User talk:Meena/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sandbox 2

Check your sandbox 2, the article I worked on but I can’t create. You’re a soap actor editor so you can take the credit!5.71.192.161 (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

What's stopping you from creating an account to publish the article? – DarkGlow (✉) 10:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The page is locked to only extended confirmed users so it would take me ages to be able to make the page, i have made sure the article follows all guidelines I just need someone to publish and you can take the credit for it in your list of created articles if you like 5.71.192.161 (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Jenna Coleman

Why do you keep updating Jenna Coleman's page with wrong information? The Sun said that they had split, without quoting any evidence. This has since been copied by many news sites, still without any evidence. This has not been confirmed by either of them. And in fact, pictures show that they are still living together, and have done so for all of the last 5 months since the Sun invented their breakup. A close of them was asked about whether they were still together, and said that they never did break up, that that was complete nonsense. So, why are you always adding wrong information to this wiki page? And why aren't you willing to discuss how you are insisting on adding wrong information to Wikipedia with me?EulerLagrange42 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@EulerLagrange42: When the breakup has been covered by numerous WP:RS, we either make the choice to include the information about the breakup, or not to include the relationship at all. "A close of them" is as reliable as The Sun... – DarkGlow (✉) 16:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well seeing as none of these sources provide any evidence whatsoever to support their claim, and as there is lots of evidence to show that they are wrong, then don't you think it would be right to either say that they are still together, or at the very least not write about their relationship at all? Because what you have done is just added wrong information. EulerLagrange42 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@EulerLagrange42: As I said in my edit summary, it's better to completely remove mentions of their relationship if there is no evidence of them being together or not. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

So could you at least remove all mentions of their relationship then? EulerLagrange42 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@EulerLagrange42: Already done – btw, you don't need to use the Re template on my own talk page since it will notify me automatically, only use it on other talk pages, just a tip – DarkGlow (✉) 16:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! EulerLagrange42 (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?!

@RoySmith: Hello – I have been blocked by you as a sockpuppet of ZestyLemonz but that is not me. In regards to the recreation of Joe-Warren Plant, I was asked on my talk page by an IP (check the page history) to create the article since it was extended protected confirmed. If I had known that the IP was a sockpuppet, I wouldn’t have performed the edit, but I did check over all of the sources on my second sandbox, and the subject is notable. Why was I not informed of this investigation at all? And how can I prove that I am not the sockpuppet? – DarkGlow (✉) 17:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Could a CheckUser be performed on me to prove my IP/location is not the same? – DarkGlow (✉) 18:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

DarkGlow, See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I've just read over the investigation and I don't understand how I could be the sock when I livd in a different location to them, and have a different OS (assuming this means my type of iPhone). I've been editing on here for over two years and I'm pretty sure I might have even contributed to the ZestyLemonz investigations over my time on here. This is ridiculous. Did you check my talk page history to see their message? – DarkGlow (✉) 18:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

DarkGlow, The thing that got me suspicious is the recreation of Joe-Warren Plant. You (especially as a new page reviewer) are responsible for every edit you make. If you knew the title was protected, why would you go ahead and take the word of an IP editor to recreate it for them? No, I have not searched your history, but if you find the specific edit in question, you could post a link here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Here is the talk page diff. As I said in my initial message on here, I wouldn't have published a page (especially a BLP) if the subject wasn't notable. As you can see here, the IP dumped the article on my second sandbox, and I worked on the article afterwards to ensure it met WP:NACTOR, which he does, as Plant has had significant roles in multiple TV shows (Emmerdale and Dancing on Ice, as well as having two award nominations at the British Soap Awards). So in response, I wasn't taking the word of an IP over someone who protected Plant's article, but I rather felt that he meets NACTOR (and GNG). I am not that sockpuppet. – DarkGlow (✉) 18:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Please respond, I want to get this sorted ASAP – DarkGlow (✉) 20:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Hi, I was wondering if you'd be able to look into this – I won't re-explain the situation as it's all above this comment, but I have been wrongfully accused as a sockpuppet, and I remember us crossing paths as I reported a sockpuppet to you, and we have also crossed paths via soap editing. Would you be able to help out with getting me unblocked? – DarkGlow (✉) 20:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Plastikspork and GeneralNotability: Pinging you guys too since I've also reported sockpuppets to you both recently – please read the above comments to save retelling the events – DarkGlow (✉) 20:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

DarkGlow, If you can convince somebody else to unblock you, I won't object. But, you'll need to explain to their satisfaction how you came to be re-creating an exact copy of an article which had been deleted twice after being created by socks. The idea that a random IP would drop the text on your sandbox and you'd innocently go ahead and create it for them knowing the title had been protected due to previous socking is just hard to swallow. At the least, it's an abrogation of the trust bestowed on you when you were granted new page reviewing capability. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Not an "exact copy", per the editing history on my sandbox. As I've stated, I would not republish a carbon copy of an article if the subject did not meet notability guidelines, but Joe-Warren Plant does meet WP:NACTOR, and I know this due to the sheer level of articles I have created and experience I have with reviewing new pages (which I'm perfectly capable of, thank you very much). As you will see above, I enquired why they could not publish the article themselves, and they stated it was because it would take them too long to become an extended confirmed editor, which is a perfectly believable reasoning. However, if I knew they were a sockpuppet, I would have left the task well alone, despite Plant being more than notable per guidelines. – DarkGlow (✉) 20:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Also, I was asleep at 4:26am in the morning (when the article was dropped into my sandbox), which the screentime on my iPhone can confirm. – DarkGlow (✉) 20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, why would an IP randomly drop an article into your Sandbox? There are a load of soap opera editors that they could have contacted via the talk page or email about the article. Why drop it into your Sandbox? Also, the IP that posted the message this morning is editing from the same city that the Zesty Lemon IPs edited from. Finally, you've had previous contact from one of the Zesty Lemon IPs? You're going to have to address this as I'm not convinced.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I did not even know that the Gemma Collins user was ZestyLemonz until now, I assumed it was an IP that couldn't edit on Collins' article due to the protection. But it makes sense now, and also explains why they dropped it into my sandbox – they targeted me because I'm lenient with IP editors. I performed the edits they asked only because they were all factually correct. If the sockpuppet was me, why would I leave talk page messages asking myself to perform edits? Surely I'd just do them without leaving a paper trail-esque history? Also, since I assume that I do not live in the same city as ZestyLemonz, how would I have moved across the country to perform the different edits? (In a pandemic.. I mean cmon now?). – DarkGlow (✉) 22:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

DarkGlow, BTW, the WP:COPYPASTE from your sandbox to mainspace was a copyright violation. Which I expect is something a new page patroller would know. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I know about crediting attribution, but since I edited the content, I assumed it would not be a copyright violation. If I'm wrong about that, I'm happy to admit that and be stripped of my NPP rights, rather than being blocked for being a sockpuppet, which I am not. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

@Soaper1234, JuneGloom07, and IJBall: Pinging anyone I have frequent contact with on here – I've been (wrongfully) blocked as a supposed sockpuppet of ZestyLemonz after they asked me to recreate a page of theirs (see the top of my talk page) so I just wanted to inform you guys that I won't be able to edit for the foreseeable – I will be back once I'm unblocked as justice will be served, and I hope you three know I'm not a bloody sock. – DarkGlow (✉) 18:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Meena (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was wrongfully blocked due to suspicion of being a sockpuppet, and a CheckUser report was done on me. The conclusions of this CheckUser was that I was in a different location to the sock and had a different phone device, which is outrightly not obsolete evidence. I have been accumulated 18k+ reliable edits over a 2 year period on here, I am not a sockpuppet. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

There was good reason to mistake this user for a sock. However, DarkGlow's explanation for the article recreation is believable. This was all one unfortunate coincidence. I will be unblocking. RoySmith, in regards to what should be done about the user's permissions, I have no comment. I haven't revoked anything, so that can be up to your discretion. Sro23 (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith, I don't want to unblock without you being cool with it first, however I believe this is all an unfortunate coincidence. The only similarity I'm seeing is the near identical recreation of Joe-Warren Plant, and I have no reason to doubt DarkGlows explanation for that (they didn't actually write that article, a sock IP had pasted it in one of the user's sandboxes and it was copied from there). DarkGlow had unknowingly helped out a ZestyLemonz sock last year, and that's the reason I believe they were contacted to recreate the salted article. The fact that this account has been around for so long, racked up so many edits and rights, and edits on mobile is further unusual. This account has had extended-confirmed for years, so if this really was ZestyLemonz, it doesn't make sense they waited two months to recreate Joe-Warren Plant. If ZestyLemonz had an EC account I'm sure they would have recreated that article much sooner. It's been my experience that socks, when blocked for sockpuppetry, usually don't appeal this hard. It's much easier to move on to the next throwaway sock rather than waste time on appeals, and that also seems to be the case with the most recent ZestyLemonz sockpuppets. For the past couple months, I've been having problems with socks of User:CalebHughes repeatedly notifying and pinging other editors to clean up their sock creations before I have a chance to delete them, and the users almost always comply. It's very frustrating when this happens, but these established editors that have been around for years and years don't arouse my suspicion of being related, even though they did help out a sockpuppet. For whatever reason, some users, even veteran editors, just aren't sock-minded when a brand new account or suspicious IP comes to them asking for assistance. It could be because they are just be too nice/naive/oblivious or maybe they simply don't know or care about the policy on sockpuppetry (I know of several users who think the entire policy is wrong and will actively proxy for banned users...but that's a story for another time and DarkGlow seems to be in the "oblivious" camp). I don't know if this would be helpful, but maybe the SPI can be relisted for another CU to do a different check. Also, congrats on receiving full clerkship! :) Sro23 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sro23, Thanks for your note. Well, as I said above, I have no objection if somebody wants to unblock them. I personally don't buy their story, but I'll defer to your judgement. I've held off doing my G5 purge in case that happened (although, given the chain of events Joe-Warren Plant probably qualifies regardless)

Whatever happens, I really can't see DarkGlow continuing in their NPP role. The most charitable interpretation of the events here would be that they don't understand our policies well enough and/or they don't exercise sufficient diligence to be on the front lines of preventing abuse. So, should you elect to unblock them, my intent is to remove their NPP bit per WP:NPR#Guidelines for revocation. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Non admit comment - Personally I'm not convinced this is Zesty at all nor am I convinced of the CU results. I completely agree with Sro23s analysis of the situation and which my thoughts are the complete same, If this was a Zesty sock A) they would've been found much much sooner and B) They would've created the article much much sooner.

The IP had indeed pasted the content into DGs sandbox and obviously DG worked on bits of it not knowing it was a sock of someone else.

The CU result also doesn't make much sense as anyone can be in the same country and use the same device (IE there are probably a good hundred people that live in the UK and use Dell Inspiron for instance). I would support unblocking and if possible would support the block being wiped from their block log which probably isn't possible?. –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sro23: Thank you so much for recognising my side of this Providing I get eventually unblocked and removed from suspicions of being a sock, this has been a valuable lesson to not interact with random IPs asking me to do tasks in future – the only reason I have ever done the changes being asked by IPs is because I genuinely believe that the edit meets an MOS/WP guideline. @RoySmith: If you want to revoke my NPP right due to this, that's a shame, but I'd much rather lose a right that I earned than lose my whole Wikipedia. And @Davey2010: thank you for your comment – DarkGlow (✉) 23:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

DarkGlow, good to see you back. I hope you take on board the comments above, I think the IP has just taken advantage of you. If anyone asks you to create an article that's previously been deleted, and virtually writes the article for you, don't do it. Even more so if the article has been deleted. If it's been deleted then that's for a reason. I hadn't heard of Joe-Warren Plant until recently, I googled him just now and from what I can see on IMDB he quite clearly fails WP:ENT. IMDB only has him in Emmerdale and a few appearances as a result of that. What you can do is create the page in userspace if you want to create it yourself and you can then work on it in your own time. If he does ever become notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, you could then ask for the article to be moved to mainspace. WP:DRAFT has more information on this and you can always leave a message on my talk page :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@5 albert square: When Plant appears on Dancing on Ice, he will be notable through GNG if not ENT, so there is scope for an article. I, however, certainly will not be writing it or touching the article at all if it becomes published. I don't care for the actor in the slightest so it really does not bother me in the slightest not to be involved with any aspect of his footprint on here. – DarkGlow (✉) 18:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Dove Cameron, you may be blocked from editing. --withdrawn Elizium23 (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, PinkNews is a reliable source (especially for information regarding sexuality), and there is no consensus on Dolly – the information is sourced reliably, and is not unencyclopaedic. Why did you remove it? – DarkGlow (✉) 14:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've re-added it - "feminist" isn't in the sources, why did you re-add the categories? Elizium23 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: My apologies on that one – I've added a sourced feminist statement. – DarkGlow (✉) 14:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

AFD participation request

As you are one of the active participants in AFDs, i request you to please have a look at this case. As there are so many pending AFDs to be resolved and so less volunteers, your assistance will help us reduce the workload drop by drop. Thank You, Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 08:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

TVOvermind

FWIW, I think this is a very shaky source for WP:BLPs, to the point where if you can use any other secondary source in its place, you use the other source. And if all you have is TVOvermind... well, I would generally leave it out rather than use it as a source. (The only relevant discussion at WP:RSN about this site appears to be this one, and this earlier one advising against relying on it, which I agree with.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall: Is there anything on here about Zap2it? I saw it mentioned in that second discussion you provided, and I assume it is the parent of TVOvermind, since it redirects there? – DarkGlow (✉) 01:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Having read the (undersourced) history section of the Zap2it article, I guess we'd be looking for consensus on BC Media Group rather than Zap2it. Perhaps it's worth starting a new discussion on the noticeboard on TVOvermind? – DarkGlow (✉) 01:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Zap2It article actually says, The site launched TVOvermind, a blog dedicated to episodic recaps... (emphasis mine) – so the site actually started as a blog. It was sold, and seems to have expanded beyond that now, but I still don't think it has enough editorial oversight to be considered a "reliable source" (which the original main Zap2It website was considered to be). I'm still not convinced that TVOvermind isn't just a web scraper... And, yes, bringing it to the attention of WP:RSN is a good idea – I would ask them to see if they think it's just a web scraper or not, or whether it has high enough editorial oversight of content. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall: I agree with your points. I've always been skeptical of the site hence my original edit summary on Rodrigo's article. I've raised it on RSN, so we'll see where it goes from here. I've reverted the edit for now. – DarkGlow (✉) 01:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall: While I have you here, can I grab your thoughts on this decision to revert my list of episodes split? I'm aware of hundreds of "List of — episodes" articles that have a similar amount of episodes. – DarkGlow (✉) 01:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Alex is right here – 18 episodes isn't nearly enough to justify a LoE split. It's gotten around to some editors that "two seasons" or "a third season renewal announcement" is enough to split-off a LoE article, but it's less about "seasons" than it is about "number of episodes" – around 50 is a good benchmark, and certainly more than 40 episodes is what you're looking for... So, in general, a lot of "streaming television" series will never justify separate LoE articles, because they have "short seasons" (6–13 episodes) and so you need many more seasons (than for broadcast TV series) to get to that "~50 episode" level and most streaming television series never get there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ajay Owen

Hello. I see that you've tagged Template:Ajay Owen, a copy of declined Draft:Ajay Owen. The name is credited in several music articles but the mentions were added by similar IPs. The only sources I can find are a few professional-looking but self-published web pages. I'm wondering whether we should remove all of these mentions as a WP:HOAX or at least a good-faith fantasy. Certes (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: Having looked at the Wikipedia search results for Owen, I don't doubt the music articles he has been credited on. They all seem to be correct. But he is not notable, at least for now anyway – so I would say leave the mentions but try to get the page salted. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was concerned that he has zero presence anywhere on the internet except his own social media pages and website and Wikipedia contributions by the same IP who wrote the "template". I'd have expected a genuine lyricist with so many credits to have at least a mention at Discogs etc., but I'm no music expert. Certes (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: Okay, so I decided to perform a much deeper search into Owen. He has a professional looking website, a large social media presence and a supposed list of co-written songs. However, when I look into the Spotify credits of said songs, there is no mention whatsoever of him. I'd suggest removing all traces of him from the music articles. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do that. They're unsourced; neither the IP nor the draft's author have written about any other topics, and the draft may well be an autobiography. An expert can add them back if they find a source I missed. Certes (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: I checked a bunch of the songs that they are supposedly credited on, such as drivers licence by Olivia Rodrigo; there are only two writers credited for that song and "Ajay Owens" is not one of them. This feels like an attempt to create notability and a name for himself. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Gone. I see Doggy54321, who knows more about music than me (not difficult), has helped. There was also mention on a Canadian company but, as the edit tracks to west Wales and the actual founders have similar names, I'm calling it a bluff. Certes (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: Thank you – I removed all other mentions and have asked for indefinite protection of Ajay Owen – doubt it will be done, but it's worth a shot. – DarkGlow (✉) 23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ajay Owen related edits

Hey DarkGlow. I wanted to talk quickly about the account 194.35.126.220 (talk · contribs). They are indeed a sockpuppet, they edited at Template:Ajay Owen after the user who created Draft:Ajay Owen was indef blocked (so a pretty obvious WP:DUCK). Please keep an eye on their contributions, and revert everything you see. I will be opening an SPI shortly. I will also be tagging both of these pages for speedy deletion using the {{db-g5}} template, it’s better than the template that’s on Template:Ajay Owen (I think it’s db-g2 but I could be wrong) as it’s more descriptive. Also - I had a heck of a fun time trying to find your talk page, I kept typing User talk:Doggy54321 from muscle memory :) D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: everything is now deleted. I’ll open an SPI now. Still keep an eye on their contributions, though. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the message – I was asking for a create protection on the page, but it was rejected and the deciding admin decided to delete and block said editor, though I assume they'll be back with a new IP soon. All the best with the SPI! – DarkGlow (✉) 23:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. I’ll ping you in the SPI so you know when it’s created. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Editorproformyself created both the deleted draft and the deleted template, and has also been blocked. Certes (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: Ah ok, thanks for the clarification! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dove Cameron

What conversation have I missed that you alluded to? The sources in question are patently not reliable and dont outright confirm anything. The additional one you added is exactly as worthless here as the first two. We can easily take this to arbitration and they will remove them in seconds, it's an open and shut type of deal. Unrealiable sources and no explicit confirmation at all let alone one worthy of an encyclopedia. Happy to leave the feminist sources as a compromise since those are more clear-cut. Davefelmer (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: The sources were removed prior to you removing them, and a conversation was had about their reliability. The Girlfriend source explicitly states: "Dove has said she's bisexual". That is all we need; that source alone backs it up. The sources regarding her characters' sexualities are not used to source her characters' sexualities, they are used to reference Cameron's sexuality, which they do. Is there a reason you are trying to remove information regarding her bisexuality? Let's talk about that. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not what a conversation means, and in no world is The Girlfriend a reliable source. Furthermore, the evidence presented in the article is absolutely outrageous and not within a mile of encyclopedic standards. It's literally a series of Twitter teases, none of which even remotely state her sexuality and the article widely speculates based off those. It barely qualifies as gossip, which is not RS at all. And sure, I am removing content about her bisexuality because there is no definitive, encyclopedic evidence of it to source. If you want to play activist, do it somewhere else but that last line of yours will not be looked upon favourably at all when I take it to arbitration which will settle it in seconds. Otherwise, if you have any ACTUAL reliable evidence of her sexuality to present, feel free to introduce it here and if it's clear-cut and well sourced, we can happily include it. Otherwise, we stick to just the feminist comment. Davefelmer (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: The PinkNews reference backs up Cameron being bisexual by referring to her as bisexual more than once. Per WP:RSP: "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." – DarkGlow (✉) 21:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, case closed. Note in particular the "direct quotes from the subject" part ie Dove Cameron herself. She never explicitly says anything herself, and no a captioned Twitter meme is not official or explicit confirmation for an encyclopedia. The article stating it itself with no other evidence is not suitably reliable whichever way you slice it. I sympathize, she might or might not be bisexual in reality and her social media teases might be genuinely hinting at truth behind them instead of just being jokes and memes, but it's not sufficient here so until something concrete and decisive from her comes out on it, it can't be used. Davefelmer (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Except, she has stated that she's bisexual. – DarkGlow (✉) 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And I'd like to note that the tweet from above is from the same day that she gave her characters their sexualities. PinkNews didn't pluck it from nowhere, it's from her Twitter directly. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, the link above seems more clear-cut. I don't know why you didn't bring it up before, it's still not as encyclopedically reliable as I'd like but I'd accept this alongside the PinkNews article as links for the bisexual claim. Davefelmer (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Can You Hear Me? (Doctors)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Can You Hear Me? (Doctors) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Thank you for reviewing the article so quickly! I've completed the recommendations you set. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Can You Hear Me? (Doctors)

Congrats dude! The article you were working on, "Can You Hear Me?" (Doctors), has passed the GA-criteria, becoming a good article on January 16, 2021. Great job on the improvements! For you're hard work, I award you this interesting image of a mallard. Enjoy! Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Can You Hear Me? (Doctors)

The article Can You Hear Me? (Doctors) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Can You Hear Me? (Doctors) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first Good Article! Soaper1234 - talk 09:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Soaper1234: Thank you so much! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Extremely helpful and although disagreements were made in the beginning between us, it was quickly solved and editor gave me very good tips too as a somewhat new user! 😊 Congratulations! Juliatns7 (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm Hebden

I noticed that you removed the edits on the above. I was a bit puzzled as I quoted the source, it was from the (Lancashire Telegraph). He worked at the theatre for many years & I suspect is mentioned in the old Scarborough 'Evening' News, a great deal (Scarborough News now). It is true, but I'm not sure what you're meaning? I will endeavour to improve my editing skills. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix D (talk • contribs)

@Nix D: Hello – I reverted the edits since the article is a WP:BLP and therefore requires an inline citation. Referencing the newspaper in an edit summary is one thing, but how do we know that the fact is backed up in that newspaper if we cannot see it? Also, remember to sign off your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~ symbol). – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Admiral Edward L. Anderson and Admiral Kevin P. Byrne

Hello! I've noticed that you've moved two of my articles to draftspace, likely due to there only being one citation on each page. However, the citations I included are detailed and are from the US Federal Government. While I understand the concern with not having multiple sources, I think it's OK since the reference is extremely reliable. I have written other articles in a similar manner, and other editors have not expressed concern because of the reliability of the source. Would you consider moving the articles back? Thanks! Gunwriter (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gunwriter: Having read the sources, the content in the drafts seems to be copied and pasted. I assume WP:COPYVIO would still apply when copied from government documents? – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 15:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Admiral Byrne and Admiral Anderson (continued)

I believe it is OK to copy and paste, since it is public domain information as long as it is referenced properly.

In an earlier conversation I had about a different article, Dianaa said "Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Christopher E. Finerty. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed."

I believe that I have added the required attribution template that Dianaa is referring to by including the notation that the reference "incorporated public domain material from the document." I have done the same for my other articles as well.Gunwriter (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, under the article Wikipedia:Public domain, it says that "US federal government works—defined as any "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties"[4] and including works prepared by the governments of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and US organized territories[5]—are not eligible for copyright protection."

This shows that the government work is not copyright protected, so there is no copyright to be violated by a copy-paste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunwriter (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gunwriter: Okay then, that's fine regarding copyright – however, I still think it would be better to rewrite some of the information as it currently almost reads as a resumé. I'd be happy to accept the articles back into mainspace if that was achieved, and if everything is sourced, such as the birth year. I don't see that in the government document. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

DarkGlow, I don't know the exact birth year of these admirals, as it is not listed in their documents. As an estimate, I subtract 22 years (the normal age of a college graduate) from the year that the person got their Bachelor's degree. Of course, some people are a couple years older or younger than that, but I believe it is a fair estimate that will give a rough idea of when they were born. I never stated that they were born in that year, only around that year.Gunwriter (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gunwriter: That's original research, and on a BLP, we cannot guess things like that. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I removed the birth years from the articles. Why is it wrong that it reads like a resume? It doesn't use any self-aggrandizing language like many resumes. It only includes the list of military assignments and commands during the officer's career, which I don't see as straying away from a neutral point of view. How would I be able to make it "not sound like a resume" in such a way that it doesn't delete important information? I'm still a new editor trying to learn, so please be patient with me.Gunwriter (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gunwriter: Ok, I've made some small amendments, feel free to submit them for review and I can transfer them back over to mainspace, when the redirects have been speedily dated (since I do not currently have page mover rights). – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 17:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Thank you for taking the time to edit the page. Unfortunately, I was unable to directly move the article back, so I went to the page and copy-pasted it into the article version of the same name. This means that the edit history was lost, and an administrator will need to merge the history. I don't know if there was a way I could have done it, but I tried to "undo" your move to the draft, and that didn't work. After that, I tried to use the "move" tab at the top of the article, but it wouldn't work either. I have added a history merge request to the top of both articles. Thanks for your help!Gunwriter (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hey DarkGlow. Just wanted to say that I found this edit summary to be hilarious: I don’t know why!! I just wanted to let you know that you put a smile on my face. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: I'm glad it could a smile on your face It's true though!! Seen that photo more times than I've been able to see him because of COVID lockdowns here in England Hope you're well! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 12:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m so sorry you haven’t been able to see him :/ I mean, I wouldn’t know as I’ve been single my whole life, but I hope you’re able to see him soon enough. Hope you’re well as well!! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Casualty awards

Present for you: 1992 RTS Awards :) - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: Thank you so much! Was scouring the net and couldn't find anything – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 12:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Get well soon

Hey, I just saw the mental health notice on your page and I wanted to say that I hope you start to feel better soon - I suffer from bad depression, anxiety and OCD, so I get how hard it is to have bad mental health, especially during lockdown. I think that you're one of the nicest wikipedia editors I know, and if you ever want to talk please let me know! I hope you feel better soon :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Thank you so much ♥ I have the exact same three MIs as you (twins!) and they never really affect my editing, but without going too deep, the reasoning is that a lot has happened with my boyfriend, so it's taking an extra emotional toll on my MH and editing. Thank you again for your well wishes! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 22:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey! How are you?

Hey! I wanted to check in and see how you were doing :) I hope you are doing well and things have improved with your boyfriend and in general. I actually just saw your reply to my last message – I thought you had blanked me 🤣🤣 I hope everything is going well 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Aw no I didn't blank you! I'm doing fine, thank you – I hope you're doing well too! ☺️ – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Aww thank you :) I am glad you are doing better (I hope?) BTW, if you would like to chat, here is my soap opera Instagram – @danilosoaps 😊 Would love to make friends! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Followed you – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Brutalmoose

This draft should not have been accepted. It was a request for a redirect, which we normally ask users to request at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirects. AFCHS has this decline reason built in, and this same decline reason is in Template:AfC submission/comments. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: Never knew that prior to this. The draft showed up on the AFC section of the new page feed, and I did think it was unusual since I've never had a redirect on AFC before. Thanks for informing me! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Álvaro Coutinho Aguirre

Hi!! Thanks for your message at Draft:Álvaro Coutinho Aguirre page. As soon as I fix the errors in red, I´ll let you know, posting here a message. :) Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Coronation Street Elaine Jones

Hi, earlier on I said that the character Elaine Jones from Coronation Street was only a recurring not a regular but when you put it back to regular, you said about if it is on the official website, they are classed is regular. However though, Dr Susan Gaddas and Ruby Dobbs are on the official website but they are classed as recurring. Do they need to be regulars too? Thank you for the help -Blackazz968 Blackazz968 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Blackazz968: Oh, are they? Well, now I'm unsure about Elaine's status, since Ruby and Dr Gaddas are definitely recurring characters. However, I'm more inclined to say she's a regular since she has more than one purpose in the show, eg Yasmeen's friend, Tim's mother, etc. Recurring characters often only have one purpose, eg being a doctor, being someone's child. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I see, well thank you anyway, have a nice day Blackazz968 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Olivia O'Brien Page

Heyo, I saw you undid my edit (I redid it) with my provided points, but if we could not have an edit war and if you'd like to further discuss it, please let me know. Thank you. Aidenrouhani (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aidenrouhani: You've added songs to both sections, but you cannot have a song be a promotional single and an actual single... It is one or the other. That is why I reverted you. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 02:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Ahh okay, I didn't know that you cannot have both. I'll remove those from singles, and just leave them as promos, as that is what they seem to be with the previous promotion of them and the context. Thanks! Aidenrouhani (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aidenrouhani: Update to myself; It's not letting me edit + revert at the same time, so I guess I'll leave it be. Don't really have to energy to recreate it :( but it is what it is. I just think it's weird to have it mixed between promo singles and reg. singles when they're all promos for the album/ep and they feature multiple videos other then just audio, but yeah. Aidenrouhani (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Emmerdale taskforce

Hi, I noticed you appear to have resurrected the taskforce here, which caught my attention. I joined it many years back (I think probably some time around 2006/2007) though admittedly I haven't really looked at (m)any Emmerdale articles for quite some time. I'd be interested in chipping in though to see if we could at least get some from Start to C, or a few more into GA (and maybe reassess the existing GA ones). Do you have any specific intentions/goals in mind? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bungle: Hi! The edits I did to the taskforce were just to clean it up a bit, I still need to add the big tasks that need doing (ones that I've noticed) and move the inactive members down to former members. I'll probably message the active ones too, to see if they still want to help out. In terms of tasks, one of them is the lists of characters – the earlier ones are in an awful state! And yes, the two GAs need looking over – I noticed Amy Wyatt was classed as a GA, and was surprised to say the least! I'll add to the taskforce page later. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I hadn't really expected anyone would want to pick this taskforce up again (previously a WP in its own right) however I'd be willing to chip in to at least try and look at doing some tidying up. Many of my "earlier days" edits were to these articles, though there did seem to be more of an active community then. I do agree that trying to see if any former members are interested (if indeed still active) would be worthwhile. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bungle: Yeah, I've been editing since 2018, and in that time, there has never been any activity in the soap taskforces. I've reactivated the Emmerdale one in the hope that a few people, like yourself, will join in. Although I expect most of the editing to come from me, reactivating it means that there is always the chance that others will join. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In defence of the Amy Wyatt article, it was a very good GA until a bunch of sources were depreciated and removed. It was also a GA before the character returned, which is why that section is lacking and the article is likely not looking as good as it once did. Years ago, another editor noticed the current cast articles were in a bad state and tried to get others involved, but it's a big task. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: Yeah, it's a shame about how many sources are increasingly being deemed as unreliable – almost like an attack on us soap editors lol, especially with Metro not looking too great on the RSP. I don't doubt it was great before deprecated sources were taken from it. And yeah, it's a massive task, one I've almost shied away from starting, but since I've completed the bulk of the work on the Doctors universe, I need a big task like this to concentrate on. I'm currently working on an article for Leanna Cavanagh while I do the lists, with other character articles in mind. I'd like to think my work on the Doctors articles are somewhat decent, and that I can improve Emmerdale in the same way! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 00:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Amy Wyatt is an article I worked on and it was promoted to GA in 2011. 10 years have passed and I have not updated it. Information has been also been removed and has not replaced. The other GA article remains stable and unchanged - so why reassess? All the help that the soap editors have given you DarkGlow. Then you go and throw AFDs around like confetti and take up redirecting articles like a new found hobby.Rain the 1 01:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please let's not get into an argument. We are all part of the great soaps community and should stick together DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no argument. But I think Rain, like me, has been disheartened by the recent PROD-ing and redirecting, especially when it's done by a fellow soaps editor. Hopefully something will come out of the Emmerdale taskforce being reactivated, as a lot of the character articles need help. Perhaps improving the current characters should be the priority? - JuneGloom07 Talk 05:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Raintheone and JuneGloom07: Sorry guys I noticed an increase in the amount of scrutiny that soap articles were receiving, so I started looking through them myself. Using the character notability standards on WP:SOAPS, I went through the characters, and once I start a task like that, I have to finish it and do it all by the book (perks of having OCD – not an excuse or a "bad thing" so don't pity me). Perhaps I went overboard. I genuinely believed the articles had no scope or material to be expanded, otherwise I'd have consulted editors like yourselves. I did regret PRODing them rather than redirecting them, which is why I removed as many as I could remember placing. I redirected a bunch per those notability standards, as it felt redundant to draftify them. They weren't in a fit state to be in mainspace, so I hope you understand why I did it? I've been involved with redirecting, PROD, AfD, NPP, AfC, etc for over a year now and have a lot of experience, so it's not really a "newfound hobby", but I can completely understand your shock and anger when you open Wikipedia to find your watchlist clogged with my obsessive annoying edits. I hate to think I've upset two longstanding editors in my community who, like you said, have helped me a lot, and I hope that eventually we can put this behind us? ♥ – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh DarkGlow. I am sorry that I have made you defend your edits like this. In regards to your AFDs and redirects I understand that you were judging them on the current state. A poorly sourced article does not meet the notability standards. I think what you could have done is checked to see which articles had potential. I do not believe all of the characters will have an article. I am currently going through them and adding sources. This will take some time but the issue is that there are no lists to merge into like other soaps. You have not upset me but I now feel obliged to fix these articles.. I guess better articles is a win win. As for the Emmerdale taskforce - that can only be a good thing! Building articles is more fun than bulldozing them.Rain the 1 12:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Raintheone: Don't worry, I completely understand your anger – if I logged on to see a chunk of articles that I watch proposed for deletion, I'd be annoyed too! If there were character lists, I'd have certainly merged them into it, as that's what I've always done with other soap characters that don't meet GNG. And I don't want you to think I was judging your edit skills with my comment about the Amy Wyatt article – I was more commenting on the lack of attention it's had in recent years, but that's on everyone in the soap editing community, not just you! I may go over it at some point. I'd love to help with the Brookside articles but unfortunately, I know nothing about it since I'm a bit too young to have ever seen it but I trust that you and June can make them far better than I could! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 12:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sure we will improve those articles. One thing it would be good to address with Emmerdale articles is the recent removal of information cited to deprecated sources. There are instances where information has been left unsourced or chunks of information removed disrupting the flow of the article. This happened in Amy Wyatt article and many others. That article would also benefit from more information about Jamieson's portrayal.Rain the 1 16:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Raintheone: Yeah, the information that was taken with the recent deprecations was frustrating. I'm going to work on the characters by order of first appearance, so I've began work over on Eric Pollard, which was completely unsourced for some reason. Then I'll work my way down the list. I'm hoping to create multiple character articles in the process, such as Leanna Cavanagh (working on her in my sandbox atm), Liv Flaherty, Sarah Sugden Jr, Vanessa Woodfield, etc etc. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Just going to mention that I have a draft for Vanessa already. I think improving the articles that already exist over creating new ones is a good idea, as the characters in the lists are at less risk of deletion. I did some work on Diane not too long ago that I'll try and continue, and I might take on a couple of the Dingles too. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: Yeah, I've put the Leanna sandbox on the back-burner for now to focus on improvements. I'm six characters into the character list, so I'll probably work on Leanna when I get down to her, same with Liv. For the first six, I've found it fairly difficult to find a lot for their early years of development, but hopefully, what I've managed to forage is decent. This probably isn't aided by me not having watched ED pre-2018 lol. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it maybe worth having these kind of discussions on the taskforce talk page, rather than a userpage, so that anyone else that may want to be involved can do so directly via the taskforce? I hadn't even noticed my initial query had evolved so much, though I guess it should be shifted somewhere more central now? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still on board, I need something to distract me from stalling on a couple Neighbours projects and at this point I'm kinda tidying up sources EastEnders articles and little else. Conquistador2k6 17:46 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential Threat

Dark Glow, this user named Connorguy99 (talk) is about to start a potential edit war. And he’s currently making some very unconstructive edits on Ian Beale’s page. Stating:

“Characters that are on a break are NOT removed from the official EastEnders cast list - Tameka Empson remained on the list for a year and a half after her break, and June Brown remained for a year too. Adam Woodyatt's removal from the official cast list is indicative of more than a "break" - which I don't believe has been confirmed by any source related to the show. Connorguy99 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)”

This statement is absolutely nonsense when he is the one being the remover. Ian’s only on break and should not be removed. I think he needs to be reported. He doesn’t appear to want to stop. Could you help me out bud? WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And also, I checked his talk page, he’s been known to have a potential rude attitude if warned. WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@WikiFlame50: I've commented on the talk page. I'm not going to report them (yet) since an edit dispute/difference in opinion is not considered vandalism. If they continue, it may be considered disruptive editing and may warrant a report. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I’ll let you know if I spot anything else WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Well Done for all of your hard work on Belle Dingle and for creating amazing articles such as Juliet Nightingale and Cher Winters! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Thank you so much! ♥ I have lots more work to do on Belle's article, so to receive a barnstar already made me smile – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 15:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, definitely looking in better shape (Belle Dingle). I'd imagine there should be easily enough suitable sources that with further cleanup and polishing, this could soon be among the first since the taskforce renewal to head towards GA. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bungle: Thank you! When I realised how much is out there for Belle, I also thought it could potentially achieve GA status. I've just added some more, and there are two more major storylines of Belle's (her relationship with Lachlan and mental illness relapse caused by Jamie) I need to add to development. The storylines need revising and trimming, as well as an update at the bottom, but that's fairly easy work, so I'm leaving it as a last task for the page. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

Gentle request in the future, please don't invite yourself to an edit war. Skip it and report the issue to the appropriate noticeboard instead. --Izno (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: That's fine. A gentle request in return, perhaps a a more long-term block for the offending user. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You guys did a good job. Hopefully this won’t happen anymore WikiFlame50 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

But He won’t drop it. He’s still getting pretty angry WikiFlame50 (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@WikiFlame50: Yup, I don't believe we've heard the last of this shit, and I'm already bored of being mentioned by Connorguy99 every five minutes when they want to have another moan. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t blame you bud. He will get over it eventually. People get bored of it after a day or so. WikiFlame50 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What Izno said, and don't post to their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• This edit was clearly inappropriate. Let me be a bit more forceful where Izno was gentle: you were also edit warring, and if you do so again in the future, you will be blocked from editing. While the Connorguy99 was clearly out of line, in my view you are also rather lucky that you were not blocked too. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ackley Bridge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ackley Bridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ackley Bridge

The article Ackley Bridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ackley Bridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lynne Hobbs

Hey. Lynne Hobbs appears to have been moved to the incorrect title of Lynne Slater (EastEnders). I followed the series of page moves and found your request at WP:RM/TR, and I was wondering if you accidentally switched the names? The character's WP:COMMONNAME is definitely Hobbs. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: Yes, that was me – complete accident! I've had shooting pain toothache for a few days now that feels like knives being pushed slowly through my gums whenever my paracetamols wear off, so I've not been that active on here lately – and it seems when I am, I make a mistake ffs! Pinging 5 albert square, would you be able to revert the move back to Lynne Hobbs? – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 10:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done 5 albert square (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, happens to the best of us! The editor who moved them has been warned about discussing future moves, so hopefully that won't happen again. Feel better soon! - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all of your help with the Emmerdale articles recently! ❤ It is great seeing everyone working together! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Thank you! And you're right, I enjoy seeing everyone come together for a collaborative effort. I certainly couldn't do this alone! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 23:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Keep up the great work! (If you want! Your happiness and health are more important of course) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Classification

Hi just want to ask how come on all Wikipedia pages we are now changing the classifications from Past to Former now? Adavid299 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adavid299: Hey – there was a discussion here. Initially, the template said to use "past, present or future" for classification, so we all changed "former" to "past" to comply. However, we then discussed the actual definitions of the terms.

Past: "gone by in time and no longer existing."

Former: "having previously been a particular thing."

Therefore, it was decided that former is more appropriate since a soap character that has left does still exist. Eg, I can watch an old clip of them online so they still exist. Hope this explains it for you! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks i will continue changing articles that have yet to be changed if I find any. Adavid299 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Hi DarkGlow, I have received your message about my edit. In the show that was the time frame that was specifically mentioned. Thanks, Mocolley220 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocolley220 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Dancing on ice

Hi can you please check the dancing on Ice page please as a user with this name (Lauren-mae69) keeps editing and saying it's been confirmed that the series will return in 2022. I did read the source that is there and it does say ITV have yet to confirm another series. I did revert it to say it is yet to be confirmed whether if Dancing on ice will return. But that user I mentioned just reverted it back to say it will be back. Could you help please? Adavid299 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adavid299: Done. I found a source that confirms its return. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks mate Adavid299 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Advice

If an IP sock starts bothering you again, feel free to let me know. Some people thrive on attention. With these kinds of trolls, it's best to Revert, block, and ignore. Sro23 (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sro23: Thank you. I'll ping you again if they return, which I have no doubt they will. Would you be able to protect two of my userpages that have been created since the incident? this and this. Thanks again! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 18:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

DarkGlow, I'd just like to echo what Sro23 said. Your comments at User talk:2A02:C7D:8A4D:2D00:F97F:767D:7ABE:E254 were not useful, and at best, not in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ackley Bridge

On 18 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ackley Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first episode of the British television drama series Ackley Bridge was re-edited following the Manchester Arena bombing, as scenes showed a student at the centre of a bombing hoax? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ackley Bridge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ackley Bridge), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Lucas Johnson

Hi I was right changing Lucas to Former wasn't I? That was his last scene wasn't it? Adavid299 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adavid299: Yep, that's correct, he has left! It does require a source though, so when you add a character exit, please add a source. Don't worry about that this time, as I plan to add to the article later – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you want me to add a source now? Adavid299 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)