User talk:❃Adelaide❃

Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo choice
You !voted voted in the section for J but your wording said "Endorse L2". Did you vote in the wrong section, or did you mean to vote for the second of the J images? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  03:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC) - I did indeed mean to vote for the second version of the J image. L was a typo. Thanks for notifying me! Tolstoyan at Heart (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the James Abbott McNeill Whistler page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=724548898 your edit] caused an ISSN error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F724548898%7CJames Abbott McNeill Whistler%5D%5D Ask for help])

paul ryan portrait on the kitsch page
AYO i did that for a reason. i'm not calling paul ryan to be "kitschy" that doesn't make any sense. i'm saying that the portrait is kitsch; it doesn't try to apply or transform anything to what it's based on. it's important to make sure that portraits are featured in the article because they're a key part of art.

An1alias (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes more sense. I still think that using a politician in the example makes the article susceptible to misunderstanding (I can't be the only one, after all), but if you want to re-add it I won't make choose this hill to die on. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Third period
Hi I see you just tagged Third Period as having disputed neutrality. I have recently done some work on the article and will be done in more in coming days. What was it particularly that made you think the article isn’t neutral? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was mostly thinking of the "Impact on the USSR" section, which to me reads in parts like an apology for Stalin, with sentences like "An embryonic new bourgeoisie was meanwhile growing up on the basis of the market relations introduced under the NEP and gaining increasing influence both within the Party and in the state apparatus" and the implicit assumption that the party was sincere when they said that collectivization ought to be voluntary and that "lower level officials" deviated from that policy (blaming his subordinates is a favourite Stalin apologist tactic -- the show trials were all Beria's fault, etc), rather than paying lip service to the idea like they did to democracy and respect for human rights eight years later. The article overall seems fine (or at least I can't see anything that strikes me as suspiciously POV outside that section), though I should be clear that I'm not an expert on the subject. I've read a few academic books on the period and am at least generally familiar with both the official Soviet story and some of the exaggerated anti-Soviet propaganda of the time. In other words, I'm sure your knowledge of the topic is better than mine (at least if your user page is any indication!), so I wouldn't worry too much about the POV tag. Unless you're secretly editing the article to remove Trotskyist slanders against the glorious vanguard of the working class or something you're probably much more qualified to write a neutral version than me. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Georgian architecturre


A tag has been placed on Georgian architecturre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. signed,Rosguill talk 22:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this in time to contest, but I'm not really sure why that page was worth speedy deleting. I'm not going to bother recreating it or anything, because typos aren't a hill I'm willing to die on, but I was under the impression that the implausible typo criterion for speedy deleting redirects was meant for things like "Georgian nrchitecture" which it's unlikely that anyone would ever make (in this case since the A and N keys are nowhere near each other in QWERTY or Dvorak). FWIW, the reason I created that redirect at all was because I personally made the typo and didn't get Georgian architecture as a search result, so it's unlikely that I'm the only person ever to have duplicated that letter. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Empty sections
Hi ❃Adelaide❃, and thanks for your contribution to the Warranty article. I reverted it though, because empty sections don't add value for the reader, and clutter the article, see MOS:BODY. Also, the "expand section" template is not to be used in empty sections, see its usage guidelines. The reason I noticed this is that there's another very disruptive (and blocked) user who has added thousands of such empty "History - expand section" sections, and there is wide consensus that it's not helpful - section headings can be added as appropriate when content is available. So I couldn't in fairness allow your edit to remain. Thanks for your understanding... --IamNotU (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Tyger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamb. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Covenant (biblical), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cohen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Constructivism (art" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constructivism_(art&redirect=no Constructivism (art] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)