User talk:Lepricavark/Archive 11

	The Original Barnstar
	This is for hitting one million edits! Impressed with your work! Best wishes. Red Director (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Much appreciated. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congratulations on your millionth edit! ϢereSpielChequers 18:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you! LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, a person mentioned there a number of instances of |[[professional baseball]] [[baseball player|player]][5] . I was wondering if you know how to fix this with a bot and if you could, I am not an expert in anything automated, I just do grammar stuff. Wamalotpark (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

While also removing the link over "player" by the way. Wamalotpark (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I noticed that discussion at the baseball project and have been waiting to see other responses. While I tend to agree that unlinking player is a good idea, I want to see some more input before I do anything. I am currently using WP:AWB to work on changing [[professional baseball]] to professional [[baseball]] in player bio leads. It will be a few more days before I'm finished with that project, and then I should be able to take a closer look at your request. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see, I don't think there was any mention of "player" besides the one user pointing it out. It seems like a super small subset of the players, so I didn't think discussion on it was warranted and I'm pretty sure no one would object, but I understand. Thanks for your help. Wamalotpark (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No problem. I agree that major discussion is unnecessary, but it's best to be sure before making the edits. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Also I'm sure you've got it covered but I was thinking about managers and other staff, and lists of things like List of New York Yankees seasons should be changed to just baseball too. Wamalotpark (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Technically, we only have consensus for a change on player bios (presumably managers would be covered by that as well). I see you've made the change at the linked Yankees seasons list. I agree with your decision, and now we'll see if anyone challenges it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Satie: "the proposed infobox doesn't really provide much value." - For you, obviously. Have you considered the approach of others? On Bach's birthday, and the centenary of a Ravel opera pictured on the Main page. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the way that RfC was proposed. It's not something that I can support, and I would prefer to see less of it in the future. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I have to ask why, besides “I just don’t like it”. Plus I agree your vote doesn’t address the issue, and RfCs aren’t ballots. If you can’t find a legitimate reason, even a bad one, then nobody has to listen to your !vote. Dronebogus (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I read again "I'm not comfortable ...", "I would prefer ...". Asking again: Have you considered the approach of others? Have you read the 2013 Signpost article? ... the 2023 Mozart RfC? ... this comment in the same discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The above comment is a demonstration of why I'm not happy with how that RfC was handled. Dronebogus is far too often spoiling for a fight, and it seems that was the whole point of opening that RfC in the first place. If it works, we'll see more of it. Unfortunately, the infobox doesn't provide enough value to justify the potential disruption. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely with you that deciding per RfC if an article gets in line with what Brian Boulton wrote in 2013 is a waste of time. ("spoiling for a fight"? ... what would you do when your addition was reverted?) I asked in 2018 (Sibelius) how many more RfCs we'd need. We got Mozart. Have you read it? If you have little time just read what Voceditenore wrote there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Gerda, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I will be not !voting in support of the infobox. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You disappoint me by not looking but so be it. If you don't have the time to look at a relevant editorial ("Infoboxes - time for a fresh look") or a relevant RfC ("Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed article."), no time that is to inform yourself, then perhaps don't !vote at all? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The aggressively anti-infobox users are the ones looking for a fight— if anyone challenges their position they immediately become hostile and can act like they’re in the right because they didn’t technically “start it” even though they are IMO completely in the wrong to begin with (having a different opinion is completely acceptable; years-long WP:OWNership brigading is not). Not that I think you’re one of those users, but I agree with Gerda that it’s frustrating you can’t be bothered to do some research and reconsider your decision. Dronebogus (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Fine, let's address this evidence-free assertion that I didn't do any research. Has it occurred to either of you that maybe I'm just not interested in getting drawn into an argument over those other discussions linked above in addition to this argument over the Satie discussion? That doesn't mean I haven't done any research or haven't read any of those links. I just don't care to argue about them. Furthermore, contrary to your previous post, I did provide a legitimate reason for my opposition. I don't think the proposed infobox is worth the trouble. I'm sorry if you don't like that argument, but you are not the arbiter of validity. The RfC is clearly going to be closed in your favor, yet here you are expressing frustration, and assuming bad faith, over one of the few !votes in opposition. That is the behavior of someone looking for a fight. Look elsewhere. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

As you addressed me as well, I'd simply like to correct you: you didn't say "not worth the trouble" (as a ligitimate reason"), you said "doesn't really provide much value". I found it worth finding out what that meant. I still don't see you accepting that parameter-value pairs provide some value to some other people, - which for me is reason enough to provide that value. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Music

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

We sang yesterday, and I still have the music in my head (by 6 composers). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Pachelbel's work outside the Canon in D. I'll have to check it out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Singet dem Herrn for a starter ;) - Today: 300 years Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, my story. Planning to write an article on a church I saw recently - as it happens it's also about Mary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It sounds beautiful. I don't speak the language of music, but I do enjoy listening to it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The language of music is making it and listening, - writing is a bit besides the point ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Today: Jörg Streli, an architect to whom you can listen (in German, though) and the Jahrhundertring, nominated for GA (both hidden on the main page) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lee Roupas (3rd nomination) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Roupas (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Note: If you are getting this notification from me, you either created this article and have made been active on Wikipedia in the past calendar year, substantially added to the article after a stub was created and have also been active on Wikipedia in the last year, or you have edited this article in the past year. Mpen320 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I saw your note about the continued edits. Consider that their 2nd warning. Take it to ANI if it persists (WP:FAITACCOMPLI). I personally can't take admin action, as I'm WP:INVOLVED. —Bagumba (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will handle it accordingly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Interested in creating a Wikipedia page as part of share information about my academic roles 86.109.14.198 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

No thank you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

On a separate topic, I've been given a hard time for replacing piped links to miscapitalized redirects, with JWB for a while and manually for the last couple of years. The complaint is that those edits are purely "cosmetic" and just fill up people's watchlists with minor junk. But I do it for the effect on the maintenance category and report Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations, so I argue it's not "purely cosmetic". This seems completely analogous to your placing Template:Use mdy dates tags in articles. Do you get any pushback on that? Or do you know if there's a consensus somewhere that such things are OK to do in bulk, WP:COSMETIC notwithstanding? Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think clearing a maintenance category is cosmetic work. Otherwise, why even have the category? To answer your question, the only pushback I've gotten was over the fact that I was originally placing the template above the short description instead of below it (which I would argue is merely a cosmetic complaint). After tinkering with AWB a little bit, I was able to resolve that issue. I haven't gotten any other complaints about my adding the template. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Good to know. I may ask for your support on this next time it comes up (if/when I'm allowed to work on such things). Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

L, at the ANI thread, you wrote you wrote: I don't recall the specific discussions, but I know I've butted heads with Dicklyon over capitalization issues ... But the only place I can find where we've interacted before was in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon, where you defended me against accusations, writing:

• I think the suggestion of a topic ban was made much too hastily. Despite the enthusiastic attempts by a few editors to personally discredit Dicklyon, he is at most guilty of overzealous enforcement of the Manual of Style. It would not be reasonable to impose sanctions here and this matter should have been handled with more AGF and less venom. While I don't think we are in boomerang territory just yet, cheap shots like this one are not okay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So I'm wondering if that thread is what got into your memory, or if there's something else I did that you didn't like. Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

In the same 2022 ANI thread you advised Robert McClenon to maybe not say so much without first understanding what's going on. I guess he doesn't learn any better than I do. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I know that I strongly disagreed with certain sports-related page moves that have happened within the past couple of years (pertaining to things like the NFL Draft and the NFC/AFC Championship Games). I thought I'd had some pointed interactions with you and/or SMcCandlish that were in some way connected to those moves, but when I recently looked at the specific RMs, I saw that I had posted very little. So at this point, I don't actually know what I'm remembering. I don't recall the ANI thread that you've linked, but it certainly isn't the first time that I've defended an editor in one thread and disagreed strongly with them in another one. I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to decide if that's symptomatic of open-mindedness, senility, or both. (I vote for both.) Also, I've not had great results with I've tried to use the Editor Interaction Analyzer. I saw the results you linked, and there's got to be a lot of stuff missing (including the RMs I mentioned above). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe that tool is as senile as we are. I'll let you know if I find anything else. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, I found 2 RMs, over a year ago, where you took opposite position of me: and . Let me know if you think either of those constitutes "butted heads" or other behavior worthy of sanction. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Look, I don't really see much point in further back-and-forth on those RMs (or the capitalization issue broadly-speaking). We have a fundamental disagreement on this particular matter, and I don't feel as though my comments so far have been very effective. The matter is now at ArbCom, where I do not intend to participate. I don't know what will happen there, but I do know that whole dispute is so aggravating to me that it's best for my well-being if I simply stay out of it. That's all I have to say. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I just really want to understand whether I've succeeded or failed at improving my behavior since the Feb 2024 blocks. I try, but I got all this negative input at ANI that's hard to interpret. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

In retrospect, I wish I hadn't taken such a harsh tone at ANI. My recollection has proven to be so spotty that I doubt I can provide any useful input. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• July 9–15 - Call for candidates
• July 18–22 - Discussion phase
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Lol, if I ran, I'd make Walter Mondale look like Usain Bolt. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do think you'd do well with the tools... but I also recognize that you may be unlikely to succeed due to personal interactions. That's part of what I respect about you though, you're not scared of the blowback or worried about future aspersions, you do what you think is best, unabashedly, for all the right reasons. People who do such, and do without the tools already, create enemies when calling out those who have wronged others, and will often not end up with the tools themselves. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I don't often get compliments here, so it means a lot that you took the time to say that. I agree with your assessment, although I will admit that I do come on a little too strong from time to time, which would be more problematic if I were an admin. Also, I don't really have much need or desire for the tools. There was a time when I aspired to adminship, but I've long since realized that I serve Wikipedia better as a rank-and-file gnome. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think any of us get compliments on Wikipedia nearly as much as we deserve to, which is why spamming the thanks button and handing out barnstars is all the more important. We all do meaningful work that's appreciated by so many more than we're aware of. I've never felt that more than when my activity has dropped the last few months, when I've had people asking me where I've been and telling me that they're sorry to hear I've been demotivated. The absence of folks often brings out those who want to let others know they're appreciated, and there are far too few of those out there. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Well said. I try to be generous with my use of the thanks button, but often I go through long spells where it doesn't even cross my mind. Thanks for the reminder. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Lepricavark, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 23–29 – Voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

When I saw the retired banner, I had to say something. I want you to know you are a great editor and the project will take a hit with your departure. However, I cannot speak for you when it comes to what you feel you should do for yourself. Hope your life outside of Wikipedia is great and you do what is best for you. This project will be here if you decide to return sometime. I will miss you on here but I am thankful our paths got to cross. Red Director (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)