Sometimes messages slip through the cracks. Sorry about that! I keep this list to let me know what I still need to respond to – feel free to add your own name and message here if you're still looking for a response from me.
Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi leeky, just wanted to ask for personal feedback! Sorry if it's a bit weird asking you about something you're not involved in, but hey-ho, bebold! I've been doing some stuff related to colours on 2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary following some recent changes and I just wanted to check on how I'm doing in the discussion on the article talk page – am I being confrontational, is the RfC okay, was opening it the right thing to do, general things like that. Sorry if this seems a bit nit-picky but I'd like to make sure I'm doing things right. Thanks a lot! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, DimensionalFusion! I would say you're absolutely doing fine – you had an idea and you've been pushing for it in the proper channels, civilly and without asserting ownership. If you ask me, though, you're too good of a content writer to get sucked into a dispute about infobox colors. ArbCom just opened a case – where we may have to sanction very experienced editors – over a dispute on the capitalization of article titles. We lose too many good people this way. (Although I will point out that "unremixable files" cannot be uploaded to commons. see {{cc-nd}}.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like a bit of a silly thing to argue about, which is why I was a bit surprised an escalation to RfC was necessary. But I wouldn't know about being too good of a content writer for this sort of thing for not wanting to self-judge... :)
And to your other point, I did note that non-remixable files are not allowed on commons under the non-free use policy
As a matter of policy, neither of you should be directly changing the map when an RfC is ongoing, no matter what the status quo was, even though there's no 3RR violation. (it's a bigger sin to edit away from the status quo ante bellum, but not not against the rules to edit war back towards it.)
There's nothing else you can do. Their case at AN3 ain't going nowhere. You probably wouldn't get anywhere taking them to ANI, either. Outside of that, the RfC is going to go the way it goes and you've done your part. Seriously, I would encourage you to walk away from this discussion to the extent possible and find an editing project more worth your time and talent. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I really appreciate this advice. I think I'll do just that and essentially ignore the article to wait for community consensus, whatever that may be! Thanks again, DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 01:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Fitzhenry DYK
Hello, and thank you for your copyedit of this hook! Your version is much smoother. It also made me notice that there's no wikilink to Elizabeth Gunning (writer) in the hook; I included one in my original nom, but it didn't make it to the prep area (before you revised it). Can you let me know if the removal was likely intentional, or add the link back if not? Thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, LEvalyn! Yeah, I tend to remove non-bolded links in hook copyediting; because the purpose of DYK is to show readers new and improved creations, I don't like diverting them to side articles (even though I do know Gunning is also your work :P). The only situation in which I'd include a non-bolded link is either (1) it somehow improves readership of the bolded article or (2) there's a very compelling need for it to be there for context reasons, neither of which apply here. That's my general philosophy, anyways :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, that makes sense! I hadn't thought of it that way; I was just thinking, there's no way readers have heard of Elizabeth Gunning... but I can see that the book article will also let them find out about her as needed. Thanks for explaining! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
