User talk:Prhartcom · Paulipedia

Welcome! Please feel free to leave me a comment on any subject below. I look forward to replying to you. —Prhartcom

re Talk:Snowy (character)#Persistent vandalism

Has there ever been an SPI on this? There is currently a three-month block on a recent IP, but the latest IP is a mobile so no point in reporting this one. Meters (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Asked for pending protection. More than 4 years of this stupidity... Meters (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Meters, I see what you mean. I haven't been online lately and hadn't noticed; I appreciate your diligence. No, there has never been a sock puppet investigation; it would be great to launch one if you feel it would help end this. The vandal's IP address changes but always geolocates to the vicinity of Milford, Connecticut. For example, 68.191.55.129 did this vandalism and also vandalized many other articles, was warned, acknowledged the warnings, but was never blocked. Let me know if anything else can be done. —Prhart com♥ 12:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Sebastian James

I removed your comment. I already blocked that user for his incivility, so the matter has been addressed. Thank you, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 08:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Caknuck, thanks. I agree with your block reason for this person. People like that make one want to give up on this community. —Prhart com♥ 03:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Caknuck, by the way, it wasn't necessary for you to remove my comment without my permission. Don't do that again. —Prhart com♥ 04:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was necessary, as you were warning a user a) for an offense for which they had already been blocked, and b) that had taken place over a week prior. I am actively monitoring and trying to mediate this user's behavior. Your warning did nothing to improve the situation. In general, if an admin is taking ownership of a dispute or conflict in which you are not actively involved, then you should not inject yourself into the conversation. Period. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 23:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment Instructions

I have reverted your edit to the GAR instructions. {{subst:GAR}} is a required step for reviewers to follow, particularly new reviewers. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tintin (character)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tintin (character) 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 Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tintin (character)

The article Tintin (character) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tintin (character) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tintin (character)

The article Tintin (character) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Tintin (character) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

GA reviews

Thanks for all your comments at Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident. On the off chance you might review another article I'm familiar with, here's a quick list of articles I think I could get up to GA fairly quickly if I had your eyes to help me:

If any of them appeal to you, I'll nominate them for GA. They're not Tintin, but maybe they'll grab your interest. Feoffer (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Very tempting, Feoffer! Let me take a look at your articles; thanks for the offer. Before I even look at them though, it's good to know you have likely already checked them for the kinds of things we just took care of in this article. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion of Smith-Rock! I hope I can someday get you to look at one or more of the above articles. Travis Walton incident in particular has the makings of a really riveting article, we basically understand what happened now and of course, it didn't involve an alien abduction. Roswell incident is also a very important article and there are many excellent editors working to improve it -- I'd love your feedback on the first three sections (up to 1994) but the rest of the article isn't ready yet for someone with your talents for a final polish. Meanwhile, Rhodes UFO photographs would, I think, be the easiest to push into GA, but not a very exciting one. Feoffer (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a ping, Roswell incident is now up for GA, if you're interested. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

GAI

Can you clarify which part you feel was not an improvement? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello PMC, cool name BTW. You must be referring to the GA instructions page. Yes, of course. It's about readability. I've been keeping an eye on this page for awhile. Recently, I made an edit to this paragraph that is an overview description of the nominator and reviewer, and finally the paragraph stated the two roles in two sentences: one sentence for nominator and one for reviewer, that mirror each other, two parts in each sentence. First part is "nominators are" or "reviewers are". Second part is the statement of their two opposing roles regarding contributing significantly to the article. When reading the paragraph, it goes down easy and clear. If any reader needs more clarification, they will notice the footnotes or locate the Notes. Meanwhile, the two-sentence overview of the page is very readable to everyone. Prhartcom (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is that no one actually reads the footnotes, because people constantly ask questions that are answered within the footnotes (such as what constitutes a drive-by nomination). The purpose of putting them in the main text is ensuring that they are front and center for people to actually read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

PMC, you're right, actually. You could add a new sentence in the Prepare section that just says "Ensure you have participated on the article talk page, have contributed to at least 10% of the article, and should rank in the top five in authorship." I notice the Instruction page has been modified lately so you may as well add something like this. Prhartcom (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The point in adding it to the lead was putting it where it is most likely to be read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

PMC, I just made an edit to the Instruction page, inspired by you. We'll see if it stays. Check it out. Prhartcom (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

In no way does that address the efn issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: GA backlog drive

Hello! Just a reminder that, if you have time, you are welcome to join the ongoing GA backlog drive; it runs until the end of January. You are receiving this message because you signed up on the drive page but have not yet listed any reviews. We hope to see you there! Either way, happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Have now begun. Prhartcom (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Unicorn (Tintin) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unicorn (Tintin), 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/Unicorn (Tintin) 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, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:The Adventures of Tintin location redirects has been nominated for merging

Category:The Adventures of Tintin location redirects has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fram (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary Prhartcom 🎉

Hey @Prhartcom. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 19 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. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prhartcom. You have new messages at Talk:Winter_Spring_Summer_or_Fall#GA%20review.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

M. Billoo 15:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Please undo your recent reversion

Hi @Prhartcom. You recently reverted an addition I made to 2001 Biggin Hill Airshow crashes. I don't think COATRACK applies, as this information addition was suggested during the A-Class review. I am not interested in entering an edit war, so I would appreciate you restoring the content. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The reason the information is important is because of the previous introduction of the law prohibiting passengers from being flown during airshows following the 1980 Biggin Hill Invader crash. This rule was then broken during the 2001 airshow, where those crashes then occurred. 11WB (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello 11WB, good to be chatting with you again. Agreed; let's not edit war, thank you. I was suprised to see this addition; I thought some random clueless person added it, and became even more surprised to see that it came from you, the creator of the good article. It absolutely should not be right here. Let's put ourselves in the eyes of the reader. After we finish reading the exciting lede, we are primed to read about the 2001 crashes. We read the Background section which skillfully introduces us to the three things we need to know about about the 2001 crashes: the Air Fair, the Vampire, and the King Cobra. Of course this Background section is tight and short as it leads us to that summer at the fair with the doomed aircraft. We would derail the story that we are about to tell if we introduce a similar but different airplane crash story now. People would be confused, lose interest, and stop reading. Can you communicate the new information somewhere else in a better way? Prhartcom (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you prefer a certain order for Wikipedia articles, however each type of article, this one being an aviation accident, needs to follow WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC.

Specifically, "Accident – A description of the events leading up to the accident and the accident itself. Additional headings and alternate headings (like Ditching) can be used related to the nature of the accident. May use subheadings for "Background", "Weather conditions", etc. to put the flight in context."

Wikipedia can't put the preference of one editor over multiple others (consensus for this addition was established already), and the project especially cannot ignore the written structure guidelines. I'll ping @Mjroots for their opinion, but I ask you again to please consider undoing your reversion. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I have zero interest in entering a content dispute, so I'll leave this here. @Mjroots is welcome to add their opinion. This information does have a place in the article and is contextually relevant, so COATRACK does not apply. If you believe the information should be "communicated somewhere else in a better way", I will leave that ball in your court. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

As I've been asked, IMvHO, the 1980 accident provides important background info. It should be included. That said, I'll not force the edit. You both seem to be able to sort this out between yourselves. Mjroots (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

11WB, I'm so glad this is taking place on my own Talk page; I can speak more freely. I am surprised at you. I thought you would follow me as I pointed out how carefully you (and I) have trimmed and improved the reader's experience. If you can't see it, then feel free to ruin this part of the article however you want. I will remove this from my watchlist; I am no longer intersted in this article. Prhartcom (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That is a very disrespectful thing to say, and borders on incivility. If you are unable to assume good faith, which judging by the use of the word "ruin", would suggest as such, I really don't know what I'm even doing here. I didn't undo your reversion, have respectfully given my reasoning to you and I even asked for a second opinion. Trimming an article is fine, but not to the point it becomes a detriment to the article. Please think about this going forward and be careful with your tone. 11WB (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

11WB, Okay, that was strong words, so I apologize for that, but dammit, it would ruin that part, and I'm disappointed that you don't yet understand why. We are far apart in our understanding of each other's respective points. So, let me try again to understand yours: You say this different crash story is important to know because it describes a law that was broken at the Air Fair. I get that. Let me try to summarize mine: The reader has the understanding that they are going to learn the story of two fatal crashes in the summer of 2001, and in the last moment before the article actually begins, we confusingly bring up a different crash instead of the one that was introduced.

Since your point is obviously valid, the new information should be added. But would you consider: Not right there (because of my valid point). Surely this new information is not so critical that it must be known before the article proper begins. Not only that, it wasn't until after the crash during the investigation that people discussed that the law was broken. So, could it be first mentioned in that section? Prhartcom (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, that is appreciated. I decided after reading your reply from this morning that I would just let it be. The information isn't integral to the article. It's just a legal point that can optionally be included for context. I'm unsure of how to incorporate it, so I'll leave it for somebody else to add, should they choose to. 11WB (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, 11WB. I respect you enormously for that. This good article is quite good, you know I've always believed that. I just felt like vigorously defending it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations \| June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)