User talk:Dominus

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Orphaned non-free image File:Ben and Me book cover.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ben and Me book cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adam Rhys Dee

The article Adam Rhys Dee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrong Citation

Your edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Veiled_Virgin&oldid=713367498 which was 8 years ago added an incorrect source relating to a different artist. The artist referenced in the citation is not Giovanni Strazza, but Pietro Magni. I'm honestly surprised the citation stayed up this long. 2600:8805:6119:9700:41B:252E:3086:58DC (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. But I've just checked the source, which states:

Giovanni Strazza was a pupil of Tenerani, and an interesting review of his career will be found in Raggi's life of that master. He was born in 1815 and died in 1878. Pietro Magni (1817-1877) …

So it seems clear that the 1815–1878 dates are intended to refer to Strazza, not to Magni. Of course, the source may be wrong about the dates, but it appears to me that what I wrote was correct according to the source I cited. If so, perhaps it explains why the citation stayed up this long.

If there's something I've overlooked, I would be grateful if you would point it out to me. —Mark Dominus (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: I found another source that supports the 1818–1875 dates that are in the article now, so I added it. Note that this source also gives 1817–1877 for Magni, not 1815–1878 as you said. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention and for correcting the dates. —Mark Dominus (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"Law of fives" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Law of fives has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5 § Law of fives until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Uncited section}} in Delulu

Could you explain the rationale behind this edit Sohom (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure! The section makes factual claims but does not cite any sources. —Mark Dominus (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you have preferred:

Delulu (/dəˈluːluː/ ⓘ) is an internet slang term used to describe the belief that one can influence one's own destiny through sheer willpower. Derived from the English-language word "delusional", the term has its origins in K-pop communities where the term delulu is used to refer to individuals who were in a parasocial relationship with celebrities and had hopes of meeting them someday. The term has subsequently been adopted by Generation Z and Generation Alpha, popularized by viral TikTok trends such as the catchphrase "delulu is the solulu", implying that self-confidence is key to achieving one's dreams, however far-fetched. Solulu and trululu are slang terms for "solution" and "truth" respectively, and they are modeled after delulu.

To me that seems clearly inferior.

—Mark Dominus (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I don't see why the lede needs citations in this case, it's supposed to be a summary of the content discussed in the later sections. Sohom (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)