User talk:Vladimir.copic

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Vladimir.copic! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Articles for deletion/The Kabeedies, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Radio of Free Asia
Thanks a bunch for sprucing up the page, I hope accessing the sources wasn’t too hard. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's an interesting topic although hard to access sources (even with database access). It did raise questions as to whether there should be another page for Korean Cultural and Freedom Foundation or merge this with a Radio of Free Asia page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want another headache, I made the unfortunate discovery a few days ago that there are far more sources on this topic than I realized because the outlet was often incorrectly called “Radio Free Asia” by print sources, which is a similar yet distinct organization. Thankfully the original Radio Free Asia was defunct before Radio of Free Asia began, so sorting newspaper archives to the 60s and 70s and searching for “radio free Asia” should only bring up information about the organization itself named radio OF free Asia. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Korean Cultural and Freedom Foundation has some interesting links to the Moonies which would probably be interesting too. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Europe DS
My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Democratic architecture
Don't do this. Yes it would make a point, and yes I personally agree with that point, but you and I both know that this article is spurious and shouldn't exist. If you would like to challenge the AfD closure you may do so by either talking to User:Sandstein or opening a formal WP:DRV if that is unsatisfactory. BSMRD (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can’t speak for them personally, but I doubt this was meant to go beyond the draft space to prove a point (in which case I don’t really find an issue). I do agree though that posting it to main space would be an awful idea. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I started off looking into this as a joke but now actually think it’s a thing . Frank Lloyd Wright even wrote a book about it. There is so much published work discussing it. Happy to dump this if it’s seen as a bad idea. Vladimir.copic (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d like to go over the sources and talk shop with you about it when I have the time (just to make sure we’re not going in the same direction of making a SYNTH mess), but if you think it’s a notable topic (rather than just analysis of architecture in democratic states), I’m all for you drafting it up. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually think this little sojourn onto the edges of political WP has put me off for good. Think I’ll just retreat back to jazz and soul music articles. Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Idris Muhammad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uncut. 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, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Standard notice
--Neutralitytalk 00:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide topic alert
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

New message from Mikehawk10
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice
This notice is being given to everyone who has reverted on the page Adrian Zenz this month. It is not an indication that you have done anything wrong. It is to inform you that the page Adrian Zenz is under a WP:1RR restriction until further notice in response to excessive edit warring on the page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

List of longest living state leaders
I think you make a really good point. I am just wondering if you have thought it to its full extent. Taiwan is in my mind not the best example. I think Somaliland and a few other de facto states are much better examples. In these cases there is no functional outside government in the area, so no matter what outsiders may recognize, how exactly do we consistently exclude them from being state leaders? The question of who the state leader is in Australia is also a good one. I think it is high time that in Wikipedia wenot allow lists that no one can find an actual published version of. One article including a listing of the two oldest people alive now who were ever state leaders is not at all close to the 100 oldest ones. Until someone can point to a published list of the 100 oldest living state leaders, regardless of if they are still in office, this list will be a step too far. This is especially true since it is not clear we can even say for sure if all former state leaders are currently alive or dead. If this set of people were actually a notable encyclopedic group we would expect people to make sure to always know for sure if every former state leader was currently alive, but this is not the case in every possible place it could be the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi John. Yes unfortunately WP has become host to a whole heap of OR and unnessesary lists. I suppose they are fun for editors to put together and much easier than editing actual articles but so often they are not reflected in sources and contradict policy. Some editors are doing valiant efforts at bringing these to AfD but so often are outweighed by preservationists. For instance my recent AfD was rejected despite WP:NOTCATALOG advising against "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as 'people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y'". So it goes. Such is life. Etc Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions re: RfC at Reliable Sources noticeboard
Hi Vladimir,

I wanted to ask for advice, given that you have started an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard for ASPI, and I wanted to know whether you think I should do the same for the Houston Chronicle. I started |a non-RFC post on the noticeboard because it hasn't been the subject of controversy; at the same time, the Houston Chronicle doesn't appear to have been the subject of any dedicated discussion to it in the noticeboard, nor does it appear in the perennial sources. It's crucially included in an article currently listed on the frontpage, Astroworld Festival crowd crush. Do you think I should request an RfC or not? Thank you in advance. Pilaz (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m probably not the right person to give advice on this. I didn’t do my RfC in regards to any particular article so it seemed like the right thing. Maybe take it to the teahouse? Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your reverting on List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States
Hello, On the page List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States, you've repeatedly removed sourced information saying that it's unsourced and to use a reliable source. The section in question cites the Washington Post, which is listed as reliable on WP:RSN. It'd be appreciated if you'd stop removing the sourced information now. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you read the source you are referencing here? It never once mentions Chris Sununu and is about his father John. This is really not enough for a racial classification of a BLP. We have to have higher standards about this. I tried to raise this on the talk page but no one seems to want to engage there - just edit war. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Democratic Architecture
Hello, Vladimir.copic. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Democratic Architecture, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
Hi, I just wanted to say that I love your user page :) — JThistle38 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Credit goes to Ju Feng who took this photograph and then gave it a CC license. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bob Sredersas has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Bob Sredersas, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Bob_Sredersas help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Renata•3 22:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

About your message
How should I take this? I don't understand, Can you explain to me without much formalism? Best Regards.--Berposen (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. I would suggest you read the linked guidelines/policy which talk about it better than I can. Thanks and happy editing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Summaries
What are these types of summaries? Am I hurting you? Why do you address me like that? Read this little article so you can try to address the community in a different way, greetings.--Berposen (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Bob Sredersas
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Source Review on Azov Battalion
You said in that edit summary: Boldy reverting. The last thing this discussion needs is more collapsible boxes (with collapsible boxes inside it). It makes it even more impenetrable to outside/uninvolved editors. Also concerned that this presentation does not present sources neutrally even though it presents like it does.

Please let me know how I could alter that source review in a way that makes it present the information more neutrally in your opinion. Thanks — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Shibbolethink! Commendation to you for work on the source list. I'll just give a couple of ways I think the table presents itself as neutral or a "source of truth" but is, IMO, lacking in this regard:
 * Over categorisation Separating sources into coloured sections for "neo-nazi" "formerly" "with neo-nazi elements" etc oversimplifies the sources, is one editor's reading of the source and encourages bean-counting rather than reading and assessing of sources.
 * Incorrect categorisation For example from the quickest of scans, I can see quite a few examples where the opinion is attributed but the sources are not listed as attributed. Just two here: (literally a collection of interviews) and  (made up of attributed statements). Incorrect or disputed classifications (which of course will happen and are probably numerous) can skew opinions when the table is presented as a "source of truth" and people are not encouraged to read sources themselves.
 * Categories do not allow representation for option D There is no category to show where sources talk about others categorising the group as neo-Nazi. For example the France 24 piece is categorised as "formerly" but the first sentence is Some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis. This is on top of the statements in the article about being de-ideologized being attributed to others which is not mentioned in the table.
 * Editorial notes The inclusion of editorial notes (in bold) on the quality of some sources just seem unnecessary and pushing a point of view. If this sources are not RS they should just be removed OR we should allow editors to make their comment in discussion section. Examples: "Note: some users participating in an RSN discussion do not consider this source reliable.", "Note: some users consider this a drive-by usage of the term "neo-nazi". Who does "some users" refer to - seems to be just one user in some cases?
 * One-sided All of the issues above at the moment only seem to benefit a certain viewpoint on the RfC. For example only those categorised "neo-Nazi" have the "attributed" classification next to them despite them not being the only sources to fit this category (see above). It isn't a coincidence that one of the most partisan participants in the RfC is shopping this table around so much . But this could just be me being grumpy bastard.
 * Other issues This is a convoluted way to add sources and most editors won't bother trying to deal with it. I don't even think all of the sources from the original table have been included (such as the two recent i New sources, the Stanford source and some academic texts). For fear of messing up the table, having to figure out how to do it and having the time to weed through the wikitext, I haven't added anything to this. I found this interesting New Spectator piece this morning but can't figure out how or where to put it in this table as it doesn't fit this simple categorisation.
 * From the lack of uninvolved editor's participating in the RfC (and getting jumped on when they do ) we can see that these approaches are not making the RfC more accessible. The original source list for "includes neo-Nazi" has been bludgeoned to death so that isn't any better now. The idea of the source list made more sense to me when it was simply a list without all the editorialising.
 * Looking at your vote, I think we have broadly reached a similar conclusion with different end points - largely because the options were not great and we need a more nuanced lede.
 * The RfC is completely cursed and was wrecked within about 10 mins of it being launched. I don't want to add to the bludgeoning now taking place there so am taking leave of the page to pray for the souls of all of us who have edited there.
 * Once again happy editing! Catch you around the traps. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Vladimir.copic many of these are your subjective opinion of how you would have done this differently. That's great, I would much rather that you actually had done that, it would have saved me the time. But since you did not, it falls to me to make those choices. And many of them are just that--choices which one must make and there is no policy or consensus to guide us on how to make them. I stand by those formatting choices. Even so, I appreciate your input, am happy to incorporate it wherever possible. Here are my responses:1. Over categorization - I disagree in the strongest possible terms. We have members of RFCs vote with single letters, and it has not yet become an issue that we don't require them to not say "A" or "B", but do require participants to explain their choices to be considered worth including. Similarly, we have explanations in the source review with the quotations of the sources which support the assessment.2. Incorrect categorization - Okay, so tell me which ones or put it in the discussion section (either one) and I or someone else can fix it. Or fix it yourself. There is no point in complaining about this without actually helping improve it. If I emphatically disagree about one of the changes you make, and don't think I can somehow help, I will revert it and we will enter WP:BRD, just like anything else on this encyclopedia. Otherwise I will just help you make that change in as neutral a way as possible.3. Categories do not allow representation for option D - That's "attribution." OH I see what you mean, it doesn't quite cover the same thing. I have added a category: 4. Editorial notes - What would you change about this? How would it be better to just let those things sit in the discussion section and not be known when one is looking at the list of sources? What alternative would you suggest? I emphatically believe we should point users to the fact that there are disagreements. I am borrowing "some users" from the language of WP:RSP and RFC closures. It's wikipedia-ese. And it means we don't have to update it every time someone voices disagreement, changing it from "one user" to "two users" or from "one" to "some" to "a few". That would be insane. Similarly, I would disagree emphatically that the comments should be in-line. WP:ANI vs WP:AE and many other policies and guidelines on this wiki show us that is a bad idea. In-line disputes tend to become more contentious. Segregated disputes tend to be more moderated. And they also read more cleanly.5. One-sided - This is because only one side appears to be interested (at the moment) in knocking down the other side's sources and bludgeoning about it. I believe it's relatively obvious that's happening, and like any discussion where you believe someone is bludgeoning, it's usually better to let other users see that for themselves.6. Other issues - I am one person, and I do not have unlimited time. If you think there is an issue, you, like anyone else, are free to fix it yourself. All it is is taking a source citation template and putting it in a list. It's no more difficult than citing sources in a normal wikipedia article. competence is required. I think you may be confused because you may not know how to use citation templates. So here are two pages that might help: Citation templates & Citation toolsSome of those sources, I don't think are RSes, such as TV news from youtube. Others I just haven't had time to add. I am a full time medical student on clinical rotations, in the hospital ~70 hours per week, the rest I try and spend studying. I am passionate about wikipedia, so I help in short bursts whenever I can. I need help maintaining a source list like this, because i cannot do it fully myself due to those time constraints. Nor should any one person be doing it.Re: your other comments, I think the issue is that we have never had an RFC which is simple, clean, and reasonably worded with only a few choices. Not 10 choices, not walls of text of sources and back and forth and people trying to cherry pick and tear down each others' lists, and only creating lists of things that agree with them, and so on. Similar to the difference between WP:ANI and WP:AE, the issue is that having everyone nit-picking back and forth in a single section creates long walls of text which are impenetrable to anyone uninvolved. Also, the past RFCs have not been advertised much beyond the automated RFC service. It would also require a new RFC also to be provided as a draft for anyone to try and poke holes in for a week or so.In the past, I have been successful creating RFCs with similar lists of sources, very few choices, and carefully moving any non-!votes to the discussion section of the RFC. That includes replies. It's hard work, but it creates an RFC which is intelligible. It helps if you set out those rules from the beginning. It helps if you keep it brief. Etc. etc. This worked in the extremely fraught COVID lab leak topic area, where users are even more cutthroat than here. Doxxing is a regular activity over there, and twitter meatpuppets, etc. etc. But we still achieved consensuses. My current plan would be to wait for the current RFC to expire or be closed with no consensus, the most likely situation, and then to re-run with the source list at the top, way way way fewer options, and carefully curated discussion that does not go off the rails. Any WP:NPAs or user conduct criticism would be moved to user talk pages, where they belong. Any FORUM content would be collapsed. Any discussion in the votes section would be moved to the discussion section. Etc. etc. Unbiased-ly, not favoring either side, but just making it actually readable.Does that make sense? I don't think there's much other choice. And I am open to any suggestions and modifications as I said before. I appreciate your help making it more palatable and useful of a source review. I can understand why you would want to run as far away from this topic area as possible, waving your hands like a wacky waving inflatable arm flailing person. But what I would say is: voicing criticism without trying to help usually just makes problems worse. You don't have to get involved in the disputes, you don't have to spend hours trading barbs on the talk page. You can just add sources, once, and then never post again. Or place sources in the discussion section that are not currently in there, and maybe someone will add them. There are a lot of choices here that are not as frustrating (to you) as inaction likely will be! —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Received and understood. Like I said, I wasn't planning on continuing contributing to the RfC further (it'll just make me grumpy and a bad editor - I've even somehow ended up taking someone to AE over this!) but as a show of good faith I'll make the edits I think are necessary (I'm sure they'll be challenged) then F off. Efforts to avoid wall-of-text discussions are great and I truly thank you for your efforts - however we can unwittingly editorialise or tip the scales when presenting thinks like this. Thanks again. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would say every single one of those changes you've just made was a helpful one and worth doing! Thank you for helping make that list as NPOV and comprehensive as possible! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC closure
Hi,

you closed the RfC with not-enough participation tag. RfC was raised as no consensus was possible to achieve as result of talk page debates and DnR. Number of editors reached consensus, and only 1 editor continuously pushing his point of view without any solid argument, although other editors made solid policy-based arguments. That was the reason for RfC - to get the uninvolved comment, because no consensus was possible to reach. Uninvolved editor also confirmed - do not include. Just interesting, why it is not enough? Should we take this simple case to dispute resolution boards again and again, only because 1 user pushes his point of view?

p.s, However, the arguments for inclusion of the quotation that were put forth at DRN were not provided. - no arguments for inclusion from DNR were provided, because not a single solid argument for inclusion was given in the DNR.

Sincerely, --Abrvagl (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Abrvagl,
 * In the RfC only one editor gave an opinion in the survey section (aside from your comment in the discussion section). With this level of participation it was not possible to claim consensus was reached. It is a shame that editors who had previously thoughtfully discussed this issue (including yourself) did not feel the need to give and explain their opinion in this RfC.
 * As I said, I would take no issue with an editor starting another RfC and publicising it better to gain more participation. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think editors did not participate simple because they said everything they can and did not reach the consensus. So RfC was raised to get view of uninvolved editor. There is not much said because simple because there is no much to say. it is very simple case, which escalated to the RfC just because one editor is very good at ignoring valid arguments and strong at pushing his POV.
 * Can you then please re-open the same RfC? What is the point in opening another RfC on the exact same topic? Abrvagl (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RfC has been reopened, tags restored and been publicised. Two grumpy comments from me: #1 I would strongly suggest you actually give your vote/opinion now in this RfC - you should not rely on vague waves to previous discussions. #2 When you asked for the RfC to be closed, did you seriously expected a different outcome? (rhetorical question - not wanting a reply) One vote was cast! Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring RfC. And yes, I you are right. It is my first RfC, and I had different understanding of RfC process and expected different outcome :) Abrvagl (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Sam Atyeo
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

New evidence
Chris’s paternal grandmother was named Victoria Dada Basiliadis (the daughter of Miguel Jorge Dada Tadros and Isabel/Elisabeta Vasiliadis/Basiliadis). Victoria was born in San Vicente, El Salvador. Miguel was the son of Jorge Dada and Justini Tadros. Isabel was born in Athens, Greece. The Dada-Basiliadis family I found out were a prominent Salvadoran family of Greek and Lebanese/Palestinian descent in El Salvador and even have ties to the Bukele family which includes Nayib Bukele, President of El Salvador. So I think now He should be considered Hispanic because his maternal grandmother is clearly from a Salvadoran family. 2600:8807:C80B:2D00:C98A:1871:7FC2:2B2B (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes - I saw this on the article Talk page. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia's policy on no original research. You need to gain consensus before adding Chris Sununu to the article - at the moment the RfC is still running. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Big Chief Russell Moore
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Ronnie Zito for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ronnie Zito is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ronnie Zito until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hans Heller, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and University of Prague.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Stein (communist)
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Pierre Merlin
Hello, Vladimir.copic. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pierre Merlin, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Herb Wong
Hello! Your submission of Herb Wong at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cielquiparle (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I just have one additional question re: ALT1...could you please take a quick look? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Herb Wong
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Zodiac Suite
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2758 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Peerage of the United Kingdom
Hi can you amend the Peerage of the United Kingdom please as I left amended tables in the talk page, thank you 86.191.232.221 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not knowledgeable enough in the area to know if these suggested corrections are right. I would suggest you create a Wikipedia account and after 10 edits and four days you will be able to edit the page yourself. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The data is in the talk page of the Peerage of the United Kingdom. 86.191.232.221 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * @VickKiang thanks and very apt! I'll drink it in complete silence while listening to Coltrane. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've rated Jazz kissa B-class for now.  VickKiang  (talk)  03:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * @Premeditated Chaos thanks! I'm getting a lot of love for this article already which makes all the work worth it! I've put it up for GA which will hopefully improve it further. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it, it's nice to see good and interesting work get recognized. I'm not reviewing any GAs right now but if it doesn't get picked up I may wind up taking a look once I'm done with current projects. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jazz kissa
Hello! Your submission of Jazz kissa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Jazz kissa
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Jazz kissa is definitely one of the most well-written and thorough articles I've patrolled last month during NPP.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was a lot of fun to write and research. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominations
Hi Vladimir.copic, thank you for your assistance in reviewing at WP:Good article nominations. When you pass a nomination, please remember to add it to the appropriate list of Good articles. All steps that should be taken are listed at WP:GAN/I. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, CMD (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chipmunkdavis thanks for the reminder (it was my first review)! I did read this in the instructions but forgot to do it... Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! It looks a thorough first review. CMD (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jazz kissa
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jazz kissa 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 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jazz kissa
The article Jazz kissa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jazz kissa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zodiac Suite
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zodiac Suite 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zodiac Suite
The article Zodiac Suite you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Zodiac Suite and Talk:Zodiac Suite/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I notice that none of the review comments I posted in Talk:Zodiac Suite/GA1 seemed to have been addressed yet, and that there is quite a lot of work to be done on the article before it can be passed at GA. Please note that the article will be failed if the comments are not all addressed by 6 January. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amitchell125 Hey. Thanks for starting the review. It’s the holiday season where I am so I’ve been taking a break from the computer. I’ll try to get around to looking at it this week but might not be able to. I’ll definitely be able to go through it next week. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vladimir.copic No worries, I've extended the deadline until January 16, enjoy your break. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, any news? Nothing seems to have happened regarding the article, which is due to be failed in three days' time if the issues are not addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amitchell125 Thanks for the reminder. Full response at the GA nom. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Caravan of Memory
Hello, Vladimir.copic. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Caravan of Memory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zodiac Suite
The article Zodiac Suite you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zodiac Suite for comments about the article, and Talk:Zodiac Suite/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Swing Journal
Hello, Vladimir.copic. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Swing Journal, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Intensification-90
Hello, Vladimir.copic. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Intensification-90, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Soviet jazz
Hello, Vladimir.copic. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Soviet jazz, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Intensification-90


Hello, Vladimir.copic. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Intensification-90".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Paragon Deku Now this is a blast from the past. Not sure if I have the stomach for this one. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Buddhism in Brazil
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Buddhism in Brazil, may have introduced referencing errors. They are 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:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism_in_Brazil&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1155032617%7CBuddhism%20in%20Brazil%5D%5D Ask for help])

Concern regarding Draft:Open Country (Boyd family)
Hello, Vladimir.copic. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Open Country (Boyd family), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith
Hi Vladimir, I've started an RfC in the talkpage of Ben Roberts-Smith about whether the phrase "disgraced his country" as attributed to Justice Besanko should be included in the article. The phrase has currently been ripped out of the article entirely, both from the lead and the judgment section. I thought you may be involved. AlanStalk 05:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Read (historian)
—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Ivan Conti
Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Caravan of Memory


Hello, Vladimir.copic. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Caravan of Memory".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Soviet jazz


Hello, Vladimir.copic. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Soviet jazz".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Cloaca (art installation)
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)