Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Desire realm

added a link pointing to Tibetan

La Civiltà Cattolica

added a link pointing to Italian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[]

You don't need to respond to every comment there. It comes across as WP:BLUDGEONing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[]

I've removed your comment in the POSTNOM RfC section at AN. An attack like that is absolutely inappropriate. I'd encourage you to practice more civil discussion in the future and remember that Wikipedia is a not a batleground. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia—we just sometimes have different ways of going about it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[]

Thanks for your help with this article. I wanted to let you know why I reverted your edit that removed the comparison table. As you have probably noticed, this article is currently up for an AfD. However, you removed the entire article as it existed at the time of the AfD nomination. All that you left was the lede that I added to address concerns of other editors regarding the AfD. Basically, this is a stand alone list article that compares two classification systems. The lede is there to provide context and show that the subject of the list article has been discussed as a group (to meet notability). If you think it flies against Wikipedia policy, the correct place to voice that would be as part of the AfD. But you should not delete the entire article while it is being discussed in an AfD. Rublamb (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[]

I didn't delete the article but will comment further at the a.f.d.. Logoshimpo (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[]

I though you were the one who deleted the table and the few sentences before it. That was the entire article at the time the AfD was started. Everything else has been added to address retaining the table. Sorry for any confusion on my part. Rublamb (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[]

I don't quite understand what you are saying. An editor has complaints about the table which I agree with at the a.f.d.. Logoshimpo (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[]

Maybe it was an accident? In this edit, you deleted the entire section from the article. I reverted your edit, prompting my note to you here. Rublamb (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[]

Forgot to include, here is the article as it existed at the time of its AfD nomination. As you can see, it consists of the entire comparison section that you removed with your edit. Since this is a stand-alone list article, and you deleted the list, you essentially deleted the article while it was under an AfD. I realize that was not your intent. Yes, there is now a lede. But what is under discussion at this time is whether or not the new lede saves the list. Hope that explains it better. Rublamb (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[]

I just wish to confirm that the AFD closure does not preclude further editing of the article, under the normal editing processes including consensus and WP:BRD. Stifle (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[]

@Stifle: Right. However, the above conversation took place during the AfD. IMO, removing the list from a list article under AfD circumnavigated the AfD process, especially since there had been no discussion of changing the article from list class. Rublamb (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[]

Since you re-created this page as a dab there are somewhere between 250 and 500 articles pointing at it. You might wish to consider fixing this. Ben MacDui 10:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[]

I fixed the ones on templates. I need help with the other instances on articles if they still appear. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[]

Thanks - much reduced although there are still a fair few. I think you'd have been better off creating 'Mousa (disambigation)' tbh given that there is only one actual stand-alone 'Mousa'. Ben MacDui 16:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[]

I think there is a primary topic policy in place. I think the given name takes precedence but you may be more knowledgeful about this than me. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[]

I don't think the name is the primary topic, there also Mousa (film) and 12130 Mousa. Can I suggest a DAB page at the base name instead? @Ben MacDui: do you think that the title should be a DAB page, an article about the island or an article about the name? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[]

I didn't know there was a film and asteroid. This should be a disambiguation page. I'm surprised it wasn't made. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Monegasque people by net worth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monegasque.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[]

Greetings Logoshimpo. Could you please say more about this reversion? I was attempting to follow this merge decision by @OwenX. Evidently I did not succeed. Apologies and thanks. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[]

I removed the redirect because people will skip the page and go to the target. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[]

Hello, Logoshimpo,

There are so many more useful tasks to do on this project to do than to monitor me and talk about me to other editors. Please find other parts of the project to do constructive activity before this turns into harrassment. Don't worry, I won't bother you again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[]

Multiple people have complained about your unlinking rather than deletion. If I can't post on your talk page, you may want to rethink how I should be communicating with others. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[]

Hello, Logoshimpo. I've noticed that over the past few days you have been removing transclusions of {{largest cities}} from various articles including Republika Srpska, Antigua and Barbuda, Namibia, Nicaragua, and various others. Based on your comments, you appear to view the usage cases of the template as clutter or unencyclopediac. Instead of removing every instance of the template yourself, you may want to nominate the {{largest cities}} template for deletion so a proper, broad discussion can be held. CROIX^talk 01:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[]

Understood. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[]

Hi @Logoshimpo,

I can't find any such discussion about the removal of the {{largest cities}} template. Unless there has been a consensus on mass-removing the template, as @CROIX pointed out, I don't think it's appropriate to be removing it; I personally find the template to be a helpful, valuable addition to the page. I will be adding it back to Bahia and Paraiba, among others. I will preserve anything else you added, such as links. Thanks, Nsophiay (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[]

user:moxy: I am not commiting WP:MEATBOT behavior. See the edit summary here. The discussion is here.

User:Nsophiay: You've only added back the template to 2 brazilian states. Logoshimpo (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[]

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

Abishe (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[]

👁 Information icon
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Amigao (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Could you update the picture of Mumbai with a new skyline,Taj Hotel photo seems very outdated.Moreover much of the economy section in the India Wikipedia page is outdated. ~2026-29888-9 (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[]

@~2026-29888-9: I don't write a lot of content. There might be some pictures on wikicommons. Logoshimpo (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Saying that cities are the "Largest" does not violate WP:NPOV or MOS:PEACOCK. "Largest" means that they have a higher population than other cities. The population is a measurable fact, not a value judgement or an opinion. It does not favor or value some cities over others or say that they are "better". Please actually read the words at MOS:PEACOCK.

Your justification of edits based on a misunderstanding of these guidelines is disruptive. I urge you to slow down and try to understand. If you still do not understand them, there are other types of edits that you can make that uncontroversially fix errors on Wikipedia pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[]

From your asking me not to make dummy edits, I'm supposing you're unaware that Wikipedia affirmatively provides for them for, among other purposes, my purpose for making that one: Correcting a previous edit summary, such as an accidental marking of the edit as minor or fixing a spelling mistake, as stated at Help:Dummy edit. Largoplazo (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Logoshimpo,

Can you please email me so I can share the March WikiClub Canada meeting link with you?

Thanks - Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

You recently made three edits to the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline, each essentially the same. An example was diff which added "Sections in navboxes should be finite and not include an arbitrary number of ranked entries." The three edits have been reverted. You must get consensus before continuing a campaign to prune navboxes. You may be correct but you still have to work with the community. Two different editors reverted you, and that is after the previous turmoil summed up at permalink. The correct procedure would be to formulate good wording for a change to the guideline (all text is finite so mentioning that is not helpful), then proposing it at the talk page of the guideline. If there is an objection, start an RFC to get more opinions. This has been going on for well over a month and continuing without an RfC will result in a long block. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Why don't you do the leg work and close the report here though that seems out of process and you would be breaking all the rules. Do you do this regularly? Logoshimpo (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I don't think anyone has replied so the first step, if you want the DR closed, would be to undo your edits (or just remove the section). Use an edit summary such as "withdrawn". If that doesn't work, ask on talk how to withdraw it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[]

You go ahead and do that. Logoshimpo (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Special:Contributions/Logoshimpo is showing more reverted edits. There are several on 17 March 2026 such as diff which removed {{Largest cities}} from Guangdong. I still no consensus anywhere for your removals of material like that. WT:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Request for comment on arbitrary truncation shows no support for your proposal. Removing templates from articles without prior consensus is disruptive. In the case of an editor who has been reverted many times over similar issues, these edits are highly disruptive. You will be blocked if there are any further edits of that nature. After what has happened, stripping templates or links or lists or whatever must not occur unless there is positive consensus somewhere. If you think a template should not be used, nominate it for deletion at WP:TFD. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Information icon
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is JeanClaudeN1 and Daniel Case. I am notifying you due to your involvement at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urabura or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PJK 1993. Toadspike [Talk] 14:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[]