Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

AlphaLemur (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. There seems to be an unnecessary highlight and repetition of a fact (the persons birthname). It's unnecessary to repeat this a further two extra times in this article. It was already mentioned in the profile box before your edit, and this was sufficient. Mentioning it a further two times in the main body only weakens the article, and isnt relevant to the main content. Thank you for your help. Leapnet (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was good reason for my changes. Please see the talk page of the article for discussion about article content. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but my point was about the unnecessary repetition. You mention it twice in a row - once in the opening line, and then again once again straight after, in the 'early life and education' section. Could you not delete one of these?. Seems little need to mention it twice in straight succession?. Leapnet (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep article discussion to the talk page of the article. That way, other editors are aware and may want to contribute. I have explained there why it is mentioned twice. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

could you explain again please?. its now there 3 times - once where it was originally, and again now another 2 times - in the first sentence, and then again straight after in the second sentence. repeating it multiple times doesnt seem to improve the article, or add any new valuable info, and other similar articles dont do this. Leapnet (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Laterthanyouthink. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 18 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey.

And wishing you a joyful Merry Christmas and a wonderful, happy 2026. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 20:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And best wishes to you too. :-) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi Laterthanyouthink, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Teresa Palmer, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was The Family Next Dooradded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent guidance re WP:DOB. I added some information on the sourcing on the article's talk page which I think addresses it but I think you know far more about what is appropriate and what isn't than I do. I checked my local library's Who's Who which definitely has it as 3rd March 1954 and the online search of it is consistent with that too. I don't think it's necessary there be an online source but a well-regarded source, for which I think Who's Who qualifies.

Would appreciate you reinstating it should you think that's correct.

~~~~ BallaratNation (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I responded on the talk page of the article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Laterthanyouthink,

I noticed that you have reverted my edit where I removed the external links section with the official website on the SA Socialists article. I thought a link like this should not be included in a seperate section if it is stated once per MOS:NOTSEEALSO.

Are the rules for see also and external links sections different? I thought they were similar enough that rules can overlap.

Do you think it's best to take this discussion to the article's talk page? I was wondering about it and I thought we could get more opinions but that may not be necessary and cause somewhat of a pile-on with various opinions.

All the best, Qwerty123M (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerty123M - yes, always best to take it to the talk page and ping me there (before reverting, and I should have done this before reverting yours, but I was right in the middle of editing something else, sorry). See also rules do not apply to WP:EL, but tbh I don't think there is a specific rule about repeating urls mentioned in the infobox in an EL section. I was just following a model that I have observed over years of editing, and always follow when creating new articles, and I have never seen one removed when adding it myself. I think that readers may not notice the one in the infobox but will see it if labelled as official in the EL section. But feel free to have a discussion about this on the talk page or somewhere where other editors can see it too - maybe the talk page of the EL page? I am always happy to be overruled by consensus or a new rule I am not aware of. :-) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Editors (novel), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Editors (novel) (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susie Dent, a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noted that you recently removed a birthdate from Andrea Michaels because it was poorly sourced. I've put the city and year back, with what I hope is a suitable source. I value your work on womens' articles, so don't want to accidentally get on the wrong side of you. Cheers, Scott. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScottDavis, good to see you active again! No, that's absolutely fine, thanks very much. I am constantly removing DOBs that are not sourced per WP:DOB, and don't always get around to hunting down sources to find a valid one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Twelve (Australian TV series), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Binge was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laterthanyouthink. Thank you for your work on Commission Internationale de Ravitaillement. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this interesting article on an internatinal institution; it was only briefly in existance, but was evidently important at a key time in Britain and France.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, it was interesting! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laterthanyouthink. I wanted to let you know that I closed the above MFD, as it was at the wrong venue. I started a new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep time (disambiguation). If you want nominate other disambiguation pages in the future, please do so at AFD, not MFD. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Chess enjoyer. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi. You're the 2nd editor to do this. When you want to thank or comment about work done on an article, as you recently did on my talk page, please contact the person who did the work. Otherwise it's just spam. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly made an error, caused by the automatic reviewing tool. I apologise. I removed the note from your page within less than a minute of adding it, after noting my error in the article history. You had created the original as a redirect, so you were the recorded creator, hence the automated note.

And then you added it a second time -- I hadn't even noticed that you had added and removed it before that. Yes, I understand that it was a mistake (even without seeing your previous revert), and no need to apologize, but you're the 2nd editor to do this, so it would seem that the people who need to be notified probably aren't. The automated process should ideally distinguish creations and expansions from mere rd's, so that you don't have to second-guess it all the time. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't re-add it. Perhaps there was an edit conflict, or it didn't publish properly? Yes, I agree, the automated process should ideally distinguish who created an article out of a previous redirect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, looking at your talk page history. I definitely didn't re-add it manually, nor send an instruction via the tool. I can only think that it was the tool again, somehow malfunctioning. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]