User Talk: Crestfalling

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:Crestfalling/TalkHeader}}
{{Talk header}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age = 2160
| archiveprefix = User talk:Crestfalling/Archive
| numberstart = 1
| maxarchsize = 75000
| minkeepthreads = 5
| minarchthreads = 2
| format = %%i
}}

Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery ↗

Your nomination of The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

DYK for The Executioner and Her Way of Life

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 27 April 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''The Executioner and Her Way of Life ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that a character's outfit from the anime '''''The Executioner and Her Way of Life ↗''''' was inspired by Clint Eastwood ↗'s spaghetti Western roles?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Executioner and Her Way of Life ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Executioner and Her Way of Life ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

March 2026 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

{| style="border: 1px solid grey; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |
'''Citation Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray; width:100%;" |
This award is given in recognition to Crestfalling for collecting more than 5 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles ↗'s March 2026 ↗ backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8362 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – '''Dream'''Rimmer ■ 16:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
|}

New page reviewer granted

right|80px ↗
Hi Crestfalling, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right ↗ to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation ↗ tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed ↗. If you asked for this at requests for permissions ↗, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol ↗. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers ↗ to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions

If you use Twinkle ↗, configure it ↗ to log your CSDs and PRODs

If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies ↗

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources ↗. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from ZainulAbidin-dot (23:39, 6 May 2026)

:''Note: ZainulAbidin-dot's mentor Jenhawk777 is away.''
Hello,

Can you please explain the steps to edit and publish and how to check if it has been accepted and reconized --ZainulAbidin-dot (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, and thank you for your contributions! The great part about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Simply go to a page, press the edit button, and make changes that improve the article. The edit will immediately be published, although other editors might modify it later on if they don't feel it improves the article. That's a normal part of Wikipedia's process, and don't let it discourage you if it happens; simply consider the feedback for the future.
:There are a small percentage of articles which don't publish changes immediately, or don't allow editing by new users; if you encounter one of those, just be patient, since you'll soon gain the experience to edit them. If you have any questions, I'm always happy to answer. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 01:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you Sir and if I want to create a article about someone or any company as I am interested in adding knowledge of latest middle east companies. Is there a proper procedure for it? Can you please explain it. ZainulAbidin-dot (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:::You're welcome! Creating a new page is a pretty difficult process, since it involves a lot of research, writing, and understanding of encyclopedic content guidelines. If you're interested in a topic, I'd recommend you first edit some existing pages to get a feel for how Wikipedia works.
:::However, if you really do want to create a new article, then there's some great advice at the page your first article ↗. In a nutshell, make sure that the topic has coverage from secondary ↗ reliable sources, that you're writing in a neutral way, and that you're citing all your sources. Afterwards, create a draft and turn it into an article via the appropriatem method. If you have any questions, just let me know. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 04:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Spooky Spookhouse (18:24, 18 May 2026)

how could I fix this tone? "The work of De Meulemeester shows relationship with that of James Ensor. His craftsmanship is excellent, his themes are humoristic, sarcastic, even cynical, with a deep understanding of human nature, described pleasantly but with no illusions." I am having trouble with fixing tone. --Spooky Spookhouse (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, and thank you for your contributions! In general, under Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ↗, opinions such as "his craftsmanship is excellent" should not be stated as fact. Instead, they should be attributed to sources. So, for example, ''Several critics described his craftsmanship as "excellent", while a contemporary newspaper called his themes "humoristic, sarcastic, even cynical"... '' would be acceptable. Looking at this particular article (André de Meulemeester ↗), that excerpt appears to be attributed to a critic, so it's probably fine as it is.

:Just as a bit of general advice which I hope is helpful: if you can't find sourcing for those opinions, then it's best to simply remove them, since it's a matter of information rather than tone. No amount of rewriting tone can turn an opinion into fact. If you have any questions, then please feel free to follow up, and I apologize for the slightly late reply. Best, Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 03:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Question for Natalie link changes

Hello, I noticed you've been changing all links to Natalie (website) ↗ to specific editorial departments. I am curious if this really is necessary since Comic Natalie ↗ and Music Natalie ↗ do not have their own articles, and they both redirect to Natalie (website) ↗ anyway. lullabying (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi. The main reason I'm making the change is to conform with how reliable sources treat the site, since they virtually always cite the individual Natalie websites rather than citing Natalie directly (examples in Special:Permalink/1355957425 ↗). Additionally, this also improves consistency: Citoid ↗, the tool used by Mediawiki's referencing software, automatically retrieves the metadata given by the websites when filling out citation parameters, and that metadata for Natalie websites includes the full name for the website= parameter. Using a site's own provided English-language title is, in most cases, preferable since a website is being cited as a published work (see MOS:ITALICWEBSITE ↗ for this).
:While they both redirect to Natalie (website) ↗, it affects how they display to readers and editors, which is one of the main purposes of citation templates. The wikilinks are secondary (usually I leave them alone: if it's already wikilinked, I keep it that way, and otherwise I don't actively link unlinked parameters). Additionally, if Comic Natalie ↗, for example, ever receives enough significant coverage to merit its own article (I'm actually quite sure it has enough, but I haven't gotten around to drafting it yet), then the links will have to be disambiguated anyway. That being said, if you think the edits to <nowiki>Natalie ↗</nowiki> links aren't necessary, I'll pause them for the time being until there's greater consensus, and focus my efforts on ensuring accurate transliteration of parameters that are already there (e.g. コミックナタリ-> Comic Natalie). I hope this helps, and thank you for the inquiry. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 04:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::I think it'd be better to wait on it until they've actually been drafted. Comic Natalie ↗ doesn't even redirect to a section on the main Natalie (website) ↗ article, so it doesn't really make much of a difference for now. lullabying (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Got it, I understand that perspective. Just as a point of clarification, do you think it would be fine to convert parameters such as "website=コミックナタリー" (which is just Komikku Natarī) to "website=Comic Natalie"? Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 05:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::<s>Better revert your edits as it seems a WP:COSMETICBOT ↗ on articles that clearly WP:NOTBROKEN ↗ and if it ain't broke, don't fix it ↗. Also a violation MOS:NOPIPE ↗ imo.</s> ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ →𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎← 14:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the inquiry, but I'd like to gently point out that this may not be a correct interpretation of the policies and guidelines. WP:COSMETICBOT ↗ notes that "changes considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia", and the rendering of links from Natalie ↗ -> Comic Natalie ↗ is a clearly visible change. Neither WP:NOTBROKEN ↗ or MOS:NOPIPE ↗ are relevant, since they both discourage changing a redirect to a piped link, whereas I'm changing a piped link to a more specific redirect. In fact, WP:NOTBROKEN ↗ notes that linking to a more specific redirect may be preferable for accuracy, while MOS:NOPIPE ↗ notes that a redirected term is preferable over a piped one when it is accurately used, so they're actually saying the opposite.
:::WP:AINTBROKE ↗ is an essay, and the last sentence is "On the other hand, if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." Linking to individual Natalie websites is common practice and in line with convention for a published work's title, which a website is per WP:ITALICWEBCITE ↗. You're of course free to revert for an individual article, but I think it's a bit much to revert en masse, especially given almost 4000 articles use this convention for Comic Natalie alone ↗, and less than 1/5th of those are from my edits.
:::Of course, I'm not perfect and I'll readily admit to having made mistakes on occasion, so if you can clearly explain how policies and guidelines apply here, I'm open to hear them. For now, I'll simply start a discussion ↗. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 16:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the explanation. One major detail to consider is that all of these ''individual Natalie websites'' are under the parent domain: 'natalie.mu', right? The specific department (Comic, Eiga, etc.) is already completely transparent to the reader and metadata scrapers via the URL parameter. Using mass automated tools to change Natalie to a specific redirect doesn't add any new functional information that the URL hasn't already provided. It simply creates immense watchlist clutter for zero technical gain. I am completely fine with using this style for new articles, but mass-sweeping existing, perfectly functional citations across thousands of pages (which you already did) is unnecessary. And yes, it is too much to revert en masse. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ →𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎← 18:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the reply. Although they share the parent domain, reliable English-language sources generally treat them as separate websites because they share no relation other than being owned by the same company; additionally, for people using mobile devices, which constitute most of Wikipedia's readers, the URL isn't transparent in citations and it's cumbersome to navigate to a new page to check it. Furthermore, while any citation with a valid URL is functional, some are more informative than others, and WP:CITE ↗ encourages improving its reader-facing aspects when possible. Finally, MOS:NOTBROKEN ↗ also notes that specific redirects are useful because they indicate an article is wanted, which is the main purpose of a {{tl|R from possibilities}}.
:::::I apologize for the watchlist clutter; I try and work in long sessions so that people don't have to clear watchlists multiple times. The problem is that many of the Natalie ↗ citation styles are on older pages, and editors are gradually standardizing them manually, which can easily take 30 seconds or more on articles with multiple Natalie citations. You can imagine how much time this takes across thousands of articles. As such, I figured I would spend a few hours on my day off to take care of things once and for all, and save time for other editors in the future. That being said, if you'd prefer I not do this, I completely understand and I'm fine with striking the task for now. I hope this helps clarify things. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 18:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for finishing reviewing a GAN

I would like to thank you for finishing reviewing ''Fuuto PI: The Portrait of Kamen Rider Skull ↗''. I had started to review the GAN, but I got busy. I appreciate you covering for me. Keep up the good work. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

:No problem, and thank you very much. Kamakou also helped with the GAN, and I'm grateful that she and I were able to finish the review since the article was in great shape. Glad to see you're back :) Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 03:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

DYK for The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 31 May 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that a narrative element in '''''The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady ↗''''' was described as "explicitly [...] about class conflict"?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} '''Hurricane''''''Zeta'''C ↗ 00:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: ''Natalie''

I might not be online everyday recently, but don't know if I could still reply to the comment made on May 25 – whether your talk page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Should citations to Natalie sites use Natalie or a more specific one like Comic Natalie? ↗ – so I end up discussing here on your talk page.

To be honest, Lullabying was correct that the sub-sites are not notable. As for romanization, we should always follow what is presented in English-language sources (e.g. コミックナタリー = ''Comic Natalie'').

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ '''Clara A. Djalim''' ໒꒱˚｡⋆ ↗ 23:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you for the input, I appreciate it any time. As far as I am aware, citation parameters are included independent of notability (for example, Crunchyroll News ↗ is the standard wikilink despite not being notable in and of itself). On a general basis, accurate information, including naming, is included where possible per WP:CITEHOW ↗; in addition, per WP:NOTBROKEN ↗, more specific redirects should be used over piped links when possible. That being said, I respect the compromise reached on the talk page and will stick to changes for newer articles only. Thanks for the guidance on romanization as well. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 23:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:GARC ↗: Invitation to review Cyrene (Honkai: Star Rail) ↗

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">90px|alt=|link= ↗</div>
Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles ↗ to review Cyrene (Honkai: Star Rail) ↗. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. '''Please wait 24 hours''' or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

'''To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#91 ↗.'''

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers ↗ to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions

If you use Twinkle ↗, configure it ↗ to log your CSDs and PRODs

If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies ↗

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources ↗. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! signed, '''''Rosguill''''' ''talk'' 18:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FA review of Well-being ↗

Hello {{u|Crestfalling}}, I'm sorry that it didn't work out with your recent FA nomination of ''The Executioner and Her Way of Life ↗''. I was wondering whether you may be interested in reviewing the article Well-being ↗ at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Well-being/archive1 ↗ since the article hasn't received enough reviews so far. Thank you for taking a look and please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, and thank you for the kind words. Right now, I think that I'd be a bit too busy to give this topic the depth of review that it deserves. That being said, it looks to be an excellently written article and I'd regret to see it archived; if a coordinator comment indicates that it is at risk of archival, please ping me and I will try to leave some feedback. Good luck with your nomination and thanks for all your work on Wikipedia's most fundamental articles. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 01:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for the offer! There are still a few review comments trickling in, so let's see if it works out on its own. I'll ping you if the coordinators get impatient. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::It seems that time is slowly running out for the nomination. I would be interested in your feedback if you have the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

May drive bling

{| style="border: 2px solid gray; background-color: #FFFFF0; vertical-align: middle;"
|rowspan="2" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |'''The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This barnstar is awarded to '''Crestfalling''' for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2026 Backlog Elimination Drive ↗. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! In solidarity ↗, '''''Mini''''''''''apolis''''' 00:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

Your nomination of The Moon on a Rainy Night ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article The Moon on a Rainy Night ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:The Moon on a Rainy Night/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:GARC ↗: Invitation to review Yugoslav corn scandal ↗

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">90px|alt=|link= ↗</div>
Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles ↗ to review Yugoslav corn scandal ↗. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. '''Please wait 24 hours''' or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

'''To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#95 ↗.'''

'''A.Cython(talk)''' 01:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 NPP backlog drive – Points award

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | 160px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar '''  
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This award is given in recognition of Crestfalling for accumulating at least 25 points in the May 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 14884 articles during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – '''Dream'''Rimmer ■ 15:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

Question from WhiteObelisk on User:WhiteObelisk/sandbox (21:03, 15 June 2026)

Hi! I've finished polishing my draft for my first page about the Belarusian post-punk band Nürnberg in my sandbox. I believe I've sorted my references and set it up with British English formatting. Since you're my mentor, I'd really appreciate it if you could give it a quick look to see if I have done everything correctly for it to be made public. Thank you so much! --WhiteObelisk (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! At a glance, here's what I see:
:* Make sure all statements have a citation after them - the "tour of Mexico" as well as the discography need to be referenced.
:* Check that all sources used are reliable. According to Wikipedia's reliable source list ↗ and record charts source list ↗, SoundGuardian and last.fm may not be reliable, so they should be replaced with a different source if possible. I'm not sure of the rest of the sources, since I'm not too familiar with this topic area, but make sure that they follow Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines ↗.
:* Try to find as many sources as possible to establish that the band meets requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia ↗; the criteria that an article needs to meet before being published are outlined on the linked page. The Tuzin.FM and Post-punk.com sources are quite good, but an additional source covering the band in-depth would be helpful since two sources is the technical minimum for inclusion.
:The first and second points should be addressed before publishing, while the third one is more of a recommendation. I hope this helps, and please feel free to reach out with any further questions. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 01:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you so much for the feedback! I have gone through the draft again:
::Citations & Discography: I have added the band's official English website and a 34mag archive source to fully reference the discography table and the early history/tours.
::Sources: I removed Last.fm and replaced it with an article from Post-Punk.com. I also removed SoundGuardian entirely since the other Tuzin.FM source already verifies those tour details.
::Notability: I've used the 34mag and the Post-Punk.com article to give the draft more robust, in-depth secondary coverage.
::I also removed the sentence about using the Belarusian Latin alphabet as I couldn't find a concrete source at this point and wanted to keep everything strictly verifiable. I'd love it if you could take another look whenever you have a moment! Thanks again for your guidance. WhiteObelisk (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::No problem, I'm happy to help. I made a minor edit to the draft to fix formatting; other than that, it definitely looks to be in better shape now, and I don't see any obvious sourcing issues (which are the most important when it comes to a new article).
:::As a final step, I would suggest submitting it to Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process ↗, which allows it to be formally checked by experienced reviewers before publication; while I'm reasonably experienced, I don't have a ton of experience in this particular topic area. Best of luck, and feel free to reach out if you have any questions about the process. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 02:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Whisper Me a Love Song ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Whisper Me a Love Song ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Whisper Me a Love Song/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Gommeh -- Gommeh (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Kwakwaka (00:54, 21 June 2026)

I clicked publish but nothing happened --Kwakwaka (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! If you're referring to publishing edits, they should show up immediately upon clicking the blue "Publish changes" button; if this doesn't happen, then please describe the specific edit you're trying to make and I can help with that. If you're referring to publishing an article, then typically this is done through Wikipedia's Articles for Creation ↗ process; I see that you've already done that for your draft page, which is great. Please feel free to reach out with any further questions. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 03:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Kwakwaka (00:55, 21 June 2026)

How do I declare conflict of interest ? I’ve tried making sure everything has a reference --Kwakwaka (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:To declare a conflict of interest, please follow the directions given at Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidance page ↗ (linked). Basically, you put one template on the article, and ideally put another template on your own userpage. Adding references is greatly appreciated, and thank you for doing so. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 03:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to :Ramón Balcells Rodón ↗ when you modified the page, you introduced {{cl|Unknown parameters|unknown parameters}}. Just because you specify {{para|some_param|{{var|some_variable}}}} does not always mean that variable will display. The {{para|some_param}} must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview ↗ button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a '''Show preview''' button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history ↗ of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk ↗ for assistance.
Thank you. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 21:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, I noticed that on another page around 15 minutes ago and fixed it in my code. Thanks for the heads up! Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 21:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from 1st Wikiuser2013 (06:44, 25 June 2026)

Hello , I am new can u please give me a proper walkthrough . --1st Wikiuser2013 (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! The best walkthrough I can give is a guide by experienced editors that's already in wide use. As such, I recommend you go through the '''Introduction to editing Wikipedia tutorial ↗'''. If you have any questions about the tutorial, or want to work on a specific task, please let me know and I will be happy to help! Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 16:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of I Can't Say No to the Lonely Girl ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article I Can't Say No to the Lonely Girl ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:I Can't Say No to the Lonely Girl/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

my article was declined - can you help me understand some more

Hello. I'm generally confused by the whole wikipedia setup... I've posted this message to the person who reviewed my article. I have also posted on a general talk page something similar. Can you please help me understand what I should be doing and next steps... where and who should I be talking to?

This is what I wrote...
Hello. Thanks for your reply. All references that have been generated are real. I know they are real because i uploaded the copies of these articles, documents myself to a language model and used it to transcribe the articles / text/ documents. I checked what was transcribed against the original scans. In turn the language model helped me generate the right format for references as I'm not a professional. I can confirm that all the inforamtion is true and I can actually show you scans of all the documents and how they relate to the information within the text.
I am Gyula Mayer's daughter and as such, i have reviewed in detail all the information in this document against the documents I uploaded to make sure that the information is true. I reworded just about everything so the paragraphs I submitted were not generated by the language model. The language model howerver did help me with the formatting required for this and gave the syntax. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I can show you scans of all the primary sources etc... and I can show you the links to books that reference my father... all of which I've confirmed. I have tried to be as objective as I can and everything references a fact in the documents I have
With many thanks, Kwakwaka (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi! My best advice is to have a discussion with the person who reviewed the article, since they've read it closely and know what needs to be improved or fixed. It might take a bit for them to reply, since this is a volunteer site, but reviewers are here to help and almost always willing to explain their reasoning. Offering to provide transcriptions of the original documents would certainly be helpful.
:As for the language, I'm less familiar with that since it's not in my typical areas of editing. It might be worth getting a second opinion at the article for creation help desk ↗ or Wikipedia's help center ↗. I hope those two links are useful, and please feel free to ask any other questions. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 22:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks. I'm hoping that he doesn't want to see all the scans and I think uploading everything here would be super time consuming - there are actually hundreds. It would be better to email all the documents? I'll continue with him. Kwakwaka (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes, sending hundreds probably isn't necessary. Just being open to sharing any documents that are difficult to access goes a long way; Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability ↗, so offline sources typically require an extra layer of checking, especially if the article relies heavily on them. For now, I think waiting for the reviewer is best, but if there's any other concerns, then I or the many Wikipedians who frequent the two pages I linked above are happy to help. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 22:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You're invited to the Mentorship noticeboard

Hi, Crestfalling. You are cordially invited to the brand new Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard ↗! I get the impression that we mentors are each toiling in our own cubbyhole or hamster wheel, as the case may be, quietly answering mentee questions with little to no interaction with other mentors. I think we have a lot to learn from each other, and I know it will make me feel better just having the opportunity to interact with you and other mentors there, and I hope it will for you, too. Look forward to seeing you there! Mathglot (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Got a chuckle from your username

I got a chuckle from your username. Thanks for that. ''signed'', Willondon (talk ↗) 18:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks! I made it on a whim but have gotten pretty attached to it ever since :) Happy editing, Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 18:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Check your AWB script...

You dumped nearly 100 pages into {{clc|Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls}} by duplicating parameters. Please fix those ASAP and check your AWB script. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 19:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:Got it, I'll fix all of those myself and then check the script, give me a second. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 20:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::To be clear, really appreciate you doing the cleanup, but you gotta check for these things. Appreciate you fixing them! '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 20:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::No problem, and thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention. I didn't realize that realname was aliased and have fixed the script accordingly. In the future, I'll make sure to double-check each param beforehand and monitor the dupargs category throughout the run. Thanks, Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 20:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Good plan. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 20:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Also, just for the record, if I had a nickel for every time I've made this error, I could retire and edit full-time! {{wink}} One thing you might try is using my custom template:
:::::* {{tlc|User:Zackmann08/cc|Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls|Duplicate args}} → {{User:Zackmann08/cc|Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls|Duplicate args}}
:::::That will only display in red if the category is non-empty. Whenever I do an AWB run, I keep an eye on that on my userpage. When I see it starting to get large, I immediately check to make sure there aren't a bunch of the article types I'm working on. It is a good way to catch your errors early. Again, these errors happen! What matters is how you respond to them and you get an A+ there! You owned the mistake, fixed it and plan to learn from it. Cannot ask for than that! '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 21:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::I appreciate the tip! I just made a userpage for that (as well as the dupargs PetScan template, thanks for making it). And yeah, as a semi-experienced AWB user, I know how important it is to be communicative and careful; my goal is to never make the same mistake twice. Thanks for your patience and advice. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 22:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Of course. Keep up the good work. Hit me up if you ever need help! '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 22:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Caim's reception

After its copyedit I nominated Caim (Drakengard) ↗ to GA but I had to tone down its reception due to an issue with the reviewer. It's only three paragraphs so I wonder if you could revise them if possible. I tried keeping it as simple as possible. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:Sure, I just finished copyediting that section. Good luck on the GAN, and feel free to reach out if you ever need any other assistance. Happy editing, Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 20:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK for The Moon on a Rainy Night

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 7 July 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''The Moon on a Rainy Night ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''''The Moon on a Rainy Night ↗''''' was praised for addressing disability as a social concern rather than an individual one?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Moon on a Rainy Night ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (The Moon on a Rainy Night ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) ↗ 00:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 Good Article Backlog Drive

{| class="barnstar" style="border:1px solid gray; background:#fdffe7;"
|-
|rowspan="2" style="padding-right:5px;" | 100px ↗

|style="font-size:1.65em; padding:0; height: 1.1em;" | The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
|-
|style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This award is given in recognition to Crestfalling for accumulating at least 7 points during the 2026 June GA backlog elimination drive. Thank you for your efforts! -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
|}

Thanks for the help!

So we do have a rule here... If you are going to contribute to User:Zackmann08/sportspersons, we require funny edit summaries. See {{u|Phuzion}}'s GOLDEN summaries here ↗. {{wink}} I kid of course. Thanks for the help! '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 05:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:I regretted not choosing a funnier edit summary as soon as I saw the page history, I'll figure one out next time :D Always happy to help! Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 05:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::HAHA! Well we can't all be as clever as Phuzion... '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 05:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Automated editing

Hello. I noticed that you have recently been editing at a high rate with the assistance of a script. Semi-automated editing ↗ with tools and scripts is allowed only when each edit is reviewed by a human. As I write this, your last 50 edits occurred in 74 seconds, with many occurring about 1 second after the previous edit. This exceeds what is normally permitted for semi-auto editing, and must comply with the bot policy ↗. Please do not continue editing at this rate without using a flagged bot account. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|AntiCompositeNumber}} Hi, and thank you for your inquiry. I review every edit manually; I use wAwB to load diffs inline and a narrow monitor setting to keep everything within a small area, with each diff typically occupying about two lines of my screen with a half-inch height per line. wAwB is designed so loading time is minimized, with the previous diff being displayed for review while the new one is loading, and combined with small diff views and throttling other activities taking internet bandwith, I can comfortably monitor edits and fix them in real time. If you look through my contribution history, you can find numerous edits which I've adjusted manually, or me optimizing things in accordance to patterns I've observed while editing. Just from the past few days:
:* I noticed that :Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls ↗ was getting large after I made a series of edits and worried that it was my mistake. It turned out it wasn't, but I spent 10 minutes tracking down the error anyway while pausing my edits, then going right back to them afterwards ↗
:* Shortly after making 38 edits timestamped on the :43 minute mark (a pace similar to what you mentioned), I noticed that Gerry Kennedy ↗ had a misplaced pipe, which, while technically not an error, can cause empty parameter syntax problems, which I promptly fixed. ↗
:* After making another edit (again, at the same pace as before) which deleted the wrong duplicate parameter, I fixed it within 30 seconds ↗.
:* After seeing that many articles using {{tl|Infobox chess biography}} have empty parameters that aren't necessarily applicable (e.g. world championship length for players who aren't active anymore) due to the nature of alphabetic parameter sorting, I added a clarification to my linked edit summary before continuing editing at the same pace ↗
:* When I saw that an article I edited had duplicate birthname and birth_name parameters (which is bad practice due to duplicate parameter errors), I immediately went back through similar articles to fix the issue ↗.
:* I made a typo on a replacement which caused an extra space to be added for a rare parameter (harmless, but looks a bit off). Within 30 seconds of noticing that occurring in my edits, I fixed it on the two articles affected: diff 1 ↗, diff 2 ↗.
:The second, third, and sixth diffs make it fairly clear that I'm manually reviewing each edit. I have around ten more similar diffs while fixing {{tl|Infobox sportsperson}}, if it'd be helpful for me to dig it out of my edit history. My understanding from consensus discussions and policy is that the quality and usefulness of edits is more important than just speed ↗, and that every edit ''must'' be reviewed manually regardless of pace (which is the reason why there isn't a maximum permitted rate for semi-automated editing [please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I haven't seen it anywhere and many prolific editors, e.g. Ser Amantio, regularly edit at that pace], and also why that language was removed from the AWB policy in the early 2010s).
:I have some additional thoughts regarding why I don't think a bot account is suitable for the particular task I'm working on, as well as more explanation of my workflow and how I ensure this task complies with typical semi-automated editing practices, but that's suitable for a second message, so I'll send this now. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 21:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:So, some additional stuff. I apologize for the length of my message, but I want to make it clear that I would ''never'' do unsupervised automated editing and ''always'' review my edits regardless of pace for several reasons - I don't like getting blocked, I'd rather not break articles by accident, I take pride in being careful and transparent ↗, and considering how long it's been since I've taken the course, I certainly would never trust my regex skills enough to use them in a script without careful supervision.
:* While cleaning up {{Tl|Infobox swimmer}}, I was alternating between fixing deprecated parameters at a fairly high editing rate and fixing unknown parameters at a fairly low editing rate (about 4 times slower), which is natural since I'm taking more time to review the diffs for the latter, and again, clearly reviewing each edit.
:* At the tail end of cleaning up {{Tl|Infobox figure skater}}, I spent a while making manual edits to drafts and other non-mainspace pages with a different edit summary since they weren't mainspace articles, even though they were in my wAwB list and I could've easily just gone through them in a few minutes.
:* After noticing some pipe parameter errors (from people putting them on the last line on the infobox even though this is bad practice for several reasons), I went back through and fixed them quickly, e.g. here ↗ and here again. ↗
:* When I started cleaning up Infobox figure skater (starting slowly then getting a bit faster as I gained a better understanding of what a "good" edit looked like), I realized that a few parameters in violation of MOS:INFOBOXNAME ↗ kept popping up again and again, so I made an edit request ↗ and left the template alone until that happened.
:* I noticed that an article had some problematic infobox coding and went in to manually revise it ↗ very soon after.
:* Similar to above, diff ↗
:These are just the fixes that actually were physically made via edits (which are quite rare, and are almost always the result of preexisting infobox issues). Going through my edit timestamps, there are '''numerous''' moments where I pause for a minute or two, almost always after a particularly complex diff or a new type of parameter being fixed (due to how categories automatically sort by parameter alphabetically). Each of those hundreds of pauses throughout the past few weeks have been me going to my contributions, double-checking the inline diff and doing preview tests, then mentally noting it as a pattern to pay attention to in the future. I'm not sure how to check edits down to the second, but if it's obvious to me when I'm checking down to the minute, then it should be even more obvious for the former.
:Moving on to being done by bot; I suppose it's possible, though I'm not sure if it's suitable in all cases. Fixing infobox parameters isn't a matter of simple find-and-replace. People don't always use parameters correctly, often copy over flawed syntax even after the original gets fixed, or construct fragile code, that, while technically functional, breaks almost as soon as it's standardized.
:To take a recent example (from yesterday, in fact), {{tl|Infobox Gaelic games biography}} is a mess due to allowing both club= and clubs= parameters, when only one should actually be used because {{tl|Pluralize from text}} exists. As such, clubs= is deprecated and should be replaced with club=. If I had coded a bot to simply replace clubs= with club=, it would've likely worked fine for a trial period due to alphabetic parameter sorting, then suddenly thrown around 2000 pages into :Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls ↗ because many pages use ''both'' parameters, but they aren't recognized as duplicates until clubs= is standardized. However, because I reviewed it manually, not a single page ever ended up in that category, and I coded a regex to fix it.
:That's not just an isolated case; for example, after alma_mater= was deprecated due to being merged with education=, I was beginning to fix instances of that parameter when I realized it was also throwing pages into :Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls ↗. I was bit slower that time because I didn't realize it was the result of a merge, so around 30 articles got thrown in that category before I checked it and revised my replace functions. If that had been the result of a bot, that number likely would've been thousands.
:As yet another example, wAwB uses template protection to only target specific templates, which generally reduces false positives. However, it doesn't protect nested templates. When I was cleaning up {{Tl|Infobox sportsperson}}, I standardized headercolor to header_color (as should be the case for all infoboxes per MOS:INFOBOXNAME ↗), but ended up changing the parameter in modular templates that didn't support it as well. I fixed that pretty quickly after noticing the colors were wrong in the preview - that's not something a bot can ever do.
:If I had the ability to guarantee that all infoboxes in mainspace were perfectly constructed, that I'd be capable of conceiving of every possible edge case, and that any mistakes could be instantly caught before propagating, I would open up a bot account this instant. Unfortunately, I don't have that ability. I don't like making others clean up after my mistakes, and it's for that reason that I trust myself to manually review my edits and fix them as they happen.
:Semi-automated editing is ultimately something that balances a variety of interests to maximize improvement while minimizing disruption. On one hand, we have to consider the importance of minimizing watchlist burdens. On the other hand, we have to consider the importance of making it easier for future editors to maintain articles, as well as as minimizing the risk of actually breaking articles for readers through incautious unsupervised editing. I don't claim to know the correct balance, but for anyone scrolling through this talk page, I hope this is a fairly good account of my thoughts on it. Also CCing @Zackmann08 in case of interest. Crestfalling (talk/contribs ↗) 22:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC) (Edited 23:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC))