User talk:InvadingInvader/Archive 4

about my edit on List
hi, about my edit on List, i was not logged in at the time, and my edit (removing an entire section about a seemingly fictional mayors list) was removed by your bot on terms of vandalism. just wanted to let you know. signed Xelvibes
 * Ahhh, my mistake. See it now. Please make sure to use an edit summary next time to explain your changes.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 16:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * thank you! and yes, i forgot about edit summaries. Xelvibes (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
For creating Successors of Standard Oil! Was a bit surprised we didn't have such an article sooner; really appreciate the work you've done there. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome!  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 13:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cesarina Ricci de Tingoli
Hi - just a heads up that I reverted your close of this AfD. Not sure why, but the close was formatted incorrectly, the title of the article should be within the archive header (see differences here). If you don't use it already, I'd recommend using XFDcloser. Finally, I just want to emphasise I only reverted because of the formatting, but in general one shouldn't close one's own withdrawn AfDs, it's always best to let an uninvolved editor or admin do it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks for the heads-up!  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 13:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Massey Lake, Texas
Hi! I saw the information you added to Massey Lake, Texas. Thank you for improving the article and adding the information! Colman2000 (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Colman! I find myself doing a lot of this stuff as of recent ;)  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 13:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem! Please let me know about any future edits you make. Keep it up! You're doing great! Colman2000 (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library
Have you checked it out? I don't know what the rules are these days for access, but it strikes me that you definitely qualify based on the old requirements. One of the best library cards in the world. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Olympian articles
Hi, InvadingInvader! I notice you've recently PRODed some Olympians for deletion. Thanks for getting involved in tackling the enormous amount of these probably non-notable stubs!

I just wanted to make a couple of suggestions if you don't mind. First off, most articles for Olympians who only participated in one event can be boldly redirected as an alternative to deletion. All you need to do is follow the simple instructions at Redirect. If the Olympian only competed in one event, you can normally redirect it to that specific event article. It saves a lot of time and allows for articles to be easily restored if better sources are found.

Also, it's probably best not to send a deletion template to Lugnuts as he is banned with TPA revoked, so can't do anything about the notices. Lugnuts created a huge proportion of these Olympian stubs, so you'll come across his name quite a lot.

Hope you didn't mind the suggestions! Thanks. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I was not previously aware that Lugnuts was banned with TPA revoked.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 20:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Booster (film)
I have deprodded. I'm too unconvinced that Video Libarian is WP:RS, but The Austin Chronicle ref is borderline WP:SIGCOV (and is also RS, independent, and secondary), whereas the Variety one certainly is. This is IMO borderline notable, needing a further discussion. Your PROD stated and for all intents and purposes, is an orphan. Only 2 redirects and a single category page links here. However, being an orphan has no relationships whatsoever with any WP:DELREASON, see also WP:NEXIST.  VickKiang  (talk)  04:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced?
Check again. I provided refs for each of my information and fixed wording according to the sources. 103.240.204.243 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Checked again...looks sufficiently referenced. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for the inconvenience!  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 17:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like you have copy pasted the text twice here. Its repeating the next paragraph if you search "Wendy Doniger dates the Kalki Mythology containing". You can simply restore this version by me. Thanks. 103.240.204.243 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding A Recent Warning
I see that you issued the templated warning uw-unsourced2 to and  an edit they made to PDA.

While I agree the edit needed to be reverted, as the edit was not done properly, I'm afraid your handling of it was very bitey. Citing sources for adding items to a disambiguation page is in general not a thing unless perhaps the item might be challenged or has been challenged, looking at the IP's history and talk page there was no reason to use level 2 over level 1, and issuing a warning for good faith edits should only be done if it addresses the specific thing they did so as to help them (e.g uw-test1). A better approach here would have been to fix the edit for the IP and possibly given them welcome-anon-unconstructive, as I have done now.

I appreciate all that you do on Wikipedia, I just ask you be a bit more careful moving forward. Cheers, and happy editing! — Sirdog (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks!  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Political infoboxes
Howdy, we no longer show the successors, until they've taken office. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of ExxonMobil
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ExxonMobil you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Larataguera -- Larataguera (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

GA for ExxonMobil
Hi, I'm curious about your interest in bringing ExxonMobil and Chevron to Good Article status. I have been watching some of the discussion at WP:Vital articles where they are trying to bring up the quality of high-level articles (like Exxon and Chevron). It occurs to me that this can be difficult when lower-level supporting articles are of poor quality. (As, for example the glaring omissions at Criticism of ExxonMobil.) In this case: when Cancer alley doesn't even mention Exxon except in a photo caption, when Criticism of ExxonMobil doesn't mention Cancer alley, and when ExxonMobil Nigeria is merely a stub, it indicates a lot of missing information, so it's hard for that information to be duly weighted in the higher-level articles.

I'm just sharing this so you have a sense of where I'm coming from with this review: I'd like to focus on the main article under consideration, but it's such a high-level (WP:vital) article that bringing it to GA may have implications for missing content in supporting articles. I don't intend to bog down the review with this, and I can support a little in filling in some of the bigger gaps. Anyway, I hope you'll be patient with that process, and I hope this makes sense! Larataguera (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Much of my work is mirrored between both Exxon and Chevron, and much of what can be improved in the Exxon article (assuming that we're doing this first) can be mirrored on over to Chevron. Most of my work has been focusing on improving Exxon's operations, corporate structure, and history. My biggest concern with both articles is due weight with regards to criticism, which is part of my reason for the split into separate articles.
 * I absolutely agree in retrospect that while the split was a good move, more content should have been kept on the main article; this is one of the most widely criticized companies in the world. I appreciate the thorough review that you are taking into this article, and take your time by all means.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 19:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was reviewing ExxonMobil Nigeria as well as PNG Gas, and I'm finding that WP's coverage of ExxonMobil's activity in these places is very poor. Right now, the main article just has a single link to these articles, with no summary of activities there. It's hard to imagine that we could have a good summary when the articles themselves are in such poor shape.
 * I did expand Arun gas field, but I don't think I will be able to expand Exxon Nigeria, or clean up PNG gas — at least not quickly. And these aren't the only global operations that need better coverage.
 * So I'm thinking I'll have to fail the GA, because we're not going to get a clear and complete article about Exxon's global operations anytime soon. It's a pretty big job. Just wanted to check in here before I do that. I hope you'll continue to work on the article. I may have some time occasionally to work on the sub-articles. Could revisit it later on. Thanks. Larataguera (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. I don't think I'll be able to do too much work on it until at least after the year is over since I'm active on other discussions both on wiki and IRL. Thanks for the Notification.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 04:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Hey Deb" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hey Deb and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 17 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 03:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bay Area Rapid Transit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AGT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2022 (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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Year in the United States pages
Will you PLEASE open an RFC on "Year in the United States" pages, instead continuing to force a college onto 'one' page. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Look man, consensus was already established a LONG time ago to include the collage. You're the only one who really wants this off the article. What you're doing like borderline disruptive editing.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. Not with only four editors involved. But, I will offer a compromise for all the "Year in United States" pages. Have the colleges, but reduce the size. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The talk page for 2022 in the United States is notoriously one which is lacking frequent participation from personal experience. And I'm tired of everything having to go to an RFC; nearly all of the people who edit 2022 in the United States who have participated in that discussion are in favor of the collage. You're not an admin, and you have limited merit on how to dictate things on Wikipedia. Regardless, though, I think we can come to an agreement to make the collage on 2022 in the United States smaller, though I would like to ask whether you want it smaller in pixel size or amount of images present.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restore the college, as I found its size to be acceptable. If you would agree to keep future colleges in the "Year in the United States" pages, to that size? I'll be content. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify on pixel size or amount of content featured? And I'm not the person who wants to add collages to all years/pages; just this one. If you'd like to start discussions on the other individual years, go ahead. I'd be happy to offer my thoughts.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with it as is, if it's not expanded in any way. Not sure why you're only interested in this one page, when it's part of a series of pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2022 in the United States is a page I've personally been mostly invested in, and I'm not a biggie on joining WP Years at this point. I'm mostly working on adding current events to 2022 in the US. If you want to talk about how to do collages, @4me689 is the editor who seems to be much more interested in collages, so I suggest you work with him/her/them.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One little mistake. We want the International Year colleges downsized to fit the US 2022 page example. Not the other way around. It was cumbersome size of the International colleges, that was created most of the complaints. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Balboa Park station
While I appreciate your interest in the Balboa Park station article, I don't think trying to take it to FAC would be the best idea. For one, FAC is very demanding - it's generally considered the most difficult article review process to pass. It doesn't look like you have any experience bringing articles to DYK and GA; I highly recommend getting experience there before going to FAC. Second, it's not an article that you've worked on at all, nor a topic area that you have significant experience in. You'll be much better off going to FAC with an article that you've substantially worked on and know inside and out. Third, when an active editor has already done substantial work on an article such as bringing it to GA, it's both polite and sensible to consult with them before nominating the article. In this case, I would have been able to inform you that the article is not ready for FAC, as I need to update several sections. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder; I shortly realized this after nominating and ultimately decided to remove this.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Great work on 2022 in the United States article

 * Thanks man! I really appreciate it!  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 08:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

IP editor formally known as SchroCat
First of all... welcome to the infobox discussion. Who knew that something as inane as infoboxes would be the source of this much consternation. I left a similar comment at another editors talk about SchroCat. That editor is going to be hostile about infoboxes. After the RfC on Laurence Oliver they stonewalled adding marriages to the infobox under some kind of bizarre undue argument. So I had to open up another RfC. There's been a few ARB cases around infoboxes in the past. I guess it got heated a few years ago. I'm trying to avoid all of that because most editors who review this from the outside aren't going to object or get upset about it. It seems like the only way to stop infoboxes from being implemented is to just grind it up in red tape. Nemov (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The anti-infobox editors for some reason has a problem with me…idk why. I saw Ssilvers engage in ownership behavior on Maddie’s article, and when I dropped a friendly reminder for her on her talk page asking her nicely to kind of keep it down from there, she deleted my comment and “banned” home from her talk page. Talk about a “positive constructive attitude”…anyways I’m prepared to open up an RFC if they keep stonewalling tbh. I wouldn’t mind if you open one up yourself earlier though.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 17:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd rather find a consensus solution instead of creating RfCs. Hopefully if these topics are settled in a civil manner and they see that infoboxes are going to be a standard part of the Wikipedia project they'll eventually WP:DROPTHESTICK. I hoped that would be the case after the Laurence Olivie RfC, but apparently that's not the case. Nemov (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That editor will never drop the stick. See the history of Sophie Dahl for reference. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah it might take an RFC to finally "Checkmate" (sorry for the bad pun) SchroCat.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone else starts it (Village Pump?) I'll participate. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I extended the RfC in the other article and added it to a few other topic areas to increase visibility. If there's a clear consensus that should help on the related article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a conclusion in support of an infobox is much more likely if we provide a demonstrative infobox like I did at Mackenzie’s article. I can’t work on that tonight but I’ll try to get to it tomorrow…and if you guys beat me to it, I’ll help when I get back.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 02:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * According to SchroCat's block log, the editor has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and personal attacks. I'm getting a bad feeling about this tbh....  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 07:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Nice little batch of personal attacks and untruths here., if you're going to accuse people of doing something, get your facts straight: I have not edited the Sophie Dahl page for a few years, so feel free to strike that lie. (Look at the Geolocate details and you'll see that it's a different ISP to me - not everyone in London editing from an IP6 IP address is me, so if you can't be bothered to check, perhaps you should WP:AGF before accusing others.) 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:F9F0:EEDB:4180:806C (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS? So far you've accused other multiple editors of gaslighting, harassment, and personal attacks when they don't exist. It needs to stop immediately or it will be remedied through appropriate action. Thanks Nemov (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. No aspersions in what I’ve written, and I haven’t accused multiple editors of anything (that’s just not true): I have highlighted where one user has harassed me. One. That’s not multiple. Someone one this thread is accusing me of something I didn’t do. Try focusing on that, not misrepresenting what I’ve said. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:A420:B683:639B:BA7 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not helping your case by going low. If you're being harassed on WP, open something up on a noticeboard. I'm debating opening one up myself for all this BS between editors going on. BTW, as a comment, it's interesting that your user page marks you as retired yet you're continuing to edit. Maybe come out of retirement?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Low? Not really. Like most people, I don’t like people claiming I’ve done things I haven’t (, I will AGF and assume you didn’t look at it closely and jumped to the wrong conclusion, so feel free to strike your comment), and the harassment has now stopped. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:65FE:FE8:B65C:3BC4 (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you two just get along and maybe take your fight elsewhere? I have a life outside of Wikipedia and I don't want to continue to be dragged into a petty battleground.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * EnPassant has been blocked for sock puppetry. Doug Weller  talk 13:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nemov (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of ExxonMobil
The article ExxonMobil you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:ExxonMobil for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Larataguera -- Larataguera (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Emily St. John Mandel&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional context for your close of the MK8 merge discussion
In your close, you stated While a draft was started, it has not been maintained for just under 30 days as of writing. The participants in the draft section of the discussion seem willing to work constructively, but disagreements on the nature remain; given that consensus should be general agreement while ignoring unproductive opinions, there is no general agreement to merge 8 and 8DX. Additional work to the drafts started below, or if necessary, starting the drafts from scratch, should be completed before reopening a merger discussion of 8 and 8 Deluxe. The draft in question was in fact already written, revised, proofread, and pushed live to the main Mario Kart 8 page on November 25 since it was agreed that the draft was far superior to the preexisting page regardless of the merge discussion. Given the timeline of events (article unilaterally split by a single editor on Nov 7, a discussion to undo the unilateral split was started just 1 week later when the article was noticed by more veteran editors), a "no consensus" result should properly default to the status quo before the action that caused the discussion in the first place, i.e. before the split. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing me these details and helping me follow this drama…I feel like I’m on reality television sometimes with these things. What was difficult to determine was whether the unilateral split should be considered as part of or as before the consensus. Given that it was a proposal to re-emerge and the level of entanglement the booster course pass created, and for the stability of the project, I decided to only go as far back as the original proposition’s time. However, I am not opposed to undoing the unilateral split, though this would have to be done at a later time since I’m currently out of the house and only able to participate in minor edits and talk page discussions.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 20:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If it helps to think about, consider it this way. Before Nov 7, the status quo was a single article that covers both topics. This status quo was based on a unanimous discussion from January. On Nov 7, a single editor unilaterally decided to WP:BOLDly split out MK8DX into a separate article (again), and began stripping out DX content from the main MK8 article. From Nov 7 to Nov 15, this editor was the only person in favor of this new article state, and thus did not change the status quo, they merely suggested a new state with their edits. When the discussion started on Nov 15, the status quo still did not change because the discussion itself was about what the new status quo should be. The preexisting status quo does not change for the duration of the entire discussion. From WP:NOCONSENSUS, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit (emphasis mine). I'm happy to handle all the edits in article space to clean this up. All you need to do is clarify your closing comment to make clear that your No Consensus decision should return the article to its preexisting status quo. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I move this discussion to the MK8DX Talk Page?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 17:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 20:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't be too aggressive
I'm here to remind you that we shouldn't be too aggressive towards Jim Michael here. It seems like WP:HOUNDING and we might get into trouble if we aren't careful. I also want to say that the criteria for inclusion in a year article should not be set too low either. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Got it. I've tried to watch my words, but clearly I have some work to do. Thanks for the reminder.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 02:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Predicting the timing of peak oil
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Predicting the timing of peak oil&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Chivalry of a Failed Knight&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution board
I've requested an arbitration regarding the Barbra Walters 2022 article dispute to the dispute resolution board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2022 Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I've decided to concede the dispute. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t have personally taken Walters to arbitration but rather through RFC. Gives a better idea of what Wikipedia editors in general would like to see on year articles and not just the regulars.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 16:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Gritty&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Ring Settlements, East Jerusalem&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)