Archives

Archive 1

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie; Nice edits on the awards. I'm thinking that in the lede, that the news about the short film Debut.... looks like it was more of tease than anything that actually came out that's worth discussing in the lede. It might be better to start thinking about taking it out and replacing it with things like the recent 'Golden' win at the Globes, the upcoming Oscar nominations, and the Grammy results coming out in 2 weeks or so to replace the Debut lede material. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the cleanup/reporting you do in regards to sockpuppetry, I think you should request WP:TAIV permissions at WP:RFP/TAIV. Last year when I was flagging TAs in RFP, an editor there suggested I apply for it. It has been super helpful in terms of determining vandalism patterns beyond behavior. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as it looks like you and Flobberz are the current maintainers of the opinion polling chart, I thought that I would approach you about the chart mentioned in the topic title.

Like the general election chart, it was maintained by Ralbegen, but it doesn't seem to have been adopted after they stopped contributing. The chart is now almost two years behind the table.

I've extracted the poll data from the page into a CSV so (hopefully) it can be updated using the same code as for the opinion polls. Still, the results are not as consistent. There are some polls which do not provide a value for "undecided", and some of the early polls are only dated to the month. Do you have any thoughts about what to do with them?

Once the data is uploaded to Commons, are you OK with maintaining the chart?

I hope this isn't a bother for you. EnronEvolved^{My Talk Page} 13:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The code which you may have found through the description on the opinion polling chart (via GitLab) is quite outdated and probably different to the code actually used right now, so that would be the most likely cause of inconsistent outputs.

For the other issues - generally I would try to avoid WP:CALC as much as possible, so would simply date month-only polls to the publication date or the middle of the month, and take the figures as seen.

I don't mind updating that chart every now and then but may need mentioning on an ad hoc basis to do so, and will need to refactor the code to work with the data so might not get round to it for a bit.

I also don't know if LOESS would be appropriate for that graph given the sparsity of the polling and relatively volatile swings, as it may suggest trends which don't exist. There is already considerable debate on this issue on the opinion polling graph and we're probably toeing the line of WP:CALC by using it, so a different trendline method may be more appropriate. Flobberz (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistent data is simply from scraping the table. I've dated the month-only polls to the ends of each month, and uploaded the table to Commons as-is, though Commons complains about type mismatches on "undecided" polls. I hope this helps! EnronEvolved^{My Talk Page} 11:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me of your decision to delete my article on Gorillaz member 2-D. I have opened a talk page on the appropriate article and look forward to working with Wikipedians to get this done right! BakedintheHole (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that if the song is stated as the 'first' Kpop win on Grammys, then it should be listed as the first Kpop at the Oscars cited here at ABC: [1]. Possibly also in each article maybe: the song article, the soundtrack article, the film article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That source there definitely seems sufficient; I've gone & re-added it as a first into the lead of the "Golden" article + added it to the accolades section of the film article. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good; that was quite a performance from them at the Oscars. Cheeers. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, your move of the salary of the directors to the sequel draft article. It raises the question of are the directors entitled to the profits from KPOP1 and should this be a part of KPOP1. Since the draft sequel article will likely need a year or two before reaching main space, then my thought is that its worthwhile to include some version of the profits which they desereved and received in the KPOP1 article. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work on The Amazing Digital Circus. Every time I check on that article, you are still working on it, improving it, and reverting poor edits. Great work there. :) IzzySwag (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about acronym overkill! I understand "TADC" cannot be used, but what about "Digital Circus"? The creator, Gooseworx, has called it that multiple times. Preflight3497 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What about "(also known simply as Digital Circus or by its abbreviation TADC)" Preflight3497 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to shortened titles, if a shortened form of a title is just the first few or last few words of the full title, such that it's still clear that it's referring back to the full title, then in most cases that sort of lead parenthetical isn't considered necessary, and sometimes may potentially be extraneous. This applies particularly for articles where that kind of shortened form is confined just to quoted material. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that means a no-go on that sentence. Preflight3497 (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your over 13k edits spanning close to 7 years... Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 07:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was it unsourced? ~2026-20040-77 (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I tried doing some searching, but couldn't really find anything matching what you added, about a screening release on June 15, 2010. If you have a reliable source that can verify that information, then that would be helpful. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I ask why you’ve reverted the changes to the premise and episode plot on the page Gameoverse? The most recent edits I had made (timed 2:45) fit within the guidelines presented by MOS:TVPLOT at your suggestion in the edits, so everything should be good to go.Mumbai0618 (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Mumbai0618[reply]

MOS:TVPLOT limits plot summaries in episode tables to 200 words per episode, and limits premise sections to 100 words per season. Your edits to the episode plot summary for the pilot made it 325 words long, and your edits to the premise section made it 181 words long.

I should also note that the current versions of the Episodes & Premise sections do incorporate elements/aspects of your edits, but in forms that are much more condensed. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you look to List of Battle for Dream Island episodes for editors doing it in egregious detail. Superlogan7437 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also List of RWBY episodes and List of Red vs. Blue episodes. Superlogan7437 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ahriman, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Divs and Elpis were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok then, how about you create a standalone wikipedia article for the last act then.

An hour of work wasted god!!! DonutDurante (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]