User talk:KevinNov3

Welcome!

Hello, KevinNov3, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Jojo Mojos, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! – NJD-DE (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jojo Mojos

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Jojo Mojos, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Humphrey Funeral Home

Hello KevinNov3,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Humphrey Funeral Home for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello, I'm IAmChaos. I noticed that you recently removed content from [[:N61 highway (Philippines)]] without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 04:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to First Ladies and Gentlemen of the Philippines, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with this revert?

Did you see an error in my test edit for the tennis case correction bot? (this revert without explanation). Is there a reason you prefer to link through the redirects? Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t add your this photo on iPadOS 15

@KevinNov3, File:iPadOS 15.2.png I just reverted your edit because showing person’s face in wallpaper on iPadOS 15. Please don’t to add this photo. Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinNov3, Your both file has been deleted. Don’t upload file again! Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t add “vandalism” to editor who doesn’t vandalism Wikipedia

@KevinNov3, Stop contacting editor doesn’t vandalism Wikipedia since February 24, 2022, I deleted selection of Dan100’s user talk, “February 2022”. *Please to reply to me* Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay KevinNov3 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berber flag

You posted a deletion discussion tag at the top of Berber flag, but you didn't create the discussion that the tag claims is being held, so I've removed the tag. Largoplazo (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:IPadOS 15.2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IPadOS 15.2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained Hal Rogers reversion

Why did you revert my edit to Hal Rogers? You didn't even leave an edit summary. 124.149.232.125 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.53.36 (talk) [reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Project (2nd nomination)

Hello, KevinNov3,

I reverted your closure of this AFD. For some reason, you closed it as "Keep" even though not a single editor was asking for this article to be kept, there was only a nominator asking for it to be deleted. Please do not close any more deletion discussions until you have more experience as an editor and read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure which provides guidance deletion discussion closures by non-admins. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 11#South Africa rugby sevens squad templates

Hello, KevinNov3,

You have only been editing for 2 months, you have no experience to be closing a complicated deletion discussion like this one. You have to remove all of the template transclusions of each template which you neglected to do.

And if you read the policy about non-admins closing deletion discussions (Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions), you'd see that non-admins are only supposed to close deletion discussions that result in "Keep" decisions, not "Delete" decisions because you can not carry out the deletion yourself. I've reverted all of your template and template talk taggings. This is the second time you have taken on more responsibilities than you have experience for, without reading the appropriate policy guidelines beforehand. If this continues, you could lose your editing privileges so please stick with improving articles.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or non-admin closures, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Sinitsyn

Why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Sinitsyn as Keep? It should have been closed as Delete as the Keep !votes were ridiculously weak and they were outnumbered by the well-reasoned Delete !voters. Iffy★Chat -- 10:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video game publication

Just to let you know that I reverted your close of the aforementioned RfD since consensus is far from being reached and your close was completely unwarranted. I would also like to ask you to please refrain from closing any other discussions, on RfD or any other venue, at least until you've gained enough experience to do so (seeing how your close of the AfD mentioned above was also unnecessary and against WP:BADNAC). Thanks. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Harris Seeley

Hi, I would appreciate better understanding your reasoning on closing the Patricia Harris Seeley AfD as keep. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers (2nd nomination) - please revert

Please revert your close. A non-admin is only to close AfDs that are non-controversial. You have provided no reasoning for your close it can hardly be said the Keep has consensus. I have noted your recent spree of closing AfD and the reaction on your Talk page. I too would advise you to stop closing AfDs until you understand what you're doing, have more experience, provide reasoning and avoid controversial closes. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

You have been blocked from editing certain namespaces (Wikipedia) for persistent poor AfD closes after a number of questions about these incorrect closes. You may still edit all Wikipedia articles and talk pages. There is a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New(ish)_edit_non-admin_closing_AfDs_-_queries_being_ignored_on_Talk_page - however you will not be able to edit this because of your block, so you should make any comments here.

If you think there are other good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KevinNov3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to continue to edit the Wikipedia namespace

Decline reason:

Please respond to the numerous concerns raised about your XfD closures on this talk page and at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New(ish)_edit_non-admin_closing_AfDs_-_queries_being_ignored_on_Talk_page. Being accountable for your actions and participating in discussions is not an optional part of Wikipedia editing, especially if you want to get involved in behind-the-scenes work. – Joe (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'll just say, this probably won't convince an unblocking admin. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay KevinNov3 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

KevinNov3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

BeatenBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I changed it so it’s not my real name

Decline reason:

Your username isn't the problem here. This unblock request raises serious concerns about WP:CIR and implies you should be blocked from all edits. Yamla (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KevinNov3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Black Kite, I respectfully request my partial block removed and editing the Wikipedia namespace reinstated. I now understand what I was blocked for and I will not do it again

Decline reason:

It is not enough for you to tell us that you understand- many people say that they understand when they actually do not. You must demonstrate your understanding by specifically telling us what you did wrong and what edits you plan to make instead. I am declining your request; I will give you one last chance to make another request on this page, so make it count. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:GAB explains how to craft an appropriate unblock request. Remember, you are trying to convince us you understand. Just saying you understand isn't enough and may cause your block to be extended. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KevinNov3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Sinitsyn as keep while it should have been closed as delete and edit articles instead

Decline reason:

Far from your multiple unblock requests showing that uou understand the reason for the block and will not do the same things again, they show unambiguously that you don't understand the reason. I suggest that you completely forget about deletion discussions and other related matters until you have far more experience of making plain and simple minor improvements to articles. I also advise you that if you make any more unblock requests similar to those you have already made, you are likely to be given a more comprehensive block, to prevent you from continuing to waste administrators' time reviewing requests which have no chance at all of success. JBW (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi. I don't think you need to be unblocked to change your username. All you need to do is read Wikipedia:Changing username and then make your request at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. As for requesting unblock from the Wikipedia namespace, somebody with your beginner level of experience should not be doing any admin-style tasks at Wikipedia namespace pages at all. That is the problem you need to understand, not that you got a specific one wrong. So, I suggest you forget that for now and do some work on article content instead. And then, when you can demonstrate that you have some better experience here (say in 6 to 12 months time), an unblock request might be accepted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only experience with editing, but with the deletion process. Your first stab at it was a month ago, when you inexplicably placed an AFD tag on top of Berber flag, but didn't even create a discussion page. Then, four weeks later, you leaped right over ever having had any experience participating in deletion discussions to shutting them down, both files-for-discussion and articles-for-deletion. Finally, after having been asked on April 15 not to do this, on April 19 you went on a spree, doing the same thing, still having had no experiencing in participating in such discussions and without any indication that you understood them. Largoplazo (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits to Gweedore with no explanation whatever. This is unacceptable, particularly in light of the warnings and advice you have been given (above) regarding your conduct on Wikipedia. 107.127.46.34 (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Please stop your disruptive editing or your block will become more wide. Star Mississippi 19:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Funimation

Hello. I've undone your RM close at Talk:Funimation#Requested_move_7_January_2023. Several reasons spring to mind: 1) it was open just over half a day 2) your close in no way represents the discussion 3) there was only one comment in the discussion, 4) threads on the page, as well as the page history, indicate that it is clearly not uncontroversial, and would require explanation or elaboration. It's possibly the worst close I've ever seen. If this complaint has any relevance to the previous discussions I can see on this page, then you should probably think twice next time. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KevinNov3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 136.158.57.86. The configure proxy setting in my iPad settings app is also set to off. 136.158.57.86 (talk)

Decline reason:

If the proxy is now off, you need to clear your browser cache and wait 24 hours before editing. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KevinNov3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 136.158.57.86. I both turned off the proxy and I cleared my browser cache. 136.158.57.86 (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Remember to log in when posting. As I said, you will need to wait 24 hours for the block to clear your system before you can resume editing. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KevinNov3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 136.158.57.86. I both turned off the proxy and I cleared my browser cache. And I will wait for 24 hours before editing.

Decline reason:

Confirmed p2p proxy. If you are still using 136.158.57.86, you are still connecting from the proxy. Yamla (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notability guidelines

What are the notability guidelines to have a Wikipedia article and when do topics fail to meet the nobility guideline? KevinNov3 (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability. Largoplazo (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP Address block

My IP address is blocked on Wikipedia on my iPad and other home devices like my Asus computer which prohibits me from editing Wikipedia except for my talk page but on devices outside my home like the computer in the computer laboratory in my school my IP Address is not blocked and I can edit Wikipedia. How can that be? KevinNov3 (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock 1/22/24

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

KevinNov3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Black Kite, I acknowledge that my recent actions in closing Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions were inappropriate as a non-administrator. I understand that non-admin closures in AfD discussions require fair experience, including previous participation in such discussions. I recognize the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and have learned from this experience. I sincerely apologize for any disruption caused and assure you that I will not close AfD discussions without the necessary experience. If unblocked, I am committed to actively engaging in discussions, gaining more experience, and contributing positively to the Wikipedia community. Thank you for considering my unblock request. Sincerely, KevinNov3

Accept reason:

Per below. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: What say ye? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG and Deepfriedokra: Yep, all good. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Corrected Link"

Hi,

I noticed you'd "corrected" a number of redirect links by changing a link of the form [[A]] to one of the form [[B|A]]. For example, at "Edward VI", you changed [[Henry VIII of England]] to [[Henry VIII|Henry VIII of England]]. The previous version was actually correct.

Wikipedia prefers simple redirected links of the first type to unnecessarily "piped" links of the second type. Please read WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, and WP:NOTBROKEN for clarification. Here's a brief quotation from WP:NOPIPE:

N [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]

Y [[Mozart]]

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-de-Neville excuse me Why are redirect links needed even though It links to the incorrect article title

KevinNov3 (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect isn't a link to an incorrect title: it's one way of displaying a particular text while linking to the correct article that happens to have a different title. The article at WP:PIPE explains the difference between a piped link (like [[Henry VIII|Henry VIII of England]]) and a redirect (like [[Henry VIII of England]]). Both links display the same text ("Henry VIII of England") and both arrive at the same target page.

In the case of "Henry VIII", there are currently 44 redirects to the page of that name. If the page were to be moved to a different location, it would be a simple matter to update those 44 links to point to the new target. It would be a much bigger job to track down and "correct" all the links (currently 10,071) to "Henry VIII" to make them point to the new target page.

Piped links also tend to produce clumsy, unreadable wikitext - things like "

British [[Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs|Foreign Secretary]], [[E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax|Lord Halifax]]

" instead of "British [[Foreign Secretary]], [[Lord Halifax]]", both of which display the same text ("British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax") and link to the same two target pages. Redirects produce clear, simple, low-maintenance wikitext. Piped links have their place, but in general it's not recommended to replace redirects with pipes without good reason, as explained at "WP:NOTBROKEN".

It's actually quite a common misconception that "piped" links are somehow more "correct". They're not, and it's something I have a bee in my bonnet about. Because I spend a lot of time cleaning up links, it bothers me a little to think that people are undoing my work in the name of correctness.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796-1817) article on the father section on the info box there is a piped link instead of a redirect link George, Prince of Wales (later George IV) so please change it to George, Prince of Wales (later George IV).

Thank you. KevinNov3 (talk) 1:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) KevinNov3 (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed. Why don't you do it? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was a mistake it doesn’t link to the correct article under a different name but a disambiguation page. Sorry and good night and have a good sleep without nightmares. KevinNov3 (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]