User talk:LightNightLights

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them Note: Alerts are no longer necessary. Please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Awareness repeal FAQ for more information.

Archives

Archive 1

re your edit:

Which guideline are you talking about? Please take a look at the page in question. The hatnote template italicizes the whole text. As a result the juornal title is italicized in the text body, but not the book title in the hatnote. And this looks weird. - Altenmann >talk 17:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about the WP:ITHAT guidance in our Wikipedia:Hatnote guideline (which I cited in my first edit's summary). It is true that my edit made the book title not italicized. I disagree however that it looks weird.

The way I think of it is that italicized text stands out fron normally un-italicized text (e.g. the text body), and un-italicized text (i.e. the book title in this situation) stands out from normally italicized text (e.g. our hatnotes). Note that in the hatnote we're talking about, only the journal name is un-italicized and so it stands out from the rest of the hatnote.

The practice is mentioned in Italic type § Italics within italics and some style guides recommend it (like the APA Publication Manual here and the Chicago Manual of Style here), which might have inspired our guidelines to recommend the same. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Junlper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Paragon Deku (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey LightNightLights,

your edit to Anna's Archive seems incompatible with MOS:WAW, you say that the word "scraped" is used, not mentioned, to distinguish between use and mention, you used quotes. I find this usage to be incorrect. An example of distinguishing between use and mention is found on the Use-mention distinction page, as well as at MOS:WAW. Both use quotes to indicate a mention, not a use. As far as I understand, either italics or no formatting should be used in case of a use, not a mention. Please explain your use of quotes.

--Holzklöppel (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reaching out in my talk page. I used quotes not because of MOS:TERM, which I don't think applies here. I used quotes because scraping is a technical term and, in my experience, technical terms that the general public doesn't know are quoted. If scraping was not technical, I would be against either italicising or quoting it, but I think that it is technical. (I linked MOS:WAW primarily because it talks about the use–mention distinction.)

I reverted your italicisaton because you cited MOS:TERM. MOS:TERM says that "a technical or other jargon term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted, usually the former", and I think the word scraping is used (playing its nornal grammatical role), not mentioned. (An example of a sentence where scraping is mentioned and would therefore be italicised is "Merriam-Webster designated the term scraping as their Word of the Year for 2073".) LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thanks. You're right, "scraping" is just used here, and MOS:TERM doesn't apply. I was surprised by your revert, went to look up what the usual way to introduce technical terms was, and found MOS:TERM. Regardless of whether MOS:TERM applies, in my opinion, italics are still the better fit, because quotation marks are also used for, well, quotes, and scare quotes, while the only other use for italics I can think of is emphasis, which wouldn't be counter-productive here. Seems like the APA style guide agrees, which I found by searching "technical term italics or quotes".

--Holzklöppel (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the Manual of Style has a recommendation on italicising or quoting technical terms, so I'm okay with conceding to the way that APA does it. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, LightNightLights. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zinnia Jones, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, LightNightLights. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Zinnia Jones".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Died 5 June 2024 [1]https://www.iefimerida.gr/ellada/symi-brethike-o-paroysiastis-toy-bbc 2A02:587:CC0C:FC00:CD1C:C63B:587D:54D2 (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

My previous analysis was that Mosley was not confirmed dead yet according to the sources I could find on Google. Now, some of the sources there say that his death is confirmed. I'll take your source into account. Thanks! LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from creating redirects from a species to its genus, as you did with Synallactes mcdanieli. The consensus is to leave redlinks, as they encourage article creation. If possible, please tag the redirect with the {{Db-g7}} speedy deletion template so that an article might get created someday. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the warning! Do you know if there is a place where I can request mass deletions? I created redirects for all 27 of Synallactes's species, not just mcdanieli.

Other than that, it might be useful to future editors for us to modify the text of or delete {{R from species to genus}} if creating redirects from species to genus is against consensus. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 10:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you just put the speedy template on all of them, there is probably some sort of easy record-keeping procedure the deleting admin follows. I made a note on the {{R from species to genus}} template. Abductive (reasoning) 21:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi LightNightLights. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Re: [2]

I can't see that this made any difference. Windows laptop. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Mandruss I was able to reproduce this in another browser, but I have fixed it by setting that browser's Wikipedia-internal theme from "Light" to "Dark" or "Automatic".

"Light" means that the browser, and not the site, is responsible for turning the page to dark mode if requested, which means that (1) the browser may fail to invert some dark-on-light images (as it does for the image of the diff you linked in both of my browsers), and (2) the site cannot manually invert the image (which Wikipedia does not). LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. That's a bit over my unpay grade, but thanks for trying. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Belated self-correct: I looked again and now see the difference. I think I was looking at the wrong "image". Good move. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Voices of the Void, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 24% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

JuniperChill (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

hi!!! I just wanted to pop in and apologise for undoing one of your edits in Road Salt. :( I actually think that it's a great idea to separate the images into their respective sections, but the sections are simply not long enough to accomodate one image each. This leads to the images trailing along the side of the article, which looks rather unsightly. Again, I'm sorry for undoing your edit:( but you're welcome to expand the sections so that we can fit the images there in the future<3 cheers! :D ~User:Roi.Frvr 22:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

No problem! I understand your concern. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think I reverted the wrong edit. Just going to tell you :D (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, calling something bull in an edit summarry, even though I agree with you, is generally bad practice. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, it isn't! Just friendly advice. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was about to make a WP:DUMMYEDIT for that. I meant "bull" as in David Bull (politician) – who is being talked about in the section I just edited) – not as in "bullshit". I forgot to capitalise it; I apologise for that mistake. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I'm not familiar with the UK that much so I shouldn't have presumed. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see! I have no inherent objection about undoing a removal of the {{Reflist}}. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

No problem! It was a mistake on my part and honestly a good catch on yours. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Phlogiston Enthusiast. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

... and I put this on my own user page because I thought it was very well written and concise. I forgot where I copied it from, but I saved your attribution, and I'm just using it for my own user page. I hope that's ok! It was this:

Wikipedia is partial towards reliable sources:

• We need sources. (WP:V, WP:NOR)
• We need them to be reliable. (WP:RS)
• We especially need them on contentious stuff about people. (WP:BLP)
• And medical articles too. (WP:MEDRS)
• Reliable sources are not required to be impartial. (WP:RSBIAS)
• We follow the proportion of reliable sources. (WP:NPOV)
• We treat uncontested facts from reliable sources as facts. (WP:YESPOV § "Avoid stating facts as opinions")
• We only present accepted ideas. (WP:FALSEBALANCE)
• We do not present fringe ideas as accepted. (WP:FRINGE).
• These point to the fact that Wikipedia is not required to be unbiased. Wikipedia editors need to be when writing articles (WP:NPOV).
• Stepping back, IMPARTIAL is content, not conduct. How we write articles is not how we expect editors to act. We disallow personal attacks even though we write about the lot of them that happens in real life

Thanks! David10244 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

No problem! LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 01:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I saw your comment at VPP, and I thought you'd be interested in WP:UPPERCASE, if you haven't run across it before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have heard (and applied, obviously :)) the sentiment in that essay, but I have never been curious enough to read it. At a glance, it seems to be worth a read.

Thank you for the link! (Hopefully, my forgetfulness does not hinder me with never doing to UPPERCASE what I pointed out.) LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

We all make such mistakes. If nothing else, it's inevitable that someday, you'll read a page, someone else will change it, and then you'll cite it for its prior content. We will always need to balance giving each other grace for such mistakes with reminding people that the name of the shortcut isn't the rule (in fact, it's sometimes exactly the opposite). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do not agree with your reasoning, but I agree with your message. I admit I was harsh, and I'm sorry; it's just that wrongly-cited policies contradict people's arguments, like there. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you were harsh – just clear. I believe that it can be helpful to tell people when they've linked the wrong page or the page doesn't say what they think it said. Even when the mistake doesn't contradict their point, I think it's helpful to push back, to stop the rumors from spreading (see, e.g., all the editors who think WP:RFCBEFORE is a requirement to discuss the wording of an RFC question in advance – that rumor probably started with a mistake by someone who meant to link to WP:RFCNEUTRAL). I only suggest that we not hold the occasional mistake against someone in a personal way, because it's an easy mistake for any of us to make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!

The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!

This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!

Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply