User Talk: Revirvlkodlaku

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

Iket

Hi Revirvlkodlaku. Thank you for your work on Iket ↗. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Thank you for creating the article! Your contributions are greatly appreciated, have a blessed day!}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>SunDawn<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; '''SunDawn''' &maltese; Contact me! 15:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Yuki Kato

Yuki Kato's family members are non-celebrities, but their names are stated on the provided sources; I don't see the point of them being removed. On the other hand, the names of Pavol Habera's families were even unsourced so it was good they were taken off the article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ '''Clara A. Djalim''' ໒꒱˚｡⋆ ↗ 11:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
:@ Clariniie, this feels a bit like "you undid my work, so I'll go ahead and put my stamp on one of 'your' pages". Am I missing the mark? It's not clear to me what Kato and Habera have in common, and not mentioning non-notable family members is pretty standard on WP, so what exactly is your point? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
::{{TQ|Not mentioning non-notable family members is pretty standard on WP}}: Is that per WP:BLPPRIVACY ↗ that names shouldn't be included? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ '''Clara A. Djalim''' ໒꒱˚｡⋆ ↗ 14:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm referring to WP:BLPNAME ↗. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
::::It states that names should be sourced properly, which I did so on Yuki Kato article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ '''Clara A. Djalim''' ໒꒱˚｡⋆ ↗ 14:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Claremont Institute

Hello! I saw the summary of your recent edit of the Claremont Institute ↗ article. I apologize for the reverts–I know how frustrating it is when someone removes your work and you have to decide whether to redo it, and I'm sorry I inadvertently put you in that position. I also appreciate you reaching out to educate me on better editing practices. However, I don't think it was appropriate to accuse me of intentionally removing your edits, and I don't appreciate being chastised about "smuggling in unnecessary markup". The partial revert was a genuine mistake–I had been continuously editing on mobile for over an hour and a half, and when I encountered the conflict I attempted to bring your revisions over. Evidently I missed quite a bit in my attempt, but that doesn't mean that it was anything more than a mistake. As for the markup, I appreciate your perspective and will keep it in mind in the future, but you should consider that sometimes a website autofills that information when adding an automatic citation (which I often do initially when I'm on mobile, to speed up the formatting process) and some folks don't consider it a priority to remove that immediately every time it pops up, since it doesn't display to readers. As I said, I'll keep this in mind, but you should also keep in mind that sometimes other people are operating in good faith just like you are and simply make mistakes or have different priorities.

No hard feelings though–really I'm only responding because we're likely to run into each other again, and I'd like to avoid getting off on the wrong foot. Thank you for your efforts to build the encyclopedia; together we can make the world just a little better than it was!

Peace,

Doomhope (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Doomhope, I appreciate the olive branch, and I apologize for coming on strong and not assuming good faith instead. This is a shortcoming of mine, and I'll do my best to catch myself when the urge to accuse arises again. Peace! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
::No problem! I understand completely–it's easy to jump to conclusions and get tense on here, especially in the world we currently live in. Happens to the best of us–all we can do is our very best, day by day :)
::Doomhope (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah Yeah Yeahs

Hi! You seem to be a primary contributor or watcher of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs article. I do really want to help expand it and possibly up its quality. I'm working on promoting this article ↗ to a featured right now but I hope to add and expand soon! Watagwaan (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Watagwaan, I've mainly done copyediting work on the page, so go ahead, I'm sure it can use improvement, and I'll be glad to look it over once it's done :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::I've been doing it little by little and I'm happy with whatever edits you make to the ones I do, you're far more experienced than I am. I did have another question: do you know anything about featured lists? I've been working on List of awards and nominations received by Yeah Yeah Yeahs ↗ and took some examples from other featured lists, so I was wondering if you knew anything about the process of getting this reviewed since lists don't typically go for Good Article status. Watagwaan (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi @Watagwaan, thanks for the feedback, and sorry if some of my edits of your changes seem rather voluminous. I'm happy to work with you so that we can improve the page. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about featured lists :( Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::::No need to apologize! If anything I should apologize for stalling and not getting these edits immediately right LOL although I did have another question come to mind: do you know how to create a member timeline? I'd love to learn how so I can make one for this group (and then add the touring musicians once I get a source for the years) Watagwaan (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Watagwaan}}, member timelines are another thing I've never taken any interest in, so alas, I can't help with that either. I'm sure you could get help at the Teahouse ↗ though. I don't think touring members should be added to member timelines though. At least, I haven't seen that done elsewhere. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:Oh, you're right about touring musicians. Alright, I'll see if I can figure it out then! Thank you! Hope to progress more on the article, will tackle ''Fever to Tell'' and it's background next. Watagwaan (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|Watagwaan}}, nice work on your last edit ↗, btw. I like the improved phrasing! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you! That means a lot because it felt a little off to me at first, but I was mostly giving myself a hard time LOL I wanted to add a little more regarding the reception to ''Fever to Tell'' but I might do that later. Watagwaan (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
::::I ended up erasing the copyedit you did just now because I didn't know how to merge it, sorry... I hope that didn't cause too much trouble! I'm done editing that section for now though, sorry. Watagwaan (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Watagwaan}}, no worries, I'm sure I'll be able to fix it ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hey, I wanted to ask your advice regarding the "clarification needed" for "Heads Will Roll". Do you have suggestions on how to clarify it? I didn't want to add too much information since it was a remix, the song page would be better suited for that I think even though the remix is arguably as popular as the original. Watagwaan (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
::Nevermind, I'm dense! Did not realize I could hover over that. Watagwaan (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi {{u|Watagwaan}}, I was hoping you'd spot the tag. It looks like you took a stab at it, but the bigger issue I'm seeing now is that the reference supporting the claim that the song was "placed on ''Rolling Stone''{{'}}s list of "The 200 Greatest Dance Songs of All Time"" doesn't actually mention Yeah Yeah Yeahs at all, so we either need to remove the claim or find a better citation... Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::::It is, at 124!
{{Outdent|::::}}" A-Trak was watching NYC post-punk revivalists Yeah Yeah Yeahs perform at Coachella in 2009 when he decided to “lock in” a remix of the second single from their album It’s Blitz, “Heads Will Roll”: “Usually it’s the other way around, the band would ask the remixer, but I heard something there and I needed those stems” (i.e., complete unmixed multitrack recordings). Though he turned it in way late, A-Trak’s stab-riff turnout of the song blew up among the DJ peers he sent it to (Busy P, Aeroplane, Erol Alkan) forced the YYYs’ label to put it out. “I still hear DJs play it,” he wrote a decade later. —M.M. " Watagwaan (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:Oh ffs, I see what happened. I did a word search and came up with nothing, but that's because only half the page loads on its own, and 124 is on the second half 😒 Anyway, all good now, and this addresses my original concern as well: it's the remix that's included on the list, not the original, so we can leave the text as it is. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::LOL No worries, I cannot tell you how many times I've done that... Cheers! Thank you for copyediting, you're the greatest. Especially when I'm trying to word something and the grammar sucks but I don't realize it. Watagwaan (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::It's my pleasure. I'd rather do the copy editing than the composition, so we each have our forte ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Hey Rev! What do you think about the article's status now? Maybe it could go for GA review after more finetuning? Watagwaan (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Hey {{u|Watagwaan}}, I don't claim to be an expert on what makes an article fit for inclusion as a GA, but I personally find the page comprehensive, structured, and very legible, so I'd say, let's give it a shot! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:Then that's what I'll do! Thank you SO much for your help on the article, and here's to future collaborations! 🙏🏾 Watagwaan (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|Watagwaan}}, it's been a pleasure to collaborate with you on this, and great job on spiffing the page up! 🥳 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you so much! I really tried my best and that means the world to me, especially compliments from someone seasoned like you HAHA Watagwaan (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::{{u|Watagwaan}}, oh please, we've both put in our time on this...platform. I'm just glad I won't have to read the same Karen O quotes over and over anymore 🤣 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Fair enough LMAO honestly if I didn't absolutely love Karen O and Yeah Yeah Yeahs, I probably wouldn't have worked on the article like I did 😭 I have a thing for the 2000s (especially rock, White Stripes forever!) Watagwaan (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|Watagwaan}}, I'm a 2000s music fanboy too, though garage rock was never my thing. Having said that, I do love ''Show Your Bones'' ❤️ Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::Did the Gold Lion tell you where the light is? 👀 Watagwaan (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Watagwaan}}, ha, good one. Actually, my favourite YYY song is "Sealings", from the ''Spider-Man 3 ↗'' soundtrack. Do you know it? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Immediately went to listen after I read this message. It's INCREDIBLE, I had not heard it before this! This never got popular?? Watagwaan (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Watagwaan}}, I guess not, but I'm glad you agree it rocks!!! 🤘🏻 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
{{u|Watagwaan}}, come to think of it, the song isn't mentioned anywhere on this page nor on the band's discography page. I kinda think it should be though...Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:@Revirvlkodlaku sorry for the late response! Yknow, I tried researching the song and could not find one source talking about it. I'm not sure if it's notable enough to be mentioned, as sad as that is.
:Also... I wanted to ask, would you be willing to review the article for GA? 👀 Watagwaan (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|Watagwaan}}, that's a real shame :(
::By GA, do you mean Good Article? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I wonder if doing extendive research could find some niche/any reason to mention the song… the thing is, it doesn't seem well-known or regarded at ALL, even in reference to the SP3 soundtrack.
:::Also YES sorry I meant good article! I submitted it for review recently and didn't think to ask you if you were free to look for some reason 😭 Watagwaan (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::@Watagwaan, fair enough. If you weren't submitting it for GA, I'd suggest just mentioning it without a reference, since it's easy enough to verify, but that might that might count against it. Speaking of GA, I've never done a review, so if you don't mind, I'll sit this one out. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}No worries! I'm always iffy putting things without a reference, that might just be a me thing though. Watagwaan (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|Watagwaan}}, maybe I'll sneak it in there once the article is approved for GA ;) ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::That is SO smart... don't worry, the secret's safe with me. (I say on a public talk page.) Watagwaan (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::Actually... @Revirvlkodlaku check out the page now! I found a source! Watagwaan (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Watagwaan}}, that's awesome, I'm really proud of you, not only for finding a source but for persevering just to be able to include that little tidbit! 🥳🥳🥳 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you so much!! And of course I persevered just for you, it wasn't as tough as it sounds thankfully. I don't think I can put it anywhere in the discography article though. Watagwaan (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Watagwaan}}, that sucks, because it seems that that's where it really belongs. Do you know of any other songs YYY have released that weren't singles, which would potentially justify an "Other songs" section? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:Tell you what, I can look into it and see; wouldn't that better suffice for a "List of songs recorded by Yeah Yeah Yeahs" type article though? Watagwaan (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|Watagwaan}}, yes, I think that's an even better idea. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
:::One step ahead of you. Already started working on it! Watagwaan (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::::{{u|Watagwaan}}, you rock!🤘🏻🤘🏻🤘🏻 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Here it is! List of songs recorded by Yeah Yeah Yeahs ↗! (Still WIP but got good progress, "Sealings" is on there too! Watagwaan (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|Watagwaan}}, holy crap, dude, I'm impressed with your dedication to this. And to think that it started with one obscure song... How long did that take you to put together?! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::I did it in intervals! Thankfully, I edit based on my rotating hyperfixations and finding free time where I really shouldn't have free time. The list probably isn't like, 100% perfect, but it's definitely minimum 80%. Watagwaan (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Watagwaan}}, better an imperfect list than none! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::🥳 Watagwaan (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Hey @Revirvlkodlaku, I added some more content/words to the Hiatus and Cool It Down sections, would you have a look through and see if it needs copyediting when you get the time? Thank you! Watagwaan (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:Update: I added another section to cover their philanthropy and documentary appearances! Watagwaan (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::Hi {{u|Watagwaan}}, sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you—I spent the last ten days hiking (Prague to Nuremberg) and was away from my computer. I'll get on the YYY page just as soon as I work my way through a ten-day watchlist backlog 😫 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::NO WORRIES you're fine! I hope you have a lot of fun, or had a lot of fun! Watagwaan (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::{{u|Watagwaan}}, it was exhausting and at times painful, but I'm glad I completed it 🦵🏻🎒 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Congrats to you, I'm happy for you! I can't really hike because of my health conditions but I did try a few times, especially in the mountains of Colorado, what a blast! Watagwaan (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|Watagwaan}}, I'm sorry to hear that! I love hiking, but as I get older, I have to reduce the intensity of my trips, so this will likely be my last ten-day hike ☹️ Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::Eh, what can ya do? I don't let it get me down! And hey, I'm glad you had one more 10-day hike to go! You can still hike afterwards, right? Just in moderation? Watagwaan (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Watagwaan}}, yup, I just have to go easy on the knees! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Now we have even more common ground. Fun fact: I've got a birth defect with my knees so I have to go easy on them also LOL Watagwaan (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Watagwaan}}, crap, that doesn't sound like fun. Are you able to walk normally though? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:It sounds worse than it fully is, I just can't overexert myself in general. I was 3 months premature if this answers a lot of unspoken questions HAHA Watagwaan (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|Watagwaan}}, well, as long as you're able to live a mostly normal life, right? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::For the most part! I like to say I'm a stubborn individual, so yeah LOL I'm happy 🙏🏾 Watagwaan (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Okay, so I ended up merging other ventures with the career section because it was kind of short. Might still need copyediting D: Watagwaan (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Watagwaan}}, sounds good, I should be able to get to it either today or tomorrow 🤓 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

:HI Rev! Favor 2.0, you can always say no: I recently spruced up and expanded the article for :Maps (Yeah Yeah Yeahs song) ↗ and it's going for GA review. That being said, I did my best to make sure the grammar and writing were clear, good, all that jazz… but you're an S-tier copyeditor. If you get time, would you be willing to check it out? If not all good! I hope you're doing well and feel better from your last hike! Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 20:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hi @Watagwaan, that's really nice of you to say (I had to look up "s-tier" 🫣). I'll be happy to give the page a once-over :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Sorry I forget not everyone knows the stupidity that comes out my mouth half the time LOL but thank you so much!! I really appreciate it!! ❤️ Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 01:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Watagwaan}}, lol, I'm sure you didn't make it up 😜 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

:🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫 Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 03:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

:Category:Bulgarian musical groups by populated place ↗ has been nominated for deletion

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:Bulgarian musical groups by populated place ↗ has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. QuietHere (talk | contributions ↗) 16:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Mike Lewis

Hello @Revirvlkodlaku, i know that you revert my edit on Mike Lewis (model) ↗ the reason i change the date format because he is Canadian so that's why and then i am adding {{Tl|Expand language}} to expand from Indonesian to English. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini, the article states that Lewis is Indonesian, not Canadian, so dmy is a more appropriate date format. I have restored the expand template. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
::But he has a Canadian descent. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
:::So? Descent is not the same as nationality. The article says he is Indonesian. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
::::OK i am sorry about that i was misunderstanding. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::No problem. Sorry if I was a bit standoffish, I was doing a bunch of things at the same time. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Filip Turek

You're correct, I was having a smoke break outside while it was snowing. Made me press submit premature. I'll strive for consistency, and you have better things to do. Best regards Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors requests

Hi Revirvlkodlaku, regarding your edit here ↗, please don't remove other peoples' requests from the GOCE requests page ↗ without their permission. If you've discussed the removal with them, please link it. If you have completed a copy-edit, you should mark the request '''{{tl|Done}}''' and let the request be archived. Withdrawn requests should be marked with '''{{tl|withdrawn}}''' and allowed to be archived, and withdrawing requests is something only requesters are generally expected to do. I appreciate you were trying to help, but the page has a set procedure for both requesters and copy-editors to follow. Feel free to ask if you've any questions about the requests page and how it works. Cheers, '''''🅑🅰🅖'' ☿ 🅴🅻🅵🅵🅐🅱''' 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|Baffle gab1978}}, that's totally my bad, and it won't happen again. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
::No problem; thanks for shortening the plot there. Cheers, '''''🅑🅰🅖'' ☿ 🅴🅻🅵🅵🅐🅱''' 07:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hail the Villain

Thanks for correcting that, I didn't know that IMBd was not a reliable source. Please see my Spotify ↗! But really, thank you, I've edited that because I think more rock bands should get recognized! (Like Sevendust ↗) Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Thenascarsonicblueyfan}}, no worries. I wish IMDb had more cred, but alas... Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::Did you like my Spotify? Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Thenascarsonicblueyfan}}, I merely glanced at it; why? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::::no reason Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Thenascarsonicblueyfan}}, I don't use Spotify, sorry. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I have a question for the article José Sá ↗, because I'm a soccer expert, I'd know that for goalkeeping stats, it'd show saves, not goals, should I change that? Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Thenascarsonicblueyfan}}, oof, you're asking the wrong person, as I don't know very much about soccer, unfortunately. Try asking at the Teahouse ↗. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Lambert Hamel et al.

We will probably disagree, but I hate maintenance tags. Period. It gets worse when a top tag for refs is repeated in a chapter. It gets worse when expansion is regarded as an issue. It gets worse when any tags sit on an article about a subject who just died.

I heard about Lambert Hamel ↗'s death on radio yesterday (while driving), and was too busy with Friedrich Cerha ↗ to even look. It's sad that an article about a person important enough to be mentioned on radio has such a miserable article, but do we need to point at the misery everybody can see? I would like to help expanding and referencing but have no time ''today'', having to improve György Kurtág ↗ for his centenary tomorrow. I'll do it tomorrow. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Gerda Arendt}}, I sympathize with your distaste of tags—I don't love them either, especially when they are repeated. It's clear that the subject is at least somewhat emotional for you, and alas, my feelings about WP articles don't go so far. All that aside, do you not think that tags play an important purpose? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:: The "subject" is not at all emotional to me, I heard his name in the news for the first time, and not clearly pronounced enough to even spell it. No, I just deal with the biographies of people who died recently ↗ a lot, and I imagine I'm the subject's daughter. And no, I haven't seen the ''value'' of these tags yet. It's quite normal that a foreign subject is better covered in its original language, everybody can see that there are not many inline citations, and everybody can see that a chapter has none at all, and every reader who reads the German Wikipedia knows that they cite summarily there, not inline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, you speak of the subject as if it were, in fact, quite emotional to you ("It's sad that an article about a person important enough to be mentioned on radio has such a miserable article"). Maybe it's just me, but I don't readily connect the condition of a WP article with its subject and how it might reflect on their life or legacy. Anyway, that is somewhat beside the point. I'd be happy to change my view on the importance of the tags if I was provided a compelling reason to do so. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: I gave you reasons, and have no more time. The refs are all in the German article, under Literature, and instead of tagging, perhaps consider to take one of them and cite it inline. I would not have argued if it was for this person only, but it goes the same for ''all who die'', and readers (more than usual, and some perhaps with an emotional connection) come for information - and face tags. I saw in the history that the tags have not worked since 2024, - had no time to check earlier. I will have to wait for any compelling reason to have tags for the obvious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, I guess I'm not feeling the same emotional urgency as you seem to be. I'll leave it to you to take one of the refs from the German article and use it in the English one. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:I think I told you that I plan to do that - tomorrow, expand and reference, make it decent and tag-free. I also asked a film actor expert (which I am not) for help, but no response yet. I suggested to consider referencing instead of tagging for ''future'' articles you come across. It's always the same for German ones: they have their major sources - sources that cover much of the article, such as encyclopedias - under Literature (something like Further reading here), while only "Einzelnachweise" (single references) are inline for individual facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, nice work on the Hamel page!🙏🏻 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you for copy-editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you for more copy-editing! I don't see why you want all references in one column, It's a lot of whitespace in my display, and more may come. Also: the 2019 film is not in the ref given for the series. (The other two films ae in both.) We need one of the other refs there, - which and how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, that was a mistake. I wanted to see what it would look like, and then I forgot all about it. I've changed it back now. I'm not sure what you're saying about refs... Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Thank you. We have refs Filmportal, Fernsehserien and Spiegel. The first has all films, including the three tv films. The second has the 1983 and 2000 film, but not the 2019 film (unless you count the news that it will be aired in April). Spiegel mentions it in detail. As only the second ref is given for the second table, that film is in there without reference. Other consequences of the move are that we have now an empty Notes column in the first table, and "films" not mentioned in the line above the tv table. We could summarily add the first ref to that line, or Spiegel to the film row. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, I think I see what you mean. I'd say the Notes column can be dispensed with, as it doesn't do anything for the Film table, and the missing ref can be added to whichever line it fits best. What do you think? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::I asked ''you'' which ref where fit best ;) - I had removed the Notes columns. I moved it in again when I moved the films because I saw them not referenced. (I was wrong.) I was too tired to do it again, and have more important things to do right now, - there's another miserable article ↗ to fix which is longer which makes it harder ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, ok, I took care of it. Let me know if I missed anything :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Today, you missed the importance of Dorn for the Munich theatre scene ↗, but I'm not in the mood to argue. Also I just came to understand that Hamel wasn't the only one to follow Dorn, but almost the complete ensemble and the audience, so you may be right that it wasn't personal for Hamel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, I'm not quite sure what you're telling me about Dorn. Can you please clarify? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:I'm sure that as Intendant for decades, he was highly important for Hamel's career which doesn't show when he is only mentioned like other directors. Especially the decades at the Kammerspiele were shaped by him, but the obit writers' memories are (of course) stronger for the 21st century. I'll see what I can do about that, based on the Dultz ref, but first have to get the bass into shape. - I'm not quite sure why you would revert the spaces in a list such as occupations, meant to improve easy access for a future editor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, you seem to be placing blame on me for not sufficiently emphasizing something I know very little about, unlike you, and yet, Dorn wasn't linked in the article until I finally did so.
::I'm not sure what you mean by "spaces in a list such as occupations". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::: I am sorry that I wasn't clear, probably too cryptic, for lack of time. Most important: I don't place blame. If you see me placing blame on anybody, please let me know and I'll apologize. Regarding the spacees, I meant the occupations parameter of the infobox. I have no time to explain Dorn right now (RL so far, the other bio and three more urgent still waiting for me), patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, no worries, thanks for explaining. I'm still not clear about the spacers. Can you send me a diff so that I can see what you're referring to? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}(after rehearsal, still nothing done for the bass ... but at least a DYK nom that needed two reviews) {{diff|Lambert Hamel|1339405931||yes}}, seems to be not you but a script --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, out of curiosity, why is infobox person better for a classical musician than infobox musical artist, as you suggested at Dawn Upshaw ↗? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
| image = Crocus meadow, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.9
| bold = story · music · places
}}
:: (I wish Dawn Upshaw a long life ...) I give you my three reasons:
::* per project opera ↗
::* because it is the best-maintained infobox for bios
::* because it looks better than with the photography framed by blue however-you-call-them (''Balken'' in German). The singer made it to the main page, I'm more relaxed, will get a story tomorrow. Today Gabriele Schnaut ↗. Imagine her box with blue ;) (forgot the link to the story, and a signature, and ran into an edit conflict, - you are so fast!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, that's good enough for me. I don't care about the blue border, personally. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::::{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, I like what you've done with your userpage! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}About composer names: Adding composer names ''at all'' to a linked opera is ''a little extra service''. It is meant to help readers who wouldn't know by just the title. (For :Aida ↗ and :Carmen ↗, they'd probably know.) Of course they can find the full linked composer name in the opera's article, but might get some idea of what kind of music by reading ''Mozart'' or ''Verdi''. When they don't know the person, such as probably Saariaho, they know at least that the singer has courage enough to do the unfamiliar. (Let's not forget that we are in a singer's article.) Now to the given names. I'd usually include given names for less familiar composers, but in Upshaw's (a bit unusual) case, they were already mentioned with full name and link in the lead. Generally: unknown is unknown, Kaija Saariaho will be as unknown as Saariaho. (I just began an article on one of her works, for the February drive of WiR.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, I think it's useful and not harmful to provide full composer names, except where they are presumed to be universally known, like Shakespeare, or where their first names are obscure, like Mozart, etc. (I don't know who composed either ''Aida'' or ''Carmen''... call me ignorant 🤷‍♂️)
:If the full name is already mentioned in the lead, then I agree that it's unnecessary to repeat it later in the article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:: That's what I said, more or less, no? - I don't call you ignorant, and I usually write Verdi's ''Aida ↗'' and Bizet's ''Carmen ↗'', but I expect that 95% of readers who got that far down in the article of an opera singer would know, and the others could find out per one click (or hovering) of the opera ''if they care''. It's about the singer, getting to know her repertoire, not information about composers. While not harmful to add the given name(s) of someone unknown at that point, it's usefulness remains doubtful, - it holds up reading - for what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, does it really hold up reading though? That seems like a dramatic (pun not intended) interpretation to me, considering we're talking about an extra word here and there. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: Let's see. A tenor performs ''Idomeneo ↗''. I come in and say Mozart's ''Idomeneo''. Someone comes and says Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's ''Idomeneo'', and I think that it's more than double the characters, a lot of holding up reading for someone who already knew that ''Idomeneo'' is by Mozart, and you say that's dramatic interpretation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}{{u|Gerda Arendt}}, yeah, I'd say that's being dramatic 😁 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
: We seem to have different interpretations of what "dramatic" means. I can live with that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you edit it and have it approved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:R%C4%B1zacan_Durmu%C5%9F Adriangriabd (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|Adriangriabd}}, is there something you're trying to tell me? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

''Shooting Stars (Singaporean TV series)''

Hi, I can provide screen capture of article for the reception if required. As the article is locked due to copyright issues, as a Singaporean, I am able to access it behind a paywall (from a free library membership available to Singaporean). If your email function is enabled, I am glad to provide a screen capture via email. Thanks. ~ JASWE (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Justanothersgwikieditor}}, while I appreciate the offer, I personally have no use for the screen capture—the article is where it matters. I'm not sure what the WP protocol is in similar situations, but unless the source is verifiable, the "better source needed" tag seems appropriate to me. What do you think? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
::The template "Better source needed" is used in articles to indicate inline citations that link to insufficiently reliable sources ↗. Today ↗ was a former free print national newspaper and now a digital news magazine. It is accepted as a reliable source for Singaporean news with exceptions (mostly political issues). Since it is a reliable source, a "better source needed" tag would be inappropriate.
::I am open to rewording to "According to ''Today ↗'', Singapore's newspaper, ''Shooting Stars'' had the highest-rated debut ...". ~ JASWE (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|Justanothersgwikieditor}}, sure, that's a fair compromise. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:On second thought, I'm ok with it. It's hardly a very important issue 😜 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
::Lol, it is barely important in the grand scheme of things but it would help passing GNG for the article. It is on very thin ice as it is. ~ JASWE (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Revirvlkodlaku'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Capitalizing place names/locations}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Capitalizing place names/locations ↗}}.


See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

<div></div>
</div>
|}

Laura Caballero

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hi, and thank you for your edits ↗ to Wikipedia. I wanted to follow up about an edit where, :Laura Caballero ↗ was removed from a parent category ↗.

This category is part of a group that falls under WP:EGRSD ↗, which covers categories based on ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability. These categories are typically set up as '''non-diffusing'''. That means when a page is added to a subcategory like this one, it's still meant to be included ↗ in the parent category as well.

This is important because removing someone from the parent category can unintentionally change who appears to "belong" there. Over time, that can make the main category look less representative than it actually is, which the WP:EGRSD ↗ guideline is designed to avoid ↗.

If you're not sure whether a subcategory is non-diffusing ↗, you can often check the category page itself; many include a note or template. You can also read more at WP:EGRSD ↗ and in the section on the final-rung rule ↗. If you need further help, ask at the Teahouse ↗. ''Please review how EGRS works'' SMasonGarrison 13:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Smasongarrison}}, all of that makes sense, and thank you for explaining it. If I could just encourage you to always provide a reason for a revert, which you failed to do here ↗, that would be much appreciated. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::I'll try to remember to add that in the future. But like, it is referenced in the edit right after https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Caballero&diff=next&oldid=1341573981 ↗, within the same minute. SMasonGarrison 22:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

March music

{{User QAIbox
| image = Blackthorn with peacock butterfly, Niederauroff.jpg
| image_upright = 0.9
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page ↗, I'm most proud of a woman's work ↗, so made it my story. As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Gerda Arendt}}, I'm not quite sure what to say except congrats and good work! Thanks for sharing! 🥳 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:: Thank you. The good work was to get her over to OTD after a frustrating quarrel, including the verdict that it was not interesting, at DYK. - On Bach's birthday, a story about my joy, - no need to say anything, just enjoy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

62px|left ↗
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗ regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}} CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

DISCOGS

Hey Revirvlkodlaku, Regarding your reversion here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_heavy_metal&oldid=prev&diff=1344422270 ↗, firstly, I'm not going to challenge this right now. I see your point. However, are you aware that citing the CD itself via Template:Cite AV media ↗ is considered an actually reliable source? Whereas discogs isn't considered reliable at all. Have a look at WP:NOTRSMUSIC ↗ in addition to WP:DISCOGS ↗.

I'm currently on a slow but steady mission to get Discogs off Wikipedia. Occasionally I tend to hyper-fixate on something like this (#autism). I'm removed about 3,000 uses of discogs over the last month. Many people have thanked me, but you're the first person who has reverted me. I'm sure someone else will revert me before I'm done (even though I'm 3,000 down, there's still 12,000 more to remove). So I'm not going to oppose any reversions now since there are so many more cases of the website being used, but just a heads up I'll probably circle back to it eventually once it's one of the only ones left, just in case you want to change it all to Template:Cite AV media in the meantime. Have a nice day in any case. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

:Lol, well I guess I'm going to figure out one at a time exactly how many of those 12,000 pages you watch. Considering the official reason discogs hasn't been deprecated on Wikipedia is purely because it's been deemed appropriate as an external link only, I personally think you've got a 0% chance of these sources surviving once I circle back to your reverts and take both the pages (and any more) to dispute resolution, but that's a bridge we'll both cross in quite a while. Anyway, best wishes till then. I don't intend to comment further on any other isolated reverts. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

::@Damien Linnane, it's funny, because I actually checked to see if the edit on Gaudi was done by you, but I didn't look carefully and saw another editor's name (from the following topic on my talk page), and that's why I went ahead with the revert, thinking there were more of you Discogs haters (no offense 😉) out there who needed to hear my opposition! 😜 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

:::Oh fair enough haha. Also, just for the record I personally find discogs very useful, just like I find many other sources deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia useful. I just agree with with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums ↗ and WP:RSNP ↗ that it should not be used as a citation. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

{{od}} Hi again. So believe it or not, I didn't target :African heavy metal ↗ again on purpose. I'm removing a couple websites, not just Discogs, and this article's questionable sourcing just happened to flag again. Unlike Discogs, which is only considered "generally unreliable", as per WP:METALLUM ↗, Metal Archives is deprecated. Did you only revert me because I accidentally removed a line of the table? Because that could have been easily fixed without restoring deprecated sources. I ask as I'd prefer discussion to an edit war. Incidentally, it might interest you to know I'm still going on with my discogs crusade, and after over 1,000 more removals you're still the only person to revert me :). Damien Linnane (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Damien Linnane, I get the reasoning behind your edit on African heavy metal. I should have fixed the table instead of reverting—sorry about that! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :Yves Engler (2nd nomination) ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yves Engler ↗ 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 '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Engler (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.</div> Wellington Bay (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

left|70px ↗
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard ↗ case still awaiting comments and replies. {{#ifeq:|failed
|If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be formal mediation. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed".
|If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved".
}} If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Snowmanonahoe (talk '''·''' contribs ↗ '''·''' typos) 17:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

62px|left ↗
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗ regarding whether to link "Russia ↗" in the "early years ↗" section of Lena Katina ↗'s article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Lena Katina ↗".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}} Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :Celiac Sprue Association ↗ for deletion

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Celiac Sprue Association ↗, to which you have significantly contributed ↗, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or if it should be deleted ↗.

The discussion will take place at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celiac Sprue Association ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by ''SDZeroBot'' (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Apache Indian

Hello Revirvlkodlaku,

I have made only a couple of edits on this page Apache Indian (musician), not several edits.

My edit was actually a monor edit, where I created link to a small city in UK. I thought that it wasn't overediting and never had any intention of any edit wars. In fact my second edit was 3 days after the initial edit.

But, I will ensure that I don't do the same edits on this Page again.

Thanks
Vikram Maingi (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Vikram Maingi, you are either confused about the meaning of "small" or the size of Birmingham; alternatively, you are being disingenuous. Birmingham is the second largest city in the United Kingdom, so calling it "small" is bizarre.
:Secondly, the issue I have with you is that I reverted your edit here ↗ on the basis of MOS:OL ↗, and you went ahead here ↗ and made the very same edit once more. This is why I left a note on your talk page, reminding you that repeatedly restoring your preferred version of a page is not appropriate on WP. Please let me know if we understand each other. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Roger Reaves ↗

Hi there, I was somewhat bemused by your first revert and edit summary, ''"How did Miriam and Rhett become 3 children?"'' because there had in fact been three names, not two. I assumed some minor glitch of attention, and rather than a detailed explanation which might come across as patronising I thought simply stating the '''three''' names (Marya, Miriam, Rhett) as edit summary would be a gentle nudge as to the actual case.

So I was even more astounded by the content - and indeed the tone - of your second revert. "Without providing a reason"? "Crass"? "Disruptive"? "Desist"?

I apologise if I have inadvertently annoyed you, and will refrain from again reverting. Instead I respectfully ask that you to review the edits and make whatever edit, or not, you think appropriate. Best wishes! Captainllama (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Captainllama, in this edit ↗, an IP magically made a third child (Marya) appear, without offering an explanation. You proceeded to change their names to a number, which is good. In this edit ↗, I wondered how 2 became three (I'm only familiar with 2 becoming 1 ↗ 😉). You proceeded to revert, and you did provide an explanation, but I missed it, so I got in a huff (sorry). I subsequently decided no children should be included in the infobox, as none are mentioned within the article. I hope it makes sense now. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Great Wall of Gorgan

I added back the efn because it's directly relevant to the article topic (feel free to rv me again if you really feel strongly about this, WP:ONUS ↗ is on me). Do you propose I move it to a different section instead, or perhaps summarize it more? I want to include it. What's the reason for your objection? '''HarvardJock🏫''' (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
:Hello @HarvardJock, I've gone ahead and reverted back, because per WP:BRD ↗, you should not be insisting on reinstating your preferred version of the content. My reason for removing the note is because I do not see how the explanation is directly relevant to the article topic, as I stated in my edit summary. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

::I find that the info I put in the efn is directly relevant to the article because it describes the purpose of the wall and how it was used (including who used it, in what way, and in what era). Why is that not relevant? '''HarvardJock🏫''' (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
:::@HarvardJock, I've just re-read it, and I think you're partly right, but most of the details in the note relate more to Sassanian military tactics than to the wall itself. Perhaps the last sentence, "It was essentially this system of defense that allowed Sassanian Persia to defeat the menacing Hun-Hephthalite invasions of the 6-7th centuries AD", would be sufficient? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Sure, that's fine by me. In that case we can just add it in as a sentence, no need for a note. Thanks for coming to an understanding. '''HarvardJock🏫''' (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Birds of Tokyo

Hi David, I hope this finds you well. You have moderated the Birds Of Tokyo wikipedia page in the past. The band has recently changed drummers, with Adam Weston being replaced by Michael Hardy. Would you be able to please update this on the band's wiki page? Band members are on the band's website, here: https://www.birdsoftokyo.com/bio/ ~2026-24501-60 ↗ (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:Hi, yes, I've been reverting this change until now, as I saw no credible evidence of the lineup change, but now that it's on their website, I'll go ahead and make the edit. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Revert on Nawazuddin Siddiqui ↗

I reverted this edit ↗ on Nawazuddin Siddiqui ↗ because the edit was made by a {{np|Alakmarsaify|label1=sock}}. Per WP:BMB ↗, bans apply to all editing, whether they are good faith edits or bad faith edits so I reverted their sock edits. Also it's not required to provide a reason when rollbacking sock edits. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 15:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 25 § Musical groups by nationality and populated place ↗

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 25 § Musical groups by nationality and populated place ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Abigail Austin

Saving Country Music is an unreliable source per WP:A/S ↗, due to it being a one-man blog published pseudonymously. There's no editor, and he has a history of getting facts wrong and posting polemic content. I did swap it out for another source. '''Ten Pound Hammer''' (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 04:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Witches (2024 film)

Hi David, I was wondering why you think that the notability of the review may not be significant? Catherine Wheatley is Professor of Film and Visual Culture at King's College London and ''Sight and Sound ↗'' is a renowned film magazine. Sabine Hagmann (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Sabine Hagmann, Wheatley's review was the only one not introduced by a publication, which itself (once I clicked on the ref link) didn't strike me as notable (it's not my area). Feel free to restore it, but perhaps it would be better to mention who she is? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Category:Singers from Turnov ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A tag has been placed on :Category:Singers from Turnov ↗ indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category ↗, a category redirect ↗, under discussion at Categories for discussion ↗, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and removing the speedy deletion tag.   '''''L'''''iz '''''Read!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!''''' 00:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much for being so nice about you-know-what. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Remy Zero

Hi Revirvlkodlaku. I appreciate quick turnaround on members correction, however I reverted the change back, to support my stance I'm providing a couple of references here:
- https://www.ebay.com/itm/376826916023
- https://www.ebay.com/itm/376207263797 ~2026-28333-47 ↗ (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

:I think Gregory Slay and Jeffrey Cain are also flipped: -https://www.ebay.ca/itm/363689656331, -https://www.ebay.com/itm/324267887334 ~2026-28333-47 ↗ (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of language fields on references

Hi there! Thank you for cleaning up the date fields on the references I added to Tamler Sommers ↗. I had completely missed the "use mdy dates" template on that page.

I see in your edit ↗ that you also removed the language fields ("en-US" and "en-UK") on two references as well. Is there a particular reason why this information was removed? I would like to understand the rationale, so I don't add undesirable fields to references in other articles in the future. Thanks, NeuroJasper (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @NeuroJasper, my reason for removing the language field if the language is English is that it doesn't show up in the ref string from the front end, so it's pointless to include. That field seems to be there for when the reference is in a different language than English. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
::I see, okay. Thank you for explaining! According to Help:Citation_Style_1#Language ↗, cs1 and cs2 citation templates are frequently copied from English Wikipedia to other wikis, and the use of an English language tag will cause the language name to automatically render properly in the target language. They may not render here, but they can indirectly improve the quality of other, non-English Wiki projects. As such, I will go ahead and restore these language tags, to potentially make the work of editors on other Wiki projects a little easier. :) NeuroJasper (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Syncretism

Hello, I do not believe there will be anyone to talk to unless you wish to work with me in condensing down a statement. My previous edits condensed rather than expanded, but you did not believe it improved matters.FourLights (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @FourLights, I'm not a subject matter expert, but I'm really struggling with the content of the article. I've already added a "technical" tag to it, and yet each time you make an edit, it seems to become more abstract. Let's work together (on the relevant talk page) to improve it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you, but I would rather withdraw than deal with the demands of a forum, at least for a preliminary review. It is not realistic. FourLights (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@FourLights, what forum are you referring to? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Working on this here may attract attention I do not need. At some point, work can be submitted for broader comment. But I'd just assume review, satisfy or deal with one person first if I'm going to deal with that. Otherwise, there is work than can be done without the unrealistic demands or harassment brought by public collaboration.FourLights (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
:@FourLights, I have no idea what you're talking about, but as far as I can tell, we are the only two editors involved in this discussion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
::That's fine, regardless, I don't consider this a suitable interface. Thanks.FourLights (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@FourLights, I'm perplexed once more. Are you saying WP is not a suitable interface to discuss the improvement of a WP article? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}It's too cumbersome.FourLights (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
:@FourLights, so what of the article then? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
::There are some things you can only learn from an out loud reading anyway.FourLights (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@FourLights, so you're just going to leave it as is? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I could indulge a cleanup, but it's otherwise more trouble than it's worth. We have different requirements. I'm supposed to head a collaboration, but we don't want to work the way I want.FourLights (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}} @FourLights, I think a cleanup would be a good place to start :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:You can go ask a question. I don't know what it is you wanted me to go post.FourLights (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::@FourLights, dealing with you has been frustrating for me, and I'm going to leave it at that. You took it upon yourself to edit the article, but upon pushback, you decided it was more work than it was worth, and you've made incoherent arguments about forums, etc. If you don't want to improve the page, then just leave it, and I'll continue monitoring it for clarity and consistency. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Dirty Pictures draft article

Hello Revirvlkodlaku! I noticed you contributed to the article about Lenka Dusilová (and Žlutý pes and Už jsme doma and Lucie -- all the legends!) so you obvs have an interest in Czech music history. A friend of mine is trying to publish a Wikipedia article about dirty pictures, a Czech-American punk band from Prague (1992-1995) that had a lot of press coverage at the time: NME, a HarperCollins book, major Czech newspapers, MTV, etc. The draft was declined once at AfC and I'm looking for an experienced editor to review and resubmit it. Would you be willing to take a look? The draft is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dirty_Pictures
Full disclosure: I am a founding member of the band (Lenka and I were pals when she was in Sluničko!) which is why I've got independent editors submitting it rather than myself. Jdizzzy (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Jdizzzy, I definitely have an interest in Czech popular music, as I spent a few years living in Prague during my youth (1990–93), and those were some of the bands and musicians I enjoyed. I'll be happy to take a look at the draft, though I may not get around to it right away. Out of curiosity, I checked the Czech wiki and noticed that Dirty Pictures doesn't have a page there either. Any idea why?
:Oh, and kudos to you for respecting WP's COI policy! 👏🏻 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::Nazdárek! Thank you so much for your fast response. I lived in Prague from 92-96. Kdo ví? Možná jsme si spolu někdy dali pivo! Re: Czech Wikipedia — there's no page there yet. We've been focusing on the English Wikipedia submission first. Anyway, grateful to have connected with you, no pressure in terms of time. Get to it whenever you can. Def curious to know your thoughts! 🙏 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dirty_Pictures Jdizzzy (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::: @Jdizzzy, I was 10–13 at the time, so I definitely didn't have pivo with you 😜 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Kudos to YOU for refusing to drink beer at that young/impressionable age!😉🤣 Jdizzzy (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hi @Jdizzzy, I just had a look at the draft, and the first thing I noticed is that it's basically unreferenced, which will be a big obstacle to getting it published. Most of the provided references are not searchable online, and even though that is often acceptable, personally, I find it unconvincing. References 3 and 4 are not publicly available, which makes them useless to most readers. Reference 18 is a book, so again, not easily searchable. Ref. 28 is about the Clash, and ref. 31 is a dead link, which means that there are only two viable links that actually reference Dirty Pictures, and that's just not enough to demonstrate notability. If you, or whoever is working on the page, can provide solid, good-quality references, then the page can start being taken seriously. Hope this helps! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Hurray! Thank you @Revirvlkodlaku so much for taking the time to genuinely look at the draft, it is really helpful. Let me clarify one thing that may change your assessment: the vast majority of the sources are published journalism from legitimate Czech outlets — Lidové Noviny, Telegraf, Blesk, Český Deník, Rock & Pop, Bang! — as well as NME, the Prague Post, and (yes) the HarperCollins book. They predate the internet/they're not online but they exist as physical clippings, all of which we have. More than one Wikipedia editor has weighed in to say that hardcopy ("old") sources are legit; one (331dot) said in the AfC discussion that 'any reader is free to travel to Czechia to go to a library there to verify information.' (Another editor actually said the article is "ref bombing" i.e. it has too many references 😂😂😂!) Anyway, I'd love to know your thoughts once you factor in the legit offline sources -- many of which are long pieces and cover stories, so we're not talking about a handful of brief mentions. Re: the dead link, thanks for the heads up. I just went to the draft and clicked on it and it works for me. I checked it on few different browsers, as well. This one: https://www.ireport.cz/clanky/style/zapomenute-ceske-kapely-13-dirty-pictures Jdizzzy (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Right, as I mentioned, physical publications that cannot be searched online are considered acceptable to many, but personally, I find them unsatisfactory, and the claim that "any reader is free to travel to Czechia to go to a library there to verify information", despite being ridiculous in practice while true in principle, demonstrates why: short of jetsetting around the world to find obscure articles in reference libraries, how is a reader supposed to verify claims supported by non-searchable references?
{{Outdent|::::}}To your point, I can't factor in offline sources, since I haven't read them, and I don't have enough money to travel to Czechia just to read them (maybe when I'm there again, in February 😜)
{{Outdent|::::}}As for the link...it's still dead on my end, and even if it turns out to be a browser issue, this is a non-trivial problem. Of course, if that was the only problematic ref in the draft, I wouldn't have any major objections.
{{Outdent|::::}}At the end of the day, I can't endorse (or cursorily improve) an article that, to my standards, doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, due to lack of accessible references. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
:Completely understood. And the idea of you spending vacay time verifying resources is pure comedy. But would you be open to me sending you the sources? You can just troll through the scans on your phone... Jdizzzy (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
::@Jdizzzy, sure, go for it :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Here you go: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10_b7PIiRW750nx_bWDLEJs4J9Nmvu5C0?usp=share_link
:::Pls let me know if you have any trouble accessing the scans. I attached the citation number to each source & went ahead and included jpegs of the 5 sources that actually exist online (and in the process noticed that some awesome person added URLs to a couple of the Czech newspaper citations!) For the record, I am not hoping that putting all these press clippings in your hands will change how you feel about pre-internet sources. Ofc not. I'd just like you to see what’s really going on with this story. (I am pretty sure the AfC editor who rejected it did so without giving it a second thought.)
:::And if it seems like I’ve latched on to you, well yes, I have a little bit. You're not only an experienced editor, you’re someone who was actually there during that era, who understands the Czech music scene firsthand, etc. A trifecta! You also have a sense of humor, which is big for me :) Jdizzzy (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh - does the link for source 31 work for you now? My friend replaced it and I’ve checked it on various browsers and devices and it’s good: https://www.ireport.cz/clanky/style/zapomenute-ceske-kapely-13-dirty-pictures Jdizzzy (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Oof, that's way more reading than I want to do tonight 😜
@Jdizzzy, I do see your point though, and it would be weird to deny the legitimacy of the sources you've provided as well as, potentially, the band's notability. 
Alas, the link still doesn't work for me...how strange. I've now tried it on Chrome, Safari, and even Android, and still nothing...😕 
Ha, glad you like the sense of humour and my (half) Czechness. Maybe we'll grab that pivo one day after all! 🍻
:Hi @Jdizzzy, I haven't heard from you in a while. I went ahead and did a copy edit to the draft page, with a few additions. Hope it helps! 🤞🏻 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

::Ahoooooj there you are! Apologies, I’ve been traveling and was in fact wondering when I’d hear back from you 😅 Thank you so much for making those edits. I just looked and, to me, the article finally appears “ready for prime time”! Do you think it’s in good enough shape to move forward and, if so, would you be willing to either resubmit it through AfC or publish it directly to mainspace? I completely defer to your judgment on which path makes more sense. I just know that having someone with your knowledge of that era and your Wikipedia experience would mean everything. Jdizzzy (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::And re: the mystery url, it must be come kind of regional access issue with that Czech site bc I am in Stockholm now and I cannot access it, either. Oh well, there’s a pdf of it in the folder Jdizzzy (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::Wait, it gets weirder: it works on my phone but not my iPad Jdizzzy (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::No worries, and you're very welcome. I agree that the article is ready, though it still needs a few tweaks, such as refs where I added cn tags, and one clarification (I tagged that as well). Once those are fixed, I can go ahead and resubmit it.
:::Hmm, that is mysterious! What's "regional access"?! 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}Excellent, I will have your tweaks and clarifications addressed as soon as I get home this weekend and report back! As for ”regional access,” apparently it’s a thing. Nothing else I’ve read, or that we’ve tried, solves it 🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️ Jdizzzy (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:Your 3 notes have now been addressed so the article might just be good to go. Certainly let me know, if not! Or if you have other questions. What's your vibe: AfC resubmission or direct publish? Jdizzzy (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
::@Jdizzzy, I agree that it looks good. Let's try AfC resubmission. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
:::woo-hoo! Alrighty then, my distinguished colleague, go for it & good luck & let me know if you need anything from me. May the force be with you and thank you again 🙏🙏🙏 Jdizzzy (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
:You've resubmitted, bless your cotton socks! Fingers crossed it gets a thoughtful review. I noticed the warning about "Dirty Pictures" already existing on Wikipedia...it's a 1980s movie by that name. Should we add '(band)' to the article title to disambiguate? Once again, I defer to your judgment on when/how to handle that.. Jdizzzy (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, that's a good point, although I'm not sure if the draft title should be amended or if the reviewer will make the necessary adjustment if/when moving the page to mainspace. I'm inclined to wait and see what happens... Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Emily Chang

<s>You have read WP:ONUS ↗. Yet you are ignoring it because you don't like it. But that's not how policy works. We have policies in place to help us achieve consensus. Yes, flexibility is possible. But it drives me up the wall to see someone ignore the policy, resulting in a slow-moving edit war. WP:ONUS ↗ exists to prevent precisely this kind of edit warring! You say in your latest edit summary that "No consensus was achieved for removing awards list". I'll say it one last time - the responsibility is on *you* to achieve consensus to reinstate it. If you want to try and get that consensus, it's not hard - try WP:3O ↗ or posting on a noticeboard to bring in new editors to the discussion! But don't keep reverting the material on the article, against policy. This is becoming an issue for WP:ANI ↗. You don't get to ignore policy just because you don't like it, when you are clearly aware of it.. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
</s>

I wrote this in frustration. While I still think it's true, it's not productive in helping us reach a resolution. What I'll do instead is post about our discussion at the talk page for WP:Verifiability ↗, where discussions of WP:ONUS ↗ are already in progress. Hopefully, that will help us both bring new editors in the discussion to achieve consensus, and confirm whether my interpretation of WP:ONUS ↗ is correct, or if I'm off-line. I hope you'll weigh in there too. You're clearly an experienced and valuable editor and I think it's a pity we haven't been able to see eye-to-eye here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
:@Ganesha811, your insistence on ONUS in this particular case isn't getting much support on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability ↗. Is it time to revert yourself yet? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
::It certainly appears to be an area where reasonable people can disagree, but the inclusion/exclusion of facts/claims is one area where it applies, per WhatamIdoing. WP:QUO ↗ is good advice, though as an essay it doesn't carry as much weight as WP:ONUS ↗ which is policy. But at this point the actual dispute - whether to put awards in a standalone section or mention them in prose - is not very significant. Please take a look at the talk page again - I'll make an additional comment there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The Hardkiss

Hello! I've noticed that you've edited my lede (great thanks for expanding my vocabulary, was somehow not aware of this word) for the article on The Hardkiss and while I mostly agree with the edits I was wondering why it was of importance for you to return the passage about the albums? It's a bit redundant considering there is a discography and I'm not sure it's a prerequisite for an article about a band. Overall, would love to collaborate on that to ensure the best result possible. --Mykola Yeromin (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Mykola Yeromin, "lede" or "lead" are the usual terms for the opening section of an article. Its purpose is to summarize the article's content, so why would mentioning albums be redundant? I do it with most artist pages I create/edit, though you are right, it is not required. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The Hu

iIdid the change because it was more clear as "Left to Right" than "L-R". Why did you change it? 𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I did a typo, iIdid, should've been I did. 𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑, L–R seems clear enough to me, and it's shorter, Since infobox image captions are meant to be succinct, it seems preferable to me. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::Maybe a random person doesn't know what "L-R" means? I think left to rigıt is better. Also, L-R doesn't always mean left to right, but left to right always means left to right. 𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑, I'm not sure what else L-R could mean (not that I couldn't stretch my imagination to come up with something, but hopefully, you get my point), but I'm not set on it, so feel free to change it back if you think it's a real issue. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Edmonton Meetup

Hello,

There's going to be an Edmonton meetup on May 31, 2026 at the Stanley Milner Library from 11:30 a.m. until 2 p.m. If you are interested in meeting other local Wikimedians, please register using the event page ↗. Hope to see you there!

- Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA), I love this idea, thanks for notifying me! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Sokol movement ↗

Hi Revirvlkodiaku, I noticed you reverted ↗ my change ↗ on the Sokol movement ↗ article.

I wanted to explain my reasoning. Thank you for your consideration and discussion.

The old image is in the wrong national Sokol article. It should be in Polish Sokół movement ↗ - where it already features.

The postcard is from the 1912 ''Všeslovanský slet'' which is explicitly mentioned in this section.

Like the live statue of poetry ↗, the postcard shows how the movement promoted itself with classical themes.

Finally as a matter of opinion:

The article is more appealing with colorful and varied media, rather than strictly black & white photographs.

StealthyGazebo (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @StealthyGazebo, thanks for bringing this up. You make good points, and in fact, I didn't notice that the article mentions the ''Všeslovanský slet'', which would make the postcard image appropriate. I'll go ahead and restore it :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you, and happy editing!
::StealthyGazebo (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Pépé Kallé

Hi Revirvlkodiaku! I just finished expanding the Pépé Kallé ↗'s article and wanted to ask if you could give it a quick proofreading EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, an article of that length won't be "quick", but I'll add it to my list 🤓 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hey @EdwinAlden.1995, I never heard back from you. Anyway, I'm starting work on the Pépé Kallé page, so I'll drop queries here along with "clarify" tags within the article, as needed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I appreciate you starting on the page, and always feel free to drop your queries here and will do my best to assist. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Gavin de Becker

Thank you for your note regarding the Gavin de Becker article. I read up on the notes and understand it better now. I was in no way intentionally making unconstructive edits. I do have a question for you. What edits do you feel need to be made before the promotional flag should be removed? Hollywoodd (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi @Hollywoodd, thanks for the message. I don't find the Gavin de Becker article overly promotional, though I must admit that I'm not up on WP's policies ↗ on that topic. Personally, I wouldn't be bothered if the flag was removed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Boy Throb

I count seven (7!!) independent, secondary, reliable sources which are solely about Boy Throb, including WaPo and the WSJ. Am I missing anything? Why did you propose it for deletion? Feeglgeef (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, @Feeglgeef, have you considered starting a conversation with a polite greeting? The band is non-notable, and they haven't achieved anything, either musically or otherwise, so why should they have a WP page? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
::Can you cite a policy or guideline that requires them to achieve anything? Feeglgeef (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi! Sorry to butt in here! In my opinion, Boy Throb clearly meets the notability criteria. To explain my reasoning, I'll go through the general notability guidelines:
:::PRESUMED: Boy Throb ''is'' presumed to be suitable for an article as it has plenty of independent and reliable sources, as Feeglgeef stated.
::: - SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE: Due to the amount of independent and reliable sources available, there are more than enough sources to make a full article. The Boy Throb article is not a stub, and includes all relevant information.
::: - RELIABLE: Sources are largely reliable. They are all published and you can verify them. The WSJ, the BBC, the Post, etc. prove this.
::: - SOURCES: All of the sources are secondary sources--outside of the band's own Youtube channel and iTunes account for the release date of the singles, which is self-explanatory.
::: - INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECT: The sources are all independent of the article (outside of the two we already mentioned).
:::Sorry if this sounds condescending or anything, that was absolutely not my intent, I am just quite confused as to why you put it up for deletion? If notability is your only valid* criteria, it absolutely does make notability guidelines? I'm an inexperienced Wikipedian, so you can totally correct me if I'm wrong.
:::''*''As Feeglgeef said, I am unaware of any Wikipedia guidelines that involve achievement. From what I can briefly check, nothing is mentioned in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion ↗. Cinephilic (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Hi @Cinephilic, this isn't really the place to have this discussion, especially seeing as there's already an AfD discussion ↗ taking place on the topic. Just to clarify though, my reason for nominating the page for deletion is that the band, while obviously covered by a variety of mainstream sources, haven't accomplished anything of note apart from releasing three singles. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

AI-related links

Hello, David! With reference to our conversation yesterday, I thought you might be interested in the links posted at User talk:Guy Macon#Halupedia: An Encyclopedia full of AI hallucinations (especially the third one), although they’re not specifically about Grok.—Odysseus '''147''''''9''' ↗ 00:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:Hey @Odysseus (sorry, I never asked your name 😖), thanks for the links! See you at the conference 🤩 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Chetes

It is a minor thing, but as Chetes ↗ is a biography of a living person, the more accurate maintenance template is {{tl|BLP unreferenced}}, not {{tl|Unreferenced}}. Using the more accurate template also puts the article in a more exact maintenance category, for WP:URA ↗ (and others) to deal with. I'd be grateful if you'd revert your recent edit. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:@SunloungerFrog, no revert necessary—a simple correction will do the trick ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Black Box

You reverted my edits here ↗, asking "Why the bolding?"

Did you even bother to read the edit summaries?

I'd already clearly explained why they were in bold:-
"Alternate names for band- i.e. subject of article- thus also in bold", and
"Another alias, in bold for same reason".

In other words, the text in bold was a synonym for the article subject, which is standard Wikipedia style.

Also, when you reverted this edit, you broke the subsection link, which I had updated the Numero Uno (Starlight song) ↗ redirect to use.

Ubcule (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
: Hang on, I just realised that I'd added the subsection links in a separate edit that you could easily have excluded from the reversion/undo (since it had nothing to do with the bold text you objected to).
: Yet you clumsily reverted the whole lot anyway?
: Ubcule (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
::@Ubcule, if your intention in posting on my talk page was to figure out a solution to a problem or misunderstanding, you're obviously going about it the wrong way. If you're going to be rude and combative, I won't be engaging in dialogue with you. Please try again with civility. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Troy McLawhorn

I'm pretty sure landscape mode only makes the image larger if the image is in landscape format. Every time you've been turning the landscape mode on it's been making the image smaller. At least that's what I'm seeing from my end AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:Hello (is saying hello still a thing in 2026? 🤔) @AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, in my browser, the image looks larger in landscape. Is it not the same in yours? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::The image looks smaller on my computer whenever it's put in landscape mode. For example on Shane Embury ↗, before I cropped the image, it got larger when put into landscape mode, but now that I've cropped it and it is in portrait mode it gets smaller when I put it in landscape mode. I suspect that images in landscape format get larger in landscape mode but ones in portrait format get smaller in landscape mode, though I'm not sure why it appears differently for us. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ok, how about now? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::::It looks larger now. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::@AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, problem solved then? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::It appears so. Thanks for your help. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Picnic (band)

Didn't I essentially just add sources and tweak the grammar a bit in everything I submitted? More than 95 percent of it was identical to your edit. Mehmed Nâzım (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:@Mehmed Nâzım, I'm a firm believer in not omitting basic courtesies like saying "hello" when starting a conversation with another person. Perhaps you're annoyed by my revert, which is understandable, but then it's better to wait until you've cooled off before writing me a message.
:Anyhoo, you're not representing your edit accurately. You restored refs to the lede, which I removed; you restored your preferred version of genre links to the lede; you removed commas I added; etc. Need I go on? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::I merely wished to clarify the nature of my edits. To address your specific points: yes, I restored the citations to the lede, reverted to my preferred formatting for the genre links, and adjusted a few commas. Beyond these minor sourcing and stylistic adjustments, the vast majority of the article remained identical to your version.
::Ultimately, I have little interest in debating trivial editorial preferences. If you would prefer that I cease editing this article or interacting with your contributions, please simply say so, and I will gladly oblige and step away. Mehmed Nâzım (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@Mehmed Nâzım, the suggestion that I would prefer you stop editing the article is silly, and it's a strange avenue to go down, rather than focusing on what was done improperly and how the page can be improved. I shouldn't be the one to decide which pages you are or aren't involved in on this platform—that is for you to determine. Having said that, it is important that you not be disingenuous about your activity. Let me ask you, after I removed the refs, modified the genre links, and added commas, why did you go back and change them back, without providing a justification? Do you consider that good-faith editing, or is it simply an instance of imposing your editorial preferences on the page? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}I hear what you're saying regarding my involvement on the page, and I appreciate you clarifying your stance.
{{Outdent|::::}}To answer your question directly: my reverts were genuinely made in good faith. My goal was simply to preserve what I felt was the most verifiable and consistent version of the article. I do realize, though, that I didn't leave a detailed edit summary explaining my thought process at the time. That was an oversight on my part, and I can completely see how reverting without context might come across as dismissive or arbitrary.
{{Outdent|::::}}To give you the context you asked for regarding those specific changes:
{{Outdent|::::}}1. Lede citations: I'm familiar with the guideline that citations in the lead aren't strictly necessary if the body is well-sourced, but I put them back to ensure immediate verifiability for readers and patrolling editors. Given the specific historical claims and the sensitive nature of the recent tragedies mentioned in the intro, I felt it was better to have those sources readily visible right up front.
{{Outdent|::::}}2. Genre links: I reverted those changes mostly to maintain consistency. I wanted the capitalization and structure to match the formatting we already had established in the infobox and the rest of the body text.
{{Outdent|::::}}3. Commas: I removed the added commas because I felt the original punctuation just read a bit more naturally. I know comma placement often boils down to stylistic preference, but my adjustment was really about the cadence and flow of those specific sentences, not just undoing your edits for the sake of it.
{{Outdent|::::}}Ultimately, I wasn't trying to arbitrarily impose my own preferences. I was just trying to maintain the article's established style, consistency, and verifiability. Mehmed Nâzım (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:@Mehmed Nâzım, thanks for the explanation. Let me answer each of your points:
:#Since all the content included in the lede is also covered (and referenced) in the article's body, and this article's subject isn't unique in any particular way that I can detect, why not just follow the lede ref guideline?
:#The infobox provides a list of genres, whereas in the body, they are incorporated in prose form, so there is no question of consistency; rather, it is about flow and legibility, and repeating "rock" multiple times strikes me as unnecessary and clunky.
:#The commas are grammatically correct (not a stylistic preference, unless we are discussing the serial comma), whereas what does or doesn't read "naturally" is subjective, no?
:I understand now that you weren't simply trying to restore your stylistic preference, but if you do not provide an adequate edit summary (do note that I left you a comment ↗ about this prior to our kerfuffle, which you only heeded partially), how am I, or any other editor, supposed to understand your activity? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Chetes

Template:Prod blp ↗ straight-up says not to remove it until at least one citation is added. If you want to keep the Chetes ↗ article, then don't remove the template again until adding such. JHD0919 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:Ok, so...it actually doesn't? Which is utterly maddening to me, since WP:BLPPROD ↗ does say that. I've made an edit request ↗ to the template in question. JHD0919 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::Huh? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

62px|left ↗
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗ regarding whether to link "Soviet Union ↗" in the "early years ↗" section of Lena Katina ↗'s article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Lena Katina ↗".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}} Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Here to say Hi.

Hi, Revirvlko! I just found this ↗ edit when going through {{contribs|Simxaraba|2=Simxaraba's contribs}} in my cleanup effort, and just want to come and thank you for the warnings; it's good to know that it's not just me raising eyebrows about this user.

Wish you a productive day. :) 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 14:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada Train the Trainer Program Survey / Sondage pour le programme de formation à la facilitation

Wikimedia Canada ↗ is developing a Train the Trainer program to train volunteers to lead Wikimedia workshops across the country and we'd love your input!

If you are interested in learning how to teach others to contribute to a Wikimedia project, please fill out our short survey ↗ by '''July 10, 2026'''. It only takes a few minutes and it will help us create a program that works for our community.

''You have received this message because you are on the Wikimedia Canada Interest list ↗. To remove yourself from the list, please click here ↗.''

_________

Wikimédia Canada ↗ élabore actuellement un programme de formation à la facilitation destiné à former des bénévoles à l’animation d’ateliers Wikimédia et nous aimerions connaître votre avis !

Si vous souhaitez apprendre à former d’autres personnes à contribuer aux projets Wikimédia, merci de répondre à notre bref sondage ↗ avant le '''10 juillet 2026''' afin que nous puissions créer un programme adapté à notre communauté. Cela ne vous prendra que quelques minutes.

''Vous recevez ce message car vous faites partie de la liste des personnes intéressées par Wikimédia Canada ↗. Pour vous désinscrire de cette liste, veuillez cliquer ici ↗.''

-- Wikimedia Canada ↗ via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Citation style

There is absolutely no rule that the "cite web" template is in any way more "standard", or more "required", than the format I used, and i will take absolutely no lectures from anybody to the contrary. Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:@Bearcat, since you're such a know-it-all and have no further room for improvement, I'm guessing you've read this page ↗? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::I'm fully aware of the documentation page for the cite web template, which is why I'm fully aware that absolutely ''nowhere'' in that page does it say ''anything whatsoever'' about it being a "required" format for all citations across the board with no allowance for any other alternatives. It's an ''option'', not a ''requirement'', to use that template, and the template documentation does not say otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::You know, @Bearcat, I'm sure you do good work on WP, but you're stubborn AF and difficult to talk to. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::}}You tried to admonish me for not using a template that our rules ''do not'' say that editors are ''required'' to use — in fact, the rules ''explicitly'' say that there ''isn't'' any single "preferred" format for citations, and that editors are free to choose from among several alternatives — and yet ''I'm'' somehow the unreasonable and stubborn one in the conversation? Wow. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:You're wrong though: there absolutely is a preferred format, and the vast majority of citation are formatted in that manner. How can you deny such a basic fact? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::Because the ''only'' place that ''any'' of our citation guidelines say ''anything at all'' about "preferred formats" (WP:CITESTYLE ↗) ''explicitly'' states that there ''isn't'' any one single "required" format ("Wikipedia does not have a single house style"), and the document you tried to point me to in this conversation certainly doesn't say anything to the contrary. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Yi Jian Mei

Regarding your revert on :Yi Jian Mei (song) ↗. I accept your revert as fair although I think such info should be provided as "bibliographical" information when citing a resource. But the words used seem to be a little bit too harsh and exaggerating to me. You may not have realized that using such extreme and broad words conveys the message that you do not want to take the time to reason the revert case-by-case, as I tried to do to refute some of your (generic) claims in your first revert message while backing down. It almost feels like a businessman signing off business mails with canned messages.

I know you must be too busy defending wikipedia, but the time saved when signing off the edits just does not feel to be worth the misery and misunderstanding caused by it. While I have had enough experience to know that not all wikipedians are the same as what their words make me feel (and you do feel like a reasonable wikipedian), newbies may not. They will likely drop the case and just leave after this false impression of wikipedian community. After all, if they feel an editor won't bother to reason, why would posting on talk ever work?

This message was not written by an LLM, in whole or in part. Hym3242 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:@Hym3242, I take your point, but I'd like to dig a little deeper into the issue, if that's fine with you. Can you specify which words in my edit summary you find objectionable, or is it perhaps the whole string? Which part did you find harsh, and which part exaggerated?
:You engaged in edit warring ↗ here ↗, did you not? Why not acknowledge that?
:I'm not "too busy"...is that a sincere comment, or is it sarcasm? I'm genuinely asking, because I don't know you, and tone is notoriously tricky to interpret accurately.
:Tell me, if you were in my place, how would you have worded your edit summary? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User Talk: Revirvlkodlaku

Iket

Yuki Kato

Claremont Institute

Yeah Yeah Yeahs

:Category:Bulgarian musical groups by populated place ↗ has been nominated for deletion

Mike Lewis

Filip Turek

Guild of Copy Editors requests

Hail the Villain

Lambert Hamel et al.

I suggest you edit it and have it approved

''Shooting Stars (Singaporean TV series)''

Your thread has been archived

Laura Caballero

March music

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

DISCOGS

Nomination of :Yves Engler (2nd nomination) ↗ for deletion

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

Nomination of :Celiac Sprue Association ↗ for deletion

Apache Indian

Roger Reaves ↗

Great Wall of Gorgan

Birds of Tokyo

Revert on Nawazuddin Siddiqui ↗

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 25 §&nbsp;Musical groups by nationality and populated place ↗

Abigail Austin

Witches (2024 film)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Category:Singers from Turnov ↗

Thank you

Remy Zero

Deletion of language fields on references

Syncretism

Dirty Pictures draft article

Emily Chang

The Hardkiss

The Hu

Edmonton Meetup

Sokol movement ↗

Pépé Kallé

Gavin de Becker

Boy Throb

AI-related links

Chetes

Black Box

Troy McLawhorn

Picnic (band)

Chetes

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

Here to say Hi.

Wikimedia Canada Train the Trainer Program Survey / Sondage pour le programme de formation à la facilitation

Citation style

Yi Jian Mei

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 25 § Musical groups by nationality and populated place ↗