User talk:PaleAqua/Archive 2

Motive
Rotlink was related to SEO links, but its also fishy that the most traffic to Archive.is was a stub article on something entirely obscure like Celeste (pornographic actress) who continues, despite all things, to get 6000+ views a month. Mostly since when you Google "Celeste actress" you get Celeste Holm and then this person as the first hits. Clearly, someone wants Wikipedia hits to be higher than others for certain reasons, but why this person? Archive.is updating was the fastest and easiest way to add credit to a search engine and perform an essentially null edit that doesn't represent any detriment, is unlikely to be challenged and also adds value to Wikipedia (increasing its persistence). This way you get several brownie points on Google's checker for Wikipedia, you update the page (increasing the algorithm) and you do not have to actually improve or add anything! Also, whether or not your edit stays isn't so important, but more links and incoming hits to even unusual and tangential stuff ranks it even higher. Also... Celeste Holm gets 1/6th or less hits than the pornographic actress despite being internationally known, fairly recently deceased, and having a large number of Wikipedia incoming links (over 250). Oh... and all those Rotlink additions didn't do squat for Archive.is in Google because of the way it works - we are looking at a page-ranking campaign instead of promoting Archive.is. The connection simply doesn't make sense and Rotlink is a known and active Wikipedian.... even the name is evident because "link rot" and the bot form are clearly usernames designed to be specific to the task and are Wikipedia lingo. Rotlink's BAG request for the bot is NOT normal for a stealth marketing campaign either. The entire thing tried to be legitimate and broke down because of a need to rush - its paid advertisement / page rankings. Time was running out on the job it seemed, but the job was a success nonetheless. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot - Just try and tell me that this user is not a long-term Wikipedian. Predating the 2012 registration. They also started immediately with Archiving Archive.is using an advanced script even by Wikipedia standards to do so. The so called "self-outing" was just bizarre because it doesn't make any sense that a Wikipedia talk page would be found on Twitter, but he proceeds to take the Blog post from Archive.is exactly. Rotlink is likely still amongst us. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah saw your other posts about that . And something like that seems much more likely then the malware and other theories. The ones that seemed likely to me when I finally switched my vote was either a SEO ( yeah nofollow wouldn't help archive.is, but the recent updates etc. would raise the wikipedia page etc.), another archive site done playing a rival ( though once I saw that advert I became less sure of that -- obvious false flag is obvious ), or someone trying to bury a story where the original got taken down but archive.is still had a copy. PaleAqua (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Cannot enter archive.is?
Hey PaleAqua, can you enter archive.is? I cannot enter at all. P.S. I'm from Hong Kong. Forbidden User (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm able to access the page on my tablet from US. PaleAqua (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that it has quota on times of access per day?Forbidden User (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea though seems like others have been able to access it. looks to be up. PaleAqua (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that useful site. By the way, I saw an archive site called www.archive.to, is it a web crawler or on-demand archive site?Forbidden User (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither, it appears to be a parked domain. PaleAqua (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This is completely unrelated to archive.is, but I'm wondering what is DoS attack.Forbidden User (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See the Denial-of-service attack article. PaleAqua (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just asking, how did you come to the conclusion that archive.is is not a web crawler while you cannot see its source code, etc? I've tried my best to comprehend the robots.txt article, but I still don't understand why would anyone add the script if they don't intend to say "I don't want this to be archived." Could you please explain to me?Forbidden User (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much by definition, from looking at how the archive looks like, what pages get cached ( a web crawler will follow links and cache more, several pages I would expect a crawler to have archived do not appear to be archived by archive.is/today), how requests to archive pages are made, etc. ( I suppose you could also take their FAQ into account, but that's not necessary. ) Robot.txt is designed to prevent web crawlers that follow links to avoid following links that might indicate perform actions or database changes. Consider a link that performs a purchase or order, one that leaves a comment, create an account, etc. you wouldn't want a search engine web crawler to trigger those links. They also are designed to prevent search engines from indexing pages so avoid the spread of information, though access controls and only providing information to those that present the right credentials ( I.e. a password or the like ) are the proper way to guard in those instance. Using an manual archiver requires that the one requesting the archival of the page now that the link exist, just as if a user visiting the sight in a browser by typing in the URL needs to know about the site. In some ways you can think of the question as "is a wheel an automobile?" an the answer is no, but it can be used as part of one. Just like a bot that massively added archive links to wikipedia using any archival site by following existing links could be considered a web crawler ( or more specifically a wikipedia crawler, unless it also requested links from pages that it archived etc. ) PaleAqua (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Then, how do sites say "don't archive this", etc? I wonder if archive.org (etc) can improve so that the defects mentioned by Kheider and Hawkeye are remedied.Forbidden User (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a good question without a really good answer. From a pragmatic point of view, if something is visible on the web without requiring a password or the like then chances are it will be found or scanned by something, regardless of what ever form of please don't access sign is placed; so the first defense is if you don't want something public, either don't put on the web or put behind some sort of access control. As you reference, some sites use robots.txt for this, but it really isn't a good fit as it wasn't really meant for archive, but for web crawling. This leads to the problems that have been mentioned with the wayback machine. Especially since archive.org uses current versions of robot.txt to consider what to do with older content which might have been at the same domain but with a different owner. Really the best way would be some sort of prefacto standard for archiving, similar to how robots.txt is for webcrawling. For example either extending robots.txt to have archival information and then cache robots.txt at the time of archival, or perhaps something in the html headers could be used. Though something like that would require the web site owners and archivist to agree. PaleAqua (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear your insight. So, if I face the same problems as Kheider and Hawkeye mentioned in the RfC, can I solve it by finding a random on-demand archive site?Forbidden User (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, and it's part of the reason that there is interest in archive.is/today. PaleAqua (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Opinion on that differs. Let's enjoy ourselves and wait for closure. Cheers!Forbidden User (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice welcome message!
Hi,

Thank you very much for your kind welcome message! Like millions of people, I use Wikipedia but usually do not contribute. Recently I started reading the Swift Programming Manual and so thought I could contribute a bit as I read along.

Thanks again!

Guptaed (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. Figured after your got edits reverted by that false positive by a bot that you needed a proper welcome. I mostly read as well, but do a few edits here and there as the mood takes me. Been reading through the swift manual as well, it really is an interesting programming language. PaleAqua (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited POODLE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man in the middle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed. PaleAqua (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Black
Thanks for your edit and understanding on this; I have no problem with 'Shades of Black' being a "see also" item, I just don't want to see it at the top of the article. There have been a number of color articles where people used the 'Shades of ....category to include long lists of commercial colors and shades, like paint catalogues, and I really would like to keep this article focused on black and its various uses and meanings. Best regards, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Completely agree. I think we have way too much focus on original researched brand specific color names which would be better for a directory, at least better to have them in the "shades of" article then in the main article. I removed a bunch of those gallery type changes from other articles but guess I missed a few. Thanks. PaleAqua (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Looks like I have already commented on the new debate. PaleAqua (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate

 * The timely and sensitive move to RfA talk this morning. It was getting out of hand both in length and content to be viable on an ongoing RfA page. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. Was worried I was being too bold to be honest. PaleAqua (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Great call. No worries! :) Irondome (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing close
I would like you to reconsider your procedural close at Move review/Log/2015 February. Logically, the question of whether or not the page should have been moved there in the first place precedes the new move discussion. I particularly raise this because one editor has opposed the move on the basis of the page having only just been moved there. That doesn't make sense if the original move was a bad move or contrary to consensus. StAnselm (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * : Normally MRV are procedurally closed if a new RM is open. In this case the original RM on the page that was requested moved appears not to be contested. The disputed issue is which page should become the main page, as MRV is more geared towards determining if the close was proper or not, but not really about rearguing issues, the best place to handle that issue is a new RM which has already been started. PaleAqua (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was arguing at MRV that the close was improper, in that there was no consensus to move Daniel (name) to Daniel. StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And given that there is now a RM on that exact issue, the normal process is to procedurally close the MRV. PaleAqua (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. StAnselm (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Hello PaleAqua, it seems I did wrong by moving the page re war in Afghanistan, so my apologies. I saw that the talk page was not in the right place so I moved it. I nominated the talk page in the old page for speedy deletion as well, in case you feel that needs to be reverted as well. I am not familiar with technical moves so I will assume that is the correct course of action to take. Regards Mbcap (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Just trying to make sure talk page history is preserved. I had requested the closer do the move earlier as I assume they accidentally missed it. But just put in a technical move request so hopefully will be fixed soon. PaleAqua (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Surface articles
Hi PaleAqua, I've read your comment on the talk page about Surface articles are want to show the new layout with some content filled in. See: Talk:Microsoft Surface Pro 3 Illegal Operation (talk)
 * Surface 3 article with the new layout: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Surface_3&diff=654899308&oldid=654898747
 * Surface Pro 3 article with the new layout: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Surface_Pro_3&diff=654881518&oldid=654878346
 * That looks like a nice improvement. PaleAqua (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

About the Surface RT
I think that the naming discussion needs to be close at some point. I want to note that consensus does not mean that every editor has to agree. Anyway, I do wonder if Ians18 plans to stall things indefinitely. TheHoax (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes the discussion should be closed eventually, but as long as we have a 3-way disagreement it probably should not be one of us that closes it. PaleAqua (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can work something out between the two of us. A 3-way disagreement is harder to solve than a 2-way disagreement. TheHoax (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually think we are fairly close in opinion, though I tend to prefer just plan "Surface" where the extra disambiguation isn't required. PaleAqua (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We could also try request for close again. PaleAqua (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied to your close request noting RfC hasn't had an significant new input in 4 days. PaleAqua (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say that I am willing to change my opinion if you can come up with good arguments. I am wondering why you want to use two different names for the same thing in the same article. If we are referring to "William Howard Taft" and you want to say "Taft", I would agree, but "Surface RT" is hardly longer than "Surface" and certainly shorter than "Surface Pro 2". In this regard, I prefer to use "Surface RT" throughout the article to prevent any possible confusion from using two different names. TheHoax (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case Surface is the more common name, with Surface RT mostly used as a disambiguation. I'd actually rather just see "Surface" used straight though out and spell out as necessary in verbiage when it might be confusing as in "the original Windows RT version of the Surface tablet" if "Surface" would be ambiguous at that point in the sentence. Even for the Surface article, I support using "Surface RT" as a disambiguation of the article name but think it should just be referred to as the "Surface" in the article itself. PaleAqua (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyways I've pretty much wasted enough time on this, hopefully someone uninvolved with see the close request soon otherwise guess as long as it isn't with the unnecessary (first generation) all through the prose I don't care. PaleAqua (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am of a general believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can read: I don't expect a lot of prior knowledge. That means that someone who saw a Surface commercial or heard about the Surface from a friend should be able to read the article and understand what it said. A lot of people without prior knowledge would be confused if in some part of the article, the Surface RT is referred to as "Surface RT" and in other parts just "Surface". TheHoax (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For me personally (because of what I said above), consistency is key. I would prefer "Surface (first generation)" throughout the article than "Surface RT" here and "Surface" there.TheHoax (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? TheHoax (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said I would prefer "Surface" throughout with verbiage as necessary and trust our readers to be able to understand context. So for example "The original Surface tablet was made out of blue cheese while later versions of the Surface product family tended to be made with swiss." and "Unlike the Surface, the Surface 2 also came with a cookie cutter." ( using non-sequitors to focus only on the naming not the details. ). and then starting the article on the tablet ( ideally named Surface RT or Surface (tablet) ), with something like "The Microsoft Surface with Windows RT ( sometimes referred to as the Surface RT ) is .... " and then use Surface through out that article as well. Though using just "Surface RT" is better to me then using "Surface (first generation)" within the article itself. Anyways that's my opinion for what it's worth. PaleAqua (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of people (probably the majority) don't read the article from top to bottom: they just skip to whatever sections they want to read. My concern is that a lot of these people would then be confused about the Surface RT being referred to as just "Surface". Anyway, I think this discussion is more constructive than the one on the Microsoft Surface talk page that has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm 2602:306:3357:BA0:69E8:79C7:1E23:5EEC. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions that you made to Indigo because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. 2602:306:3357:BA0:69E8:79C7:1E23:5EEC (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167. PaleAqua (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Edited to point to archived discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Swift disambiguation
Regarding your "undo" to my edit: you are correct that the disambiguation page is too general. I will fix this by linking to the "computing technology" list specifically. Thanks. SouthLake (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Linking to computer technology would make sense if the article title was Swift (computer technology) or the like, but as it is Swift (programming language) it really only needs to be disambiguated to other programming languages and since we only have one such article currently it should go directly to that article. PaleAqua (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I commented in the discussions. While I continue to watch these and related discussions I'm not sure how much I will take part. PaleAqua (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We did our best to develop a wording that would keep everyone's contribution visible even if they only showed up, made one post and left. Participate as much or as little as you see fit, and thank you for it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Relisting Process for Page Moves
PaleAqua, since you have participated in discussions regarding Page Moves and the relisting process, I invite you to share your own comments over at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - there is an existing discussion regarding formally banning relisters from voting. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Been watching that discussion already, haven't quite decided my position yet which is why I haven't commented. PaleAqua (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . ..
And may all your holidays be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hope yours were/are as well. PaleAqua (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion nomination
Just a reminder, PaleAqua (or do you prefer #BCD4E6?) that when you nominate anything for deletion, you should usually notify the creator of that work about the nomination. This is especially true when the nominated material was created just a couple of months ago. Fortunately, another user told me that Template:X11 color chart had been nominated for deletion, but it would have been preferred to have the nominator make the notification. Anyway, I have suggested that the template be kept, and explained the reason it was created on the discussion page. Happy editing! (Due to watchlist backlog, please ping if you reply) Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 09:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Sorry I should have double checked that twinkle did the merge discussions notifications correctly. PaleAqua (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Darker section titles in page history
To PaleAqua and : The VPR thread has been archived. There is no activity visible in the phab ticket, not a single comment. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can easily imagine this sitting for months or more, for lack of priority. I think we should make the change at en-wiki; then, if and when someone gets around to the core change, we can remove it; if their choice is different from ours, so be it. My only reservation is that some of the !voting occurred before all of the options were conceived, and I feel the later options are better ones, being the result of discussion. If we chose an option based on the existing !voting, it might be 4, which is not be the best option in my opinion. This is, of course, the problem with mixing the development of a proposal with !voting. WP:VPI is the answer to that problem, but it doesn't get enough attention to be effective. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's start with option 4 or 5 at Mediawiki talk:Vector.css or Mediawiki talk:Common.css (not sure which is better since I haven't checked Monobook background--Common.css is probably watched by more) and see if anyone comes along to complain. I have O5 implemented in my CSS and I've adjusted--still don't know that I like the straight letters in e.g. the watchlist/RC but in the page diff/history it's AOK. Either way, we can point to a consensus (small though it was), and when someone does come along to complain (or enough someones), we can start an RFC or something. Regards VPI, I'm not sure I agree. I think the fact it's small is beneficial to idea generation and exploration and settling on some rough options for later consideration. I'm not worried about the Phab ticket. If e.g. Edokter gets annoyed enough by its presence in local, I'm fairly certain he knows how to submit a code change and will probably do so. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I was hoping for 7, but 5 would be a significant improvement over current. I feel a font switch is important, which would exclude 1 thru 4. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Three months later, crickets on the phab ticket, awaiting triage. I.e., not considered important enough for anyone to assign it a priority. I hate being right all the time. Anybody besides me ready to actually move on this locally? I'm getting old, and I'd enjoy seeing some closure on this before I die. Izno, if we're still stalemated between 5 and 7, perhaps PA would care to break the tie, or flip a coin or something. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's normal for some tickets in phabricator, especially the accessibility ones. I've been watching the ticket and also have noted the deadness... As I suggested above, make a concrete proposal at either Mediawiki talk:Common.css or Mediawiki talk:Vector.css, noting that both 5 and 7 are options--that will be a second opportunity for other people to chime in, and the people at those places usually have opinions. :) --Izno (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting another round of discussion and debate, lasting who knows how long, in a far less public venue than VPR, when those people had their chance at VPR and either !voted or didn't, that could easily close with "no consensus to change". Are you serious?? It's like spending months to push a bill through Congress to correct the spelling on a fucking street sign. This is pure insanity. If that's the only path to closure, I'll go ahead and die without the closure. What a monumental cluster fuck! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your prerogative. Eventually someone will move on the ticket I think. --Izno (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

RMpmc
I've made a little proposal at Template talk:RMpmc, and since all this is still so new, I'd like your input. What's in your palette?  Paine  17:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Testing a slight tweak to my signature
This is a test. PaleAqua (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comparing to a red link to see if the color is too close. User:PaleAqua/no such page. PaleAqua  (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tweaking to reach a 4.5 contrast. PaleAqua  (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC Notice
There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Addition of un-redirected pages to Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed
I'm contacting you because you participated in this proposal discussion. While the proposal was approved, it has not received developer action. The request is now under consideration as part of the 2017 Developer Wishlist, with voting open through the end of day on Tuesday (23:59 UTC). The latter link describes the voting process, if you are interested. — swpb T 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

File:TransneptunianLabel.svg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TransneptunianLabel.svg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

NYRM 2017
Wow, you are on the ball.

But would you mind if I moved your comments to the talk page? Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops didn't notice was still draft status. Saw the signature and thought it was open. Sure, feel free to move my comments. PaleAqua  (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI the RMbot seems to have thought it was live and added to pages like Talk:New York (disambiguation) which is how I noticed it. Looks like it removed it from Talk:New York but not the disambiguation page yet. PaleAqua  (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

List of colours: A-M listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of colours: A-M. Since you had some involvement with the List of colours: A-M redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox color/color coordinates
Template:Infobox color/color coordinates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Resist
Hi, PaleAqua. I believe you meant "relist" instead of "resist" in your !vote here. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yep autocorrect doesn't like the word relist and constantly changes it to resist. Thought I caught most of them, I'll go back and fix. PaleAqua  (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Vote is below the anchor
Hi PaleAqua. I think your vote at WP:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020 isn't numbering properly because it is placed below the anchor. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. PaleAqua  (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Shades of magenta
Template:Shades of magenta has been nominated for merging with Template:Shades of violet. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. p b  p  22:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Closing Move Review
Please allow participants of the RM to give their feedback before closing the review. LondonIP (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The usual process at move review is to procedural close reviews where there are other discussions taking place rather then split the discussion. PaleAqua  (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PaleAqua, this was a highly controversial close, and regardless of the AfD and how it is close, there should be a MR. In my view, the AfD should be procedurally closed, not the MR. LondonIP (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Howl
Hello - just curious why you undid my changes at the Howl move review. I noted that I was doing so, and it made my rationale more accurate. Any reason why I shouldn't be able to do so? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Must have been an edit conflict, don't know why it didn't show when I did the show preview. I've your changes. Sorry  PaleAqua  (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Test of signature change and new topic
Testing that my signature change looks okay and try newer new topic button. Pale Aqua (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)