This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

On 6 September 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mohamed Al-Fayed, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		In appreciation for your work at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Leoš Janáček/1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Glad to have been able to help with that – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aww thanks! I don't know if I'll stay any long but thank you for sharing the cuteness overload =D I see you've been hanging around and having great work on the main-space after many years. Cheers to your longevity and dedication! --PeaceNT (talk) 17:49, 16 November 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, this is starting to look like a slow burn edit war. Please leave the article alone and take the discussion to the talk page. See WP:EDITWAR. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't realise you were an admin. Please excuse the noise. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries User:Martin of Sheffield, you're still allowed to admonish admins for edit warring, but I'd only reverted once. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re my conduct over Jan 24/25: no excuses, please accept my apologies. Thank you. 73.1.228.60 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Filelakeshoe! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, myself and another user had the idea to try to get a taskforce/project going so Spurs fans can all focus on similar articles or just keep tabs on what other editors are working on.

I made the project on a userpage here and welcome you to add whatever is of interest to you, and we can always add more pages as we need to.

COYS! Christiangamer7 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I understand that the page for Regional at Best was protected due to consensus that it was not a standalone notable topic. However, I believe that the album has garnered enough coverage and analysis to warrent an article. A draft I have written is available at User:Miklogfeather/Regional at Best. Please let me know if you would consider reducing the page's protection level (along with the similar redirect Regional At Best). Miklogfeather (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks a lot for writing the article, which does look better-sourced than the previous version. The 2017 AfD was closed with the rationale to protect the redirects because of disruptive edit warring and the same version being repeatedly recreated, which was still continuing in 2019 and 2021.

I'd like to ask for a second opinion from @Ferret: who salted the Regional At Best redirect first. On the one hand, the sourcing is substantially better than previous versions of the article with some new sources which actually discuss the album: [1], [2], [3] (Allmusic staff reviews are considered RS). On the other hand, a lot of this content is about songs which are also on the other album Vessel which was one of the concerns raised in the various AfDs. I'd normally be okay with moving the new article to mainspace and allowing it to run another AfD to evaluate the new sources if necessary, but the history of disruption here makes me a bit hesitant. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has Ferret gotten back with their thoughts? I'd really like for this article to get a chance. Miklogfeather (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Miklogfeather:, as no one has responded, and this version looks substantially different from previous ones with new sources, I've moved it to mainspace at Regional at Best, and history merged it with the old redirect. Anyone objecting to this can start a new AfD to evaluate the new sources. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I heard you locked the redirect for Quiet Council of Krakoa. I was wondering if you would be able to change the redirect target to it's section at List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations after it's information was imported from Krakoa. Just asking a favor here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to flag that I oppose the move to the list. When possible, List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations should point to articles which expand more in-depth on individual teams/orgs. Immortal X-Men has the Quiet Council's fictional team biography (Dawn of X to Destiny of X but needs a Fall of X update) & team rosters (issues joined, left, disbanded, etc); the list article has a short description which is mostly unsourced & out of date. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - has there been a discussion about this in talkspace anywhere to get consensus for one option or the other? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so (or at least nothing popped up on pages I watch). Maybe it was just a BOLD request? I added a link to the redirect (Template:Main) in a couple of places recently after doing some improvements on Krakoan Age articles. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Filelakeshoe, I also agree with @Sariel Xilo that the Quiet Council's redirection should be at Immortal X-Men article because of the same reasons: It have Quiet Council's fictional team biography and team rosters with sources and Quiet Council's section in List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations isn't sourced enough. Also, the information and the article already existed before @Rtkat3 transferred the information from Krakoa article. Vinbrad (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my line of defense. I asked for the page to be redirected to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations as I thought that it would have better luck having any full information listed there like every other organization that currently redirects there. Rtkat3 (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you @Rtkat3 as you had just merely transferred information from one page to another to protect it, but I still think Immortal X-Men is reliable article for Quiet Council of Krakoa's redirection. We can also add main article template in Quiet Coucil's section in List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Vinbrad (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So before the switch of the redirect, I had added a Template:Main to direct to Immortal X-Men. Many entries in List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations are simply the org name with a main link or a very a short explanation with the main link. I don't think we need a bunch of info on the Quiet Council at the list article since the Immortal X-Men covers it all in depth (WP:REDUNDANTFORK). A lot of the X-Men articles will have team info at the comic series article where the team appears the most (ex: Hellions (Marvel Comics)). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've reverted the change as there seems to be no consensus for it. The use of ((main)) seems sensible in the meantime. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the Leoš Janáček article and it looks a lot better than I remember. Seems like this is due to your fixes a while back, thank you! Aza24 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]