User Talk:Amakuru
Get User Talk:Amakuru essential facts below. View Videos or join the User Talk:Amakuru discussion. Add User Talk:Amakuru to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
User Talk:Amakuru

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19

Caroline Flack

I removed this negative comment about Caroline as she is no longer alive to defend herself. Similar comments on resource in the past have also been put up by liars and trolls. I can site Michael Jackson and Lord Dannatt as examples. In both of these cases trolls attacked these people on resource based on data from the tabloid press. They were found to be false and intended to attack a person's character. The best way is not to have a discussion, but remove the lies once they are found out. Anyway, Caroline's or any other person's resource life is not determined by whether or not they were arrested for some minor offence, which may not even have happened. Innocent people are arrested all the time. Wallie (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been banned now. At least I tried to protect Caroline's memory. Wallie (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wallie: thanks for your message and I'm sorry to hear that you've been banned - that's not a good situation for any editor to be in. But as an experienced editor, you must know that an outcome like that was inevitable when you were promoting a point of view in the article that had a clear consensus against it. The facts around her being charged with assault and having a trial coming up are indisputable, they are not just tabloid gossip. Your concern for Flack's memory and wellbeing is admirable, it really is. But it is not the place of an encyclopedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by airbrushing out verifiable information that is relevant to a reader in understanding her life. And it is not a violation of WP:BLP to do so,if it is presented in a neutral and balanced fashion, reflecting all the sources. I hope you will move on from this, and either have a break or move on to other areas of the Wiki so that you can move on from this and continue to contribute positively to the Wiki. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Andrew Weatherall

Ambox current red.svgOn 18 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Andrew Weatherall, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@MSGJ: thanks for this! I feel a little guilty about this one, as I was busy nominating and taking the limelight while others were quietly fixing the article up. I've probably done my share on other RDs though, so probably fair's fair. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't sweat it! You do so much good around here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


about the closed discussion on the current 'China' virus related article, why did you revert?[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: usually archiving should not happen on the same day that the discussion was closed, it should wait a few days until the discussion is stale and no longer of significant interest. Reasons for this include the fact that many people who participated in the discussion may not have seen the result yet, and would be surprised to come to the page and find it had disappeared already. Also, it is not impossible that the requested move might be challenged at a move review discussion, in which it would be labelled as under review and visible for the duration of the review. Again, that should be on the main talk page not on an archive page, in case it is reopened or a different close applied to it. I get that the talk page is quite large at the moment, but it's not a major emergency and it can wait a few days before being archived. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for José Bonaparte

Ambox current red.svgOn 19 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article José Bonaparte, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Fernando Morán (politician)

Ambox current red.svgOn 19 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Fernando Morán (politician), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion hook for February 22

Hi, I don't understand your edit. This hook for Feb 22 belongs in Queue 4, not Queue 5. Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: ah... my bad, it looks we've moved back to one set per day and I hadn't noticed - I assumed that someone had just made a calculation error and put it in the set designed for the afternoon of the 21st. Usually there's a ping to admins who regularly promote sets when it changes between one and two per day, but I guess I can't demand that you do that - I'll just have to keep watching the threads more closely in future! Thanks for the spot, and I've reverted the hooks back to the correct sets.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Edit day.svg Happy First Edit Day, Amakuru, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 02:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thich Quang Do ITN/RD

Good morning sir, the image of concern has been removed Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead expanded. Thanks again Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
User_talk:TDKR_Chicago_101#Thich_Quang_Do. Since you're active with ITN, I was wondering if you know the procedure for renaming abusive file names. A photo was uploaded with an obscene file name and has been unwittingly added onto the page. I couldn't work out how to navigate the processes on Commons. Kind regards Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bumbubookworm: I'm not particularly active on Commons, but from a quick look it seems that C:Commons:File_renaming#How_to_rename_a_file is where you need to go to request it. The "reason number" for the move you want is #5. "To change a filename that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines if it appeared elsewhere on the project as text. This includes gratuitous vulgarity, personal attacks/harassment, blatant advertising, and cases where revision deletion would be authorized." Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

@CAPTAIN RAJU: thank you very much! I do enjoy getting these "birthday" greetings, always a happy surprise in my day.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


[2] really As you know I'm a graduate of a decent university, I studied science, engineering and language, but under no circumstances would I consider "Abwehr" to have been consolidated into normal language. I inherently trust everything you do, but on this occasion, that's utter bonkers. No way Jose. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: You "inherently trust everything I do", eh? That's good to know Smiley.png. To be honest I was slightly less sure about Abwehr than I am about the usual suspects that people try to italicise such as coup d'état, but per the advice at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC I've tended to use the Merriam Webster as a guide, and in this case it's right there, labelled as "borrowed from German". Would you say this is in a different league from Gestapo then? (Which is actually one of the terms mentioned explicitly at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC). And what about Wehrmacht?  — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
And, in a further twist to the tale, User:Philafrenzy just "thanked" me for the de-italicising of Abwehr... the plot thickens...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Name of an organisation isn't it? I was aware of this point but decided to ignore it. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm just sticking with my inherent feeling about such matters. Abwehr is definitely not integrated. Do a quick straw poll tomorrow at work "what does "abwehr" mean?" and "how do you spell "abwhehr"?". It's fine to use Merriam Webster as a guide but in this case it's not real. I can't think of a single case ever where Abwehr means something to usual English readers, let alone American readers. It's two leagues above Gestapo. I guess it's snobbishness on my behalf, but I don't know what it means, and therefore I wouldn't imagine that 99% of our readers would either. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I imagine that's true, yes. I'd be lying if I said I knew what it meant before coming across this story, and I think my knowledge is maybe a notch below yours, such that if I don't know it then around 95% of readers don't know it either. On the other hand, Philafrenzy may have a point about it being a proper noun... if it refers to the organisation. As with Saint-Yved de Braine we would avoid italicising a proper noun even if foreign.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is a proper mistake. Ask your friends, your colleagues if they know what "Abwehr" means. I work in the industry with people who are commensurate with this kind of terminology and "Abwehr" is certainly not assimilated into natural English. This is a mistake. But it's transient, thank goodness, so the mistake will be moved on in a matter of minutes. But it doesn't alter the fact that your action was incorrect. Bygones. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh well, I've reverted it anyway... I don't really care that much, it's obviously a borderline case. And I'll do as you suggest and ask around at work tomorrow...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The MOS is clear, and I agree, "Names of organizations and institutions should be in roman, rather than italics". My survey of books also finds it normally unitalicised, although there are exceptions. I think Amakuru was right. It's like Gestapo. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"I inherently trust", yes, and see you active, so might you give me ITN credit for Jennifer Bate before she falls off the Main page, please. I wonder why those promoting don't do it then - which was yesterday ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @Gerda Arendt: done, thanks. And I will get to the unanswered question soon, I'm wishing I'd never got involved in that issue now... I haven't had a lot of time this week and sometimes things are more complex than they look at first glance. All the best and I hope you're staying well in these troubled times.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, that was fast. This category thing - although it doesn't look it - is actually quite simple. A user put great effort into a "fix", and others tell the user "not broken". (Francis Schonken found this nutshell summary, but I saw it only today, - too much noise.) I was No. 1 to see no problem that needed fixing, Francis was 2, RexxS was 3, and by now came several others whom I respect. There are different ways to respond in such a (admittedly disappointing) situation. Telling those who object that they come to disrupt (see my call to ANI) seems not the most neutral. How to deescalate from there, that is the true question? - The Unanswered Question. - Back to RD, sadly a woman who was a victim of COVID-19 and is only borderline notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for June Dally-Watkins

Ambox current red.svgOn 25 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article June Dally-Watkins, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Kees08 (Talk) 16:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Javier Arias Stella

Ambox current red.svgOn 26 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Javier Arias Stella, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Emo Nite

@Amakuru Hi, I'm trying to create a page for Emo Nite. I see you have a lock on it so I was wondering if I could access it. Riahconway (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Riahconway

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
  • England Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
  • United States Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
  • Somerset Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  • Pirate flag CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
  • The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included United States L293D, Venezuela Kingsif, Antarctica Enwebb, England Lee Vilenski and Nepal CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination--whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else--will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Resource: WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Resource: WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; United States L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, United States Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


[3] this messed up a lot of things including my reviews. Can you fix it, thanks.? Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

One of my submissions was removed by that edit and was coming here to query it. Kosack (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld User:Kosack Urggh, hitting the edit button on an old version of the page strikes again. I wish there was a better warning when that happens! Hopefully now sorted, including the re-adding of one other entry that was added after I made the error. Apologies.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


Every example in the link you gave italicised the word. "loan word"? How funny! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: oh heavens, not this again! I'm just fresh from an Abwehr in my shoji as we speak, actually. To address your point, the Merriam Webster actually italicises all words, in quotes and elsewhere. See for example: [4]. As noted on the article's talk page, shoji is found in dictionaries such as the Cambridge as well, not just MW.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll try not to bring it up again...! You've got mail, by the way. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Draycote Water, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Lound Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Gamston and Neo-Georgian
Ipswich Building Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Woodbridge

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


100+ references seems fine -- also, were you aware of this conversation? Please consider undoing your edit. Thanks. El_C 17:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: ah, I did see that response to my comment on ERRORS, but I was busy at the time and didn't manage to circle back to it. On the point itself, it's not the number of references which is important, it's whether all the major points covered by the article are cited. And the citation-needed tags that are present on the article are just the tip of the iceberg - it has entire paragraphs and even sections with no citations at all. I will go through and tag/mark the relevant things when I get a chance, but I won't reinstate it to the OTD template for that day, because it certainly doesn't meet the standard for main page linked articles. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, I couldn't find sections with no citations at all. I could be overlooking something so I would love to help you fix this. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: - well, perhaps not whole top-level sections, but several of the subsections are unreferenced, for example "Purim meal (se'udah) and festive drinking" and several of the subsections of "Customs". Cites should be at least one per paragraph, as well as any contentious points, as well as ideally the less contentious ones. I'm sure most of this could be cited, but someone has to actually go through and do it because otherwise readers have no way of verifying that what we're telling them is accurate. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It's mildly troubling to see an experienced admin giving out the absolute number of refs as a good reason to publish things to the main page. Crikey. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fair enough. Thank you for taking the time to answer in detail. Hopefully, it will be ready for next year. El_C 17:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, just a misunderstanding on my part. Not a modus operandi. El_C 17:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
El C, also, it was good enough to be on the main page until I asked for a name change for the label. Nobody who looks at the articles or browses ERRORS a day or two prior said anything about this page. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, once someone identifies problems with the article to the point of deeming it unsuitable to the Main page, that's that. Now the work of correcting these issues can get under way. El_C 17:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
El C, to be fair, they didn't identify problem. They just said there are problems. For other articles that I look at for the main page that have issues and are tagged, it's a lot easier to go through and fix, if it's tagged and fix the tags. Just removing and saying "it has issues" doesn't do any good. I went through the entire article yesterday and while it's not an FA, it is in my opinion well cited for the main page. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, that certainly is something that can be discussed further, but I I'm not sure there's a need to add all the specific {{cn}} tags for overall problems to be identified -- that general identification being sufficient to pull the page. El_C 17:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Sir Joseph: unfortunately we don't always have the time or numbers of editors watching the main page to spot everything that doesn't meet the standards, and evidently this one was missed when it ran on the first day. That doesn't mean that it was approved though, just that nobody spotted it. OTD probably gets less attention than other sections as well... if you'd put a request up using that article at WP:ITN/C I think it's likely that many users would have opposed it until the refs were tidied up. Anyway, as El C says, hopefully it can be pulled into shape by next year! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi Amakuru! I would like to request you for reviewing my draft page Epos 257 ( I know that it was already reviewed and unfortunately declined, nevertheless I have rewritten it and I would like to ask you very much to check the article if at least a little possible...Thank you very much! Regards Ji?í Ji?í Gruber (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


Okay, I've had my 3 days. (I'm actually crap at coming up with answers to tough problems quickly, but I'm amazingly good at knowing how long it's going to take me to sort through my own confusion.) I've just invited discussion at WT:TFA on the question of what to do about unpleasantness at ERRORS while I'm on sabbatical. Have you had any thoughts on why I got upset? It has to do with your inviting a question about TFA and ERRORS, while simultaneously using admin tools to enforce one of the possible outcomes from such a discussion. I'd welcome your participation ... you'd have a lot to offer ... but leave the admin tools at the door, please. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

"Talk:911 (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:911 (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Talk:911 (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1990-91 Coventry City F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Downs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter Whittingham

Looks like you edit conflicted with Black Kite re-opening Indefensible's original nomination. Perhaps he should get a co-nom credit?-- P-K3 (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: ah that would explain why it seemed to be behaving oddly when I saved the edit. Feel free to edit it any way you see fit, drop me from the nom if you like or include someone else. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Peter Whittingham

Ambox current red.svgOn 19 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Peter Whittingham, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Kees08 (Talk) 17:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Resource: Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I figured it best to ask for review since you brought the issue up. Since I mentioned you, here's the obligatory notice. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1990-91 Coventry City F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springfield Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I see from User talk:Floquenbeam #ANI closure that you have a problem with one of my comments. Don't you think it would be more productive to raise the issue with me directly, rather than posting about me without even the courtesy of a notification? Of course I regret being baited into responding to her "angry-but-clueless newbie" in similar vein, but you don't seem at all troubled by the dozen or so personal attacks she directed at me. Is there a reason for that? --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, just treat it as a rhetorical question. My anger has subsided, and it all seems like water under the bridge now. If you ever do have issues with me, please do come and discuss them, though. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: thanks for your message(s) here, and apologies for not replying to you earlier. My main issue that I raised with Floq was not so much with the dispute itself, but that BHG had raised a complaint about civility, with several comments from other users seemingly backing up that point, that had apparently been closed without action. After you raised the question above, suggesting that my reading of the dispute may have been incorrect, my intention before replying was to go back and have a deeper look at what had transpired to see if it really was a two-way flame war as you suggest, or whether there was merit in BHG's assertion that you had attacked her first. But given that it looks like the situation has now moved on peacefully, and few seemed to agree with me that the ANI thread close was premature anyway, I don't see much value in my going back over that ground now.
I will certainly take on board your advice to talk to you in person if I see issues in future, and I have nothing against you personally. I was supportive of the crats' decision to promote at your RFA, and I stand by that view today. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes