User talk:Intrisit/Beginnings

Beginnings

All Pages:

... (up to 100)

Old Admin Questions

Below are previous admin questions questions answered during my first year here on WP!

Verifying article suitability

Hi WP Admin community, there are lots of talks about article suitability on WP. Notability and Verifiability are what angers Wikipedians the most while arguing about this/these — including me! There are proofs on the internet right now — but I need clarification of how many references are needed in articles about new, yet sustainable topics/events/elements. Newer notable events are happening by and I can't keep up with respects to putting it here on WP. I need help here!! Intrisit (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a question for administrators. If you wish to ask about WP:GNG, the overall guideline for determining subject notability, you may ask at the WP:Teahouse. However, putting it in a specific context will make it easier to answer. You also can use WP:AFC to create drafts and get feedback from more experienced editors about the suitability of your drafts. I suggest, though, that you go slowly. Enthusiasm is good, but experience helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Clear notifications

Is there any way I can remove alerts/notifications after I've seen them and worked on them. I've tried the Preferences link/section, but either it gave me nothing or I didn't see it. Please show me! Intrisit (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a way to clear the list; you can only control what goes on the list. According to Help:Notifications/FAQ only the last 200 notifications are kept. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are some comments which may or may not help you.

Exactly how the notifications are displayed varies depending on various circumstances, such as whether you are on a computer or a mobile device, and if you are on mobile whether then whether you are on the "desktop" interface or the "mobile" interface. Most of my editing is done on a mobile phone and the desktop interface, but I think that what I'm going to say probably also applies to editing on a computer, but not to using the mobile interface. (Incidentally, if you are on the mobile interface then my advice is to get off it by clicking the "Desktop" link at the bottom of the page. In my opinion it's about 5 times more convenient for reading the encyclopaedia, and 200 times more convenient for editing.)

To see your notifications, instead of clicking on the icon at the top of the page, go to Special:Notifications. You will have 3 links, to choose to see all notifications, only ones that have been marked as read, or only ones that are unread. Choose unread. If for any reason you want to get rid of one which isn't marked as read, you can click on the little blue dot at the top right of the notification, or you can get rid of all the notifications from a particular day by clicking "mark group as read". JBW (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

An article title with an article which got deleted from either a deletion review or CSD, but can/could link to the same article target with a different title/name deserves an rcat of its own. The {{R with possiblities}} tag is broad, but confusing and/or vague to me in that regard?! I need clarification for that. Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't an admin question; it's a topic for discussion at WT:RCAT. I see that a talk page discussion already exists in which you have participated. Please focus your efforts there. Katie^talk 22:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Help requests

Creation of an rcat for "to an article"

I want a redirect category for a redirect "to a valid article". I've come across a lot of article titles which hosted articles (un-reffed or not) and get deleted, but are morphed (pop culture word for transformed) into excellent feature article candidate. Take this page link as an example to a proposed deleted article that was originally merged into the bigger article that I've just redirected to its current official name. I think that deserves at least a redirect category, don't you think?!

@Intrisit: Virtually all redirects in mainspace will be to a "valid article". Otherwise, it would be an invalid redirect liable to speedy deletion per WP:G8, or in limited circumstances, a cross-namespace redirect. So, I don't see the purpose of such a category - perhaps you could explain the underlying reason it would be needed? It looks like the two redirect categories you have added are sufficient. Local Variable (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Local Variable: Oh, sufficient, you say?! As much as we know this, I gave you the link in case there's a deletion review of a potential article that doesn't just lead up to merge. This the reason: the link I gave you is one of many I've (and you've) come across that due to insufficient sourcing/notability in some articles after creation, they get deleted (speedily or through review), then created again (with the refs) and stay aloof. Here's another link to both the controversy and finalist of another article I'm sure you know already. That's my reply. It's really confusing not just to the article creator, but improvers like me and you as well, don't you think?! Intrisit (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Intrisit: I've replied at: Wikipedia talk:Categorizing_redirects. Local Variable (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Confusion of disambiguation and inclusion of an RFC

I and Lockejava are having a content/article dispute over whether to disambiguate a currently-bloated article which has a section compliant with WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:OR needs to spin-out to a separate standalone article. What is the dispute, you may ask!

There was this page move by Bianca Anne Martins from "Barbie (film series)" to "Barbie (franchise)" and this page move by TheFallenPower from "Barbie (franchise)" to "Barbie (film franchise)". I invoked a successful requested single-page move back to the second title since this article link already covers the topic's main history and this article link talks about the non-media components related to the topic. I guess I will have to move fast before confusion becomes an edit war because the general "Barbie" topic remained dispute-free before 2017.

I have started an RFC so this will soon enough and I'm requesting assistance because I want this topic not to require any page protection.

Please do not use this help me template for disputes. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Rainbow High (dolls)

Hi, I note that you removed the "Overly detailed" template during your recent edit to this article. It's seen as bad etiquette to do so without actually addressing the problem. Such a long and detailed section that is not supported by any secondary sources is most likely not encyclopedic. If you can, please improve the section by adding references. Please see WP:PROVEIT, WP:NOT, and WP:FANCRUFT. 162 etc. (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem with SVG in MediaWiki

I uploaded this SVG image to WP for use in articles, but it isn't showing on WP. It is an SVG converted from a PNG image. Intrisit (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You uploaded it and then requested its deletion with three tags, {{db-f2}}{{db-g7}}{{db-a3}}. Cabayi (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Any CSD tag I could lay my hands on to speedily delete it, that's what's I did there!! It's like I committed a blockable crime just uploading a blank SVG to WP and the next thing I know, I'm blocked from WP. Anyway, have you checked the file history? See for yourself the reason why I wanted it deleted quickly straightaway. Intrisit (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@331dot:, @Nick Moyes:, Is something wrong with MediaWiki or that new SVG converts from PNGs get uploaded on WP and don't show straight from upload? Intrisit (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not my area of expertise, I'm afraid. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Me neither, I'm afraid. We have WP:VPT for technical questions (including about Media Viewer), which you might like to ask at. Sorry I can't assist you on that. However, I don't see anything in your history to show you've been blocked here on en-wiki. A non-free image uploaded to English Wikipedia (but not to Commons) taken from here or here would have seemed to me to fit with our terms of use. Uploading a duff images isn't a serious issue - at least not if it's a one-off and you're clearly trying to remedy the situation. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Blanking Pages for Re-Direct

Hi there Intrisit, I noticed you blanked 2019 Zambian Super League and attempted to redirect it. Rather than blanking a page, and copying it's contents, you can WP:MOVE it. This keeps all the current information on the page, including the history and talk pages.

I reverted your edit and moved the page appropriately. I also moved of other yearly pages associated to the Zambia Super League. Let me know if you have any questions! Skipple ☎ 18:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skipple: The confusion is with the article name. The agreement is with the Zambia Super League name, whereas before 2018/19, it was Zambian Super League. I have no questions, but rather a request for clarification. I can't move a page over a redirect target, as this is Wikipedia and not Wikia/Fandom where you can do that; that is what happened with the "2019 Zambian Super League" article. Nevertheless, thanks for clearing my headache up with this!! Intrisit (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Disputes and confusion over article structures with IJBall and EEBuchanan

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Zombies (2018 film). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please stop messing with reference date and author formats – I have already warned you about this at another article, and now here you are doing it here too. Please review WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit is continuing the pattern of editing against WP:CITEVAR. (P.S. You also did the picture format wrong in the infobox – read the template documentation.) This edit as well. You really need to stop with this or you are going to get yourself blocked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I've corrected the WP:CITEVAR and picture problems; other than that, the changes I've made is line with the focuses here. I've made a request or query to at this talk page or maybe your talk page and I'm yet to get a reply. Intrisit (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Uh, no you didn't – you changed cite date formats, again, exactly in contravention of WP:CITEVAR. And you did the picture format in the infobox wrong – it supposed to be "HDTV 720p" not "720p HDTV" – see {{Infobox television}}. And I replied days ago at Talk:List of Disney Channel original films. I am starting to be concerned that you are out of your depth with some of this. I would certainly urge you to stop messing with existing inline sources at the articles you edit, and focus your attention elsewhere. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I was in the process of correcting them; I can see you're online now as you replied more speedily than I thought. Most of the "Infobox TV"-filled articles I've browsed through here had the "720p HDTV" look than the now-accepted "HDTV 720p". A change I didn't see coming, but fine — no disputes there! And I just found out the "picture problem" edit from the "Monster High TV series" you're stating has been rectified already! Intrisit (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me speak plainly: stop "correcting" existing citations. You are doing it wrong, so it's best just to stop with that. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

My focus is rather on trimming the lead section of articles where possible and updating them to reflect the sources added and/or indicated — not date changes in citations. If I messed them up or "corrected" them, I'm reversing them to how they were, like I said already. I know you're impatient so I'm rectifying my errors as quickly as possible so you'll understand. Again, my focus is not on date changes in citations. And also, it's as if you're driving me out of editing those articles citation-dates-aside as if I'm not welcome at all there for whatever reason.Intrisit (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding extraneous and ungrammatical information to plot summaries of films, as you did when you edited the plot summary of Barbie Dolphin Magic. Also, your information regarding David Hall's death was given an extremely long run-on sentence, with editorials ("Untimely death" is not an encyclopedic phrase), and contained far too much unnecessary detail that had no bearing on the actual film. These details can be read in the article you linked, if anyone wants them.

I know you want to help, but other users have already repeatedly discussed with you about adding edits that are grammatically and stylistically incorrect/do not match the Manual of style to articles. Please read the Manual of style carefully before making any more edits. According to the MOS, plot summaries for films:

• Must never exceed 700 words UNLESS there is a general consensus on the film's talk page by multiple users that it is absolutely necessary to go over.
• Be grammatically and stylistically correct. (that goes for ALL edits on any subject)
• Be as concise as possible with only the absolute necessities of the plot, not side info.
• Be completely accurate to the film in question, deal only with fact, and not contain Original research, inferences, assumptions, and so forth. (again, that goes for all edits on any subject).

I hope this helps! Clearly you wish to help, but you need to practice editing in the WP:Sandbox and WP:Teahouse, and read the MOS, before you go any farther, so your edits in the future will be constructive. EEBuchanan (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@EEBuchanan: Please, for correction, the Manual of Style is a guide to follow not a necessity-else-get-blocked instance, I strive to follow it even if I'm not that familiar with it. If that's editorial, duly noted! As WP:CS states that: "have text based on sources cited, not from your thoughts (WP:OR)". I raised this at a discussion forum which is now deleted and now it's brought up again. If what is there shouldn't be there, it wouldn't in the first place.

For the plot, I can't decipher a 700-word plot as there's no "wiki-plot-tracker device" so as to limit the plot. If that film plot is my concern to you, have a look this diff and this diff from Barbie: Princess Adventure, where a similar instance happened, but who cared? The plot was trimmed down, had its grammar revamped and got accepted as an article. Not everyone is concise on WP, be it on plots, grammar and tone; though I try to be, so if I went off key, I'll work on them as time passes by. No wonder users add plot summaries to films only to get blocked for something like this. Intrisit (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Intrisit I will answer your four points in turn.

First off, there was no threat to block, so not sure where your assumption of that came from. A notification symbol isn't a threat to block. If the message doesn't say "You may be blocked" there's no threat. I was just trying to get your attention so there was no need to get defensive.

Secondly, The biggest issue with your edit was that the grammar was exceptionally poor; the biggest rule of thumb is, if you read the sentence aloud, does it flow right? Also, there were many basic grammar rules regarding where commas and hyphens go, what constitutes run-on sentences, how words should be arranged for flow, and so forth, which were not followed. As a side note, the term "Self-disguise" is, as far as I can tell by looking it up, not a real thing. While we're here, as to editorials/non-encyclopedic language, you put things like "untimely death", "beloved wife", etc. which are not admissible terms. Furthermore, you put some things that were assumptions and not actually part of the plot; for instance, that "Barbie reveals herself when she hears Marlo's voice". There's no indication that that's why Barbie reveals herself; that was merely assumption on your part. We put down what happens, not what we think happens, because someone else may interpret the same scene differently when things are left open or not specifically mentioned. All we needed to put was that she revealed herself. The "Why" is up for discussion if no character specifically said it aloud. (if you don't think this is important, check The Incredibles article. Admins won't let you put that Syndrome died, however obvious it seems, because his death wasn't shown onscreen).

Thirdly, there is the matter of word count. I didn't say that your edit took the summary over 700 words (it may have done, but I didn't check that point. I just deleted the ungrammatical bits, rewrote it, and then made sure my own wordcount was acceptable). I just put that point down since it's one of the film plot rules in the MOS. However, since you want to argue about it, I will point out there IS a way to be accurate about such things, which most of us do use. The accepted/most common way to accurately check word count around here is to hit "preview" while you are editing, highlight the preview text (not the source code text, since with links and so forth it will be longer) and then paste said preview text into wordcounter.net ( see here [1] ). This will give you the precise number of words, and this is what people use, so there can be no debate.

While we're on this subject, I'll just give you the idea of the importance of this point. If you'll check, a lot of articles have hidden word count warnings on their film/tv/book plot summaries, visible when you click "edit", that say something like "Per WP:FILMPLOT, summaries are to be between 400 and 700 words. Current wordcount 675" or something like that. I'm not the one who put them all there, either. A lot were already there, and I just updated the number on them. (Sometimes, also, I have replaced them after they've been gone a long time because someone deleted them, usually at the same time as they expanded the article to something like 900 or 1000 words, showing blatant disregard for policies and trying not to get caught) What's more, I see lots of users and admin revert plot summary edits that are either too detailed or too long, every day. Sometimes people find ways to make my own edits more concise, which I don't begrudge them doing at all. There is even a cleanup template that people will use to tag articles when the summary is WAY too detailed, too grammatically messy, or too long, and they don't have the time to fix it. You don't have set cleanup templates for something unless it's a persistent problem. So yes, being specific about the wordcount IS important.

Fourthly, just because someone edited something incorrectly and it wasn't immediately caught, doesn't make it all right/acceptable. Nor does it mean that no one cares. Sometimes, on lesser-viewed articles such as off-brand movies, individual episodes of shows, older movies/shows, and so forth, admin and users don't spot things right away that need to be cleaned up/corrected. It's actually a wikipedia statistic that lesser-viewed articles are the ones most targeted by vandals, and the ones most likely to have grammatical and stylistic issues. That doesn't mean 'nobody cares', it just means it wasn't caught. Eventually someone will catch it and either clean it up and mark the article for deletion; it just takes a while to get to them all.

EEBuchanan (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:BrickMaster02

Moved from User talk:PerryPerryD

 – PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi PerryPerryD, I wish you would spark a move to have this user understand that WP is where editors can without fear or favor edit, so long as there are sources to back them up and that they're within the scope of their focuses. I bid you to check the history of this page, check how many times he has reverted my edits and those of others and see each of them in their own rights. I wish I could get an admin to issue a warning to him that reverting constructive edits (as you told him and made me write this statement to you) are fine and do not hurt/deviate the focus of what it is about and it may lead to "not here" motives like not working collaboratively. How can you revert constructive edits because of self-preference? If WP was like this, I wouldn't even be here. Intrisit (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it didn't match the article formatting. Should I have mentioned it in the edit summary or discussed it with you? Looking back, I 100% should have. Besides, you only edited the page once (as far as I'm aware), and the edits I've reverted were due to the lack of formatting or use of unsourced/poorly sourced information. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

BrickMaster02, I've been waiting for any sort of response from you for over 2 months now, because it's like besides the WP:CITEVAR issues, my previous edits of the Monster High TV series article especially the lead section gets reverted by you every time with no explanation. If sourcing of what I've edited was/is your issue to me, like the TV genres, I've addressed them.

You're absolutely right what you said that I've edited that page once (today), and that is because you and Amaury revert every edit I make to that article and similar articles like Zombies, Zombies 2 and Zombies 3, without mentioning what you just mentioned. I'll remind you to look at that article's page edit history that it's not the first time I've edited that article. Like I said, it was my mistake pinging IJBall here, but if he/she can see my edit problems so I can address them there and there, why can't you?! I see nothing wrong with you pointing to me the reason(s) for your reversions like citing article formatting, article consistency, claim sourcing and CITEVAR; after all, this and its related statements will help me get better and better as I progress with my editing. Intrisit (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Please tell me what you would like ME (PerryPerryD) to do about this directly. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You know, I have a life outside of Wikipedia. I just didn't agree with your edits, not adhering to the formatting. You literally didn't need to create a section on someone else's talk page to discuss this. BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Im really not sure what on earth you are referring to. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Im requesting some parts of your comment be rephrased @Intrisit, To me it sounds like you are saying that its OK to revert constructive edits??

Also brick has only reverted 1 edit from you, and I cant find many other reverts from him past that. (Not deep search). I am not an administrator and i dont know what you want me to do here. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do here, admin or not, apparently! I was just inspired by this statement you made to BrickMaster02 about constructive editing and it was what I used to try and invoke a response from him/her as to why he/she keeps reverting my edits without explanation, as stated in my reply above. Again, I need nothing from you on this matter, whether you're an admin or not. I just like using the {{u|}}/user template. Sorry about that!! Intrisit (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That was a default twinkle user welcome warn. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@PerryPerryD: Oh, wow! Thanks for the move!! I thought you had no page-mover rights — maybe I didn't check your user rights log or I thought it was only IJBall having it! Sorry to bother you on your talk page about a discussion not concerning you. I only came for content creation and modification with sources — not to bother editors/users like you. Sorry about that!! Intrisit (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

TO BOTH OF YALL: Please inform me of what you @Intrisit: would like me to do about BrickMaster. Otherwise I kindly ask you to take this discussion somewhere else. Thank you. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Since you have page-mover rights and I don't, could you kindly take/move this section to my own talk page so this user can have his/her talk page as it was before? Intrisit (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@PerryPerryD:, I actually want nothing from you apparently!! I was just using a quote from you on BrickMaster02's talk page to invoke an answer from BrickMaster02 as to why he/she revert my edits on articles to its previous state without justification or explanation. To the surprise of me and you, instead of settling my discussion on my talk page rather than on your talk page without addressing you directly, that user answers to me on your own talk page — not mine or BrickMaster02's own talk page. Intrisit (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

BrickMaster02 I've adhered to the problems you showed me, but as WP:CITEVAR also states, that so long as I don't deviate from the established citation styles in articles, I can ADD more and/or missing information to them, which I did more than thrice only for you and/or Amaury to revert them without explanation. I know you have a non-Wikipedia life, but I'm dealing with within Wikipedia and that why you and Amaury are driving me away from an article I felt empowered to improve. If you're leaning on "preferential" as your issue to me, then what of yours? I implore you to look at the Monster High TV series page history and see how many times I've edited and how many times those get reverted by you and/or Amaury?! My bottom line is, I wanted an answer from you, and like you said, it didn't have to take me posting on someone else's talk page about your reversions to get your attention, because I got little to no reply from you and/or Amaury when I requested them. Intrisit (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I just want to say I am deeply sorry for the drama I have caused by not looking into your amazing and helpful contributions to the article. I am just sick and tired of this drama, and wish that we can move on, but since I'm the one who caused it, I assume it will never be resolved. Sometimes, I even wonder if this is worth it. Any contribution I make, even if it's an actual good one, I will always get frowned upon. I just wanted to say I'm done with this ordeal, and I will adhere to your wishes. BrickMaster02 (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Fear of franchise article deletion

IJBall, because of WP:COPYVIO, how will the Zombies be such that it's compliant with WP:CWW and not nominated for deletion. I've read the CWW page and the other franchise articles you gave me last time on how it's done, but I'm in a dilemma. I can't ask this at the Teahouse as I'm experienced enough with over 7 months 520 edits experience here. What should I do?! Intrisit (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not around template on User ForwardslashBackslash

I have now moved the template from the user page to the user talk where such templates are usually placed. Please see Template:Not around which states in part: "This template may be used on the talk page of a Wikipedia user who has been a longer-term contributor but has not been active on Wikipedia in the past few months/years. It is not intended to be used on user pages, or on talk pages of editors who have announced their departure (as the goodbye message is there for everyone to see). Rather, it should be used to inform editors that the user in question has not been active for a long time, and that they may not reply to any messages or questions." Donner60 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unclosed requested move

Hi, Xaosflux! I've stumbled across this unclosed requested move and was wondering since you're the most active admin here on WP if you can please close that request. I wanted to close it myself but since I have no user rights other than ECP, I fear it might get me blocked. Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Intrisit the best next step would be for you to list it at Wikipedia:Closure requests, someone uninvolved should deal with it. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

La República

Hi! Just letting you know that I carried out the technical request for the move of La República (disambiguation). I was taking a look at the pages linked from the DAB and I noticed that the Peruvian newspaper's current title, La República (newspaper), isn't fully disambiguated from La República (Uruguay). Do you have any objections if I move the article again, to La República (Peru)? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, saw it too myself just before the listing! Just wanted the disambiguation on "La República" because of a purported primary topic – that's all! Since it's the newspaper from Peru I moved it from, move it to the former or original title, "La República (Peru)"! Thanks!! Intrisit (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Intrisit and ModernDayTrilobite: In March, Dekimasu reverted moving the Peruvian newspaper away from the primary topic. As such, I have reverted the move. You should open a requested-move discussion if you want to move it again. And please check for recent moves before you move a page/request an RMTR/approve an RMTR. SilverLocust 💬 19:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Noted, thank you for the information! I'd checked the talk pages for RMs, but didn't think to look at the move log directly. Will be sure to do that going forward. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ModernDayTrilobite: I just meant searching the recent edit history for "moved page". Special:Log/move is odd; it only shows moves away from a title. If you prefer, there is a script User:Nardog/MoveHistory. SilverLocust 💬 21:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That script sounds like a great asset! Tracking down relevant titles on Special:Log/move has definitely caused me some frustration in the past, so it'll be nice to be able to see a page's full move history in a single place. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

SilverLocust, glad you're here! Sure Dekimasu reverted that move on grounds of undiscussed move and primary topic; I've alert that user (an admin, by the way) already. I feel like I won't be the last person initiating such an action without at least an RM, let alone/neither will MordernDayTrilobite; the community needs it, else it might get out of hand! My request was more of a disagreement with what I saw on the DAB page and the actual Peruvian page (currently a stub) in question than just a page move. Thanks for the heads-up anyway! We're on standby for the next line of action on these titles. Intrisit (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This wasn't meant as anything like a stern warning. The next line of action would be to open a requested-move discussion. You can do that by going to Talk:La República, clicking "Add Topic", pasting this template (with your reason for the move added in place of "Place here your rationale here"), then clicking submit:

{{subst:requested move|multiple=yes|current1=La República|new1=La República (Peru)|current2=La República (disambiguation)|new2=La República|reason=Place here your rationale here.}}

SilverLocust 💬 20:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I've done the RM, let this confusion be cleared up once and for all. And please note that I stumbled upon it at WP:RMCD to have it listed at WP:RMTR, so this ain't my request; it's in the community's best interest. Intrisit (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualification

I reverted your edits to 2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualification because the subject is not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've redirected it. But a friendly advice, instead of stating this to me next time, if it ain't notable in your view, simply redirect it! I only added references (primary, yes) from CAF as they just dropped in and tweaked the phrases and sentences in there for easy readability and removal of repetition and redundancy. Intrisit (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)