to put together the running order for October already, and this is still pencilled in there. Should I defer this to a later date/next year to allow any polishing up work to be done at leisure, rather than rushed though? It's no problem either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll take a look, but I think it's pretty much ok. With such a huge topic, one can go on adding bits forever... Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

This edit was perfecty [sic] on topic? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic being "Ashoka's religion before his "conversion" - yes, certainly. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

[4] Doug Weller talk 13:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what? I'm amazed the Askoka cmt was just removed with out any adequate explanation. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure forum style comments, the editor even calls them musings elsewhere.[5]

Then there's the personal attack in the edit summary. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying they are not forum posts? As talkheader says, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

No specifics just moans. And lack of good faith" Dont you know the level these editors will go to prove themselves right? " Doug Weller talk 13:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod Do you still think that, even if the editor wasn't a sock, that was an appropriate post? If you do, and this is not a threat, I need to ask elsewhere to see if I'm wrong. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best phrasing and tone, but hey, this is an Indian page about religion. There was nothing in your various edit summaries about socking. In fact nothing much in the edit summaries at all. Ask elswewhere by all means. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t mention socking as I wasn’t sure, only found out after. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :John, FYI I have blocked the editor as a sock of Jaybjayb (see also TipTap21) who has recently been harassing Joshua Jonathan and now, possibly, Trangabellam. And in this comment they were trolling with the first 5 bullet points being their mocking summary of Jonathan's (supposed) views. Abecedare (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to look into this. Johnbod (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Equestrian statue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17 § Virgin Mary in art

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17 § Virgin Mary in art on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armilla (military decoration)

I realized after I deleted the top image that you had been the one to add it, so while I didn't restore it yet, I wanted to be apologetic about it. Did you have a source that identified the snake bracelets as the kind of armilla awarded as a military decoration, or was that a hopeful gesture of broadening the article to explain better what an armilla is? I won't argue with you if you feel the image should be there. All the depictions of an armilla I've seen in military context have looked like a standard torc, though, and my impression (and only a mere impression) is that snake jewellery was worn primarily by women. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks for asking. I can't remember my thoughts in 2021 - I see the museum makes no claim on this. Where have you "seen" ancient armillae images? I'd be rather surprised if any survived - or is this in reliefs? They are supposed to be worn on the arms, and torcs are a neck jewel. I'm guessing snake jewellery seems rather effeminate to modern eyes - costume designers etc - Cleopatra & maids & so on. I'm not sure the Romans felt that way. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long history of wanting to find out more about the military armilla without committing to spend the effort required. There is an ancient inquiry on the talk page apparently made by me that I didn't even remember (2009!). The military armilla is on some imaginary list in my mind, positioned at roughly #1,425 of topics to dig into. So take these impressions with a grain of salt.

I have seen women and possibly Venus herself depicted in Roman art wearing snake jewellery, but not men that I can recall, and then there's the highly gendered Moregine bracelet. As you may know, there's a Commons category "Ancient Roman snake jewellery". By "seen", I mean that in wiling away my time at Commons wandering the labyrinths of over-categorization, I have an unfortunate habit of encountering things, thinking "Ah, that's interesting but not what I'm looking for," and then not being able to locate it again later when it becomes pertinent to something.

Anyway, in the drive-by, I was actually looking for a link to armilla as regular jewellery, so my hope had been raised that the article had expanded for that purpose.

"Some" scholars (same reasons for lack of specificity as Commons grazing) take the military armilla to represent the taking of spoils from an enemy. Because the Romans of the early Republic took a special delight in defeating and stripping Gauls and other barbari of the torc-wearing kind, the armilla was made like a miniature torc? I seem to recall that there are "torcs" too small to fit on a neck. It has been suggested that armillae as awards of valour were displayed like modern medals, on one's breastplate rather than worn on the upper arm, and if I'm remembering Pliny, the only jewellery "real men" wear is their Ring of Power (the elusive ring of the Roman equites being item 1,424 on that list of mine). And I half-remember reacting to a relief with "Oh, there might be an armilla displayed on a breastplate, looking like a little torc," but remained true to form in making no note. I'm picturing a soldier in the lower left, turned three-quarters to the viewer. (I'll be horrified if I learn that I'm remembering a movie poster.) And of course, the finials of a torc can be snake heads, or at least there are torcs described as ram-headed serpents.

So if you ever happen upon anything that illuminates any of this, I'd love a note. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! User:AgTigress is our expert on Roman jewellery, but sadly not often here these days. Dragonesque brooch is the nearest I come to it - more for military sweethearts (or whatever). Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for this - Assumption cfd, but you forgot to sign! I'll do a temp one. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: English embroidery and GA concerns

Hi Johnbod, I wanted to respond to your comment here. Since this is a general response to several notices, and not pertaining specifically to English embroidery, I thought it was better to move this conversation here.

When an editor asks me to "Do it themselves", or for me to fix the article, it means that they want me to spend hours or days fixing an article that I don't particularily care about. Sometimes, this update is for an article that I know nothing about. The amount of time that I would have to spend to be knowledgable on some topics is a lot longer than a subject matter expert (or even better: the person who originally wrote the article). Days spent fixing up a GA is time away from my own projects both on and off Wikipedia, and updating one article will only fix one article, while several dozen GAs (if not more) also need to be updated. As one editor, I cannot fix all the GAs.

An article does not need to have GA or FA status. Editors (particularily newer ones) use GA/FA articles as templates on writing their own articles. In my opinion, if the article does not meet a status it should be reviewed and delisted if no one is willing to fix it up. Instead of putting an article to GAR right away, I leave talk page notices for articles that I think need a substantial amount of work. I hope editors see them and start updates so that articles do not need a GAR. I wish editors would regularily update all the GA articles, but that has not happened and we cannot force editors to update an article.

Reviews are not demands: they are notices about where I think the article needs to be improved to retain a GA designation. Editors can disagree with me, and I am happy to talk about why I came to certain conclusions. I do not know what articles are on your 34K watchlist, but I am trying to send notices on a variety of topics so that GAR is not inindated with one topic area. I will continue to send notices and discuss how an article can be improved on a talk page. If this is a concern, you are welcome to bring the topic up on a noticeboard and I will be happy to discuss. If you have any other concerns about my editing, feel free to post on my talk page or ping me below. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion page

Please don't modify the page if you are a party in the dispute, even if you feel the description is misleading. The third opinion process page is pretty clear that it's improper to do this. Thanks. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]