User talk:Myceteae

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Myceteae, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. McSly (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:O-alkylation.png

Thanks for uploading File:O-alkylation.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NEW CATEGORY PAGE

Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category?
Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary.
Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)

HFCS

I noticed your edits about glucose/fructose. Although many web sites say that glucose-fructose syrup, isoglucose, and glucose/fructose are HFCS that is not necessarily the case. While HFCS is often labeled as glucose-fructose syrup, isoglucose, and glucose/fructose non corn derived products are also labeled as such. #17 Invert sugar is another similar product in the UK made by enzymatic breakup of sucrose into glucose and fructose. Weetoddid (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I was actually reverting the article to a previous version. Someone without an account made [this edit] claiming that HFCS is called “corn syrup” in the UK, but did not change the references, and , which both refer to glucose-fructose syrup, and did not add any new references to support this usage. I am not familiar with usage outside of the US, and I don't know who made the original claim about UK usage and added the references to support it. I undid this particular edit because corn syrup definitely refers to a different food product, and because the old version was supported by two references. --MYCETEAE - talk 05:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to incorporate this info into the article without over-complicating it? Weetoddid (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It looks like these products are not necessarily the same thing; usage seems to be based on the regulatory idiosyncrasies of each country. Like I said, I'm not familiar with international usage, so I can't really comment on the accuracy of the current article, or recommend any specific changes. I do think that the references currently given for glucose-fructose syrup in the UK are pretty weak. They appear to at least reflect colloquial usage, but legal definitions would be better, and the sites you linked to here appear official. If these products aren't exactly the same thing, a separate section or a brief mention of these similar products in the intro might be appropriate. Another thing to consider is which terms redirect to the HFCS article. Isoglucose does redirect to high-fructose corn syrup, but it's not listed as a synonym in the intro and only appears once in the article. On the other hand, glucose/fructose is listed in bold in the article opening as the Canadian name for HFCS, but this term does not redirect to the HFCS article. I think the relevant question is, what term or terms are people likely to search for on the English Wikipedia? If you want to expand the article, I say go for it, or start a discussion on the HFCS talk page. Is there a place on Wikipedia to solicit recommendations on standard usage throughout the Anglosphere? —MYCETEAE - talk 06:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Invalid ISBN

In an edit at Acid you added the reference "Pavia, D.L., Lampman, G.M., & Kriz, G.S. (2004). Organic chemistry volume 1: Organic chemistry 351. Mason, OH: Cenage Learning. ISNB: 9780759342724". Unfortunately, the ISBN you gave was invalid. I was wondering whether you could help in finding the correct one. Lmatt (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the ISBN that is printed on the back of my book. The textbook was specially printed for the organic chemistry course at my university, and while I believe it may have been published elsewhere, unfortunately I am not sure of that and cannot verify what might be printed in other editions. If any statements need to be removed because this reference can't be verified, I completely understand, but I believe that anything I've written can be verified in other basic chemistry texts. I wish I could be more helpful. MYCETEAE - talk 04:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Myceteae. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Myceteae! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

List of dopaminergic drugs change

Hey there, I'm reviewing some of the #NOV24 changes and I noticed that one of the references you used for this change did not contain the information it was being used as a reference for. (The archive'd link.) Please make sure there's a connection between the citation and the content being cited. :) Thank you! Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that @Smallangryplanet. The same citation appears in the lead at receptor antagonist FYI. I should have read it more carefully. I was surprised to see the entire paragraph removed but I supposed I understand. I appreciate your taking the time to review and give me feedback. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Myceteae If you can cite the contents of the paragraph to something - feel free to put it back! Important to check resources on other pages before re-using them, I've found a whole bunch of stuff that needed to go or be moved to other places in articles as part of this drive 🥴, sometimes people change text without changing the reference or don't read the reference carefully enough. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a good reminder. I've encountered this issue on many pages. A challenge I encounter both as a reader and editor is when an inline citation is only intended to support the final sentence of a paragraph or the final clause of a sentence. Often there are straightforward options to reword or reformat but sometimes such attempts make the prose more awkward. One reason this occurs is when an editor considers some or all of the preceding text to be verifiable despite not being verified. Anyway, thanks again, @Smallangryplanet. I agree with your conclusion in this case that the citation in question did not support the text it was intended to support. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I really appreciate your participation. DN (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 😊

I appreciate yours! GSL will of course remain contentious but I’m hopeful we can make progress. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason it should, it was relatively stable for nearly a decade. DN (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Account age

Hi Myceteae,

I did want to ask you about your account age and activity. It seemed highly unusual to have less than 500 edits when I believe we first began interacting, and then to suddenly become very active in 2024 all of a sudden. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Your account was started in November of 2007, which is very impressive! But then your first edit was this one on Gun show loophole. I did not find any earlier interest in that page. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

As I explain on my user page, I have been on Wikipedia for a long time but only became an active editor this year after years of reading with only sporadic contributions. I first came to GSL from NPOVN. I followed that discussion for a while but did not participate. I then saw your RM and jumped in. Isn’t the point of notice boards to get eyes on a discussion? I’ve been spending a lot of time on various notice boards as a way to engage with WP’s numerous policies and practices. I hope you will engage with some of my proposals. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Also, I can't tell how you meant this, but to clarify, that was not my first ever edit on Wikipedia. (It's possible I made some IP edits before that—who can remember that far back?) I would describe my activity as moderately active from 2008 through 2013. After that there were several years where I did not make a single edit. I became much more active this year, especially in the later half. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"...was this one on Gun show loophole..." meaning on that particular page, not ever. It looks like the subject matter that you used to edit was different, on therapy and acid and other related items. Just seems to be your first foray into this arena, but you seem pretty well versed in it. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn I thought that was what you meant but just wanted to be sure. You can see from my contribs that I contribute to a variety of topics, including the chemistry, biomedicine, and pseudoscience topics that were my main focus back in the day, although the balance has shifted. Lately I've been participating in a lot of RM discussions and I look at the list of open move discussions frequently.

With respect to Gun show loophole, I've tried to move forward productively by addressing and incorporating issues raised by you and others who object to the outcome of the RMs. My views have shifted as a result of recent and ongoing discussions. I would have been fine with the lead and body at the time the NPOV discussion started but I now favor better coverage of prominent issues with the term itself. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn's edit history and questions here might also be considered highly unusual, but please don't worry about it. They are required to follow policy just like everyone else. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, comments like this, accusing others of "ignoring" certain comments seems inappropriate, and distracting. I suggest hatting it. DN (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What does "hatting it" mean? I looked it up. I am not familiar with that phrase. Where does it originate? Also, why are you responding on behalf of Myceteae on his or her talk page? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not unusual for editors to see and respond to posts on one another's user talk page. DN's comment are welcome here. (I admit I was surprised when I first encountered this community norm. I have come to appreciate it.) I was frustrated by the accusation that we are "ignoring" such comments in the midst of a long and complex discussion in which DN, myself, and others have repeatedly described and offered support for our assessment about the meaning and usage of GSL. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

𝑪𝒉𝓮c𝚔ᕈօ𝒊݊ꪀ𝗍𝗌, 𝙥𝙡𝙨 🫨🩷🩵🩶🫸🏻🫷🏻 ~2026-39146-4 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow, blast from the past. @DN, were you aware of Iljhgtn and Fenharrow's sockpuppetry? I'd stepped away from Gun show loophole a while ago. I found myself revisiting the article and talk page recently but did not contribute. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I had my suspicions and even did some digging, but I decided to step back because I wasn't in a position to make accusations given our contentious discussions here. I really had no good options but to step back and let them make fools of themselves. DN (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@DN, I'm glad it's been taken care of. I realize there are other editors with similar views and that there is a long history with that page, but during my relatively brief involvement, those two did strike me as particularly obstructive. I hope you are well, otherwise. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Cryptids

Since I am leaving the project, I wanted to thank you for your work on this and many other pages. The users who trashed previous attempts to create a SELCRIT seemed to have much the same agenda as the new ones: Having a SELCRIT means that the article is maintainable. If it is maintainable, it is a legitimate article, which poses a problem for their determination to delete it from the encyclopaedia entirely. I thought it was worth it to fight that agenda. I am hoping my withdrawal from Wikipedia won't end the discussion. Thank you again for making the encyclopaedia a better resource. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Last1in Best of luck to you and thank you for your contributions. Whether this is a temporary or a permanent departure, take care of yourself and protect your peace. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been editing since April of 2005, usually not from my account because my previous employer's proxy service made logins impossible, but editing steadily nonetheless. After seeing what Bloodofox posted, I reviewed their edit history. Their attacks are wide-ranging, vicious and unrelenting. They appear to pursue editors from article to article, hounding editors until they surrender or quit. I am choosing the latter option. I expect that this will be my last edit, but I honestly, truly appreciate your constructive criticism of what I had hoped would make the Cryptid article better. Good luck and cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Last1in Only you know the best course of action for yourself at this point. For what it's worth, I felt the the conversation was constructive and so far I haven't seen a rash of challenges to items that have recently been removed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

GSL poll

Sorry, your !vote caught me a bit off guard. FYI, I have since added Version D which removes the combination of controversial & political and simply adds "controversial", and specified this is only a pre-RFC poll...no official RFC link have been set up.

• Version D:The gun show loophole is a controversial term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Cheers DN (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m very much opposed to the word “controversial.” I think focusing on the opening sentence is the wrong move. I don’t know that I have anything else constructive do say… I’ll probably take another look at the options again tomorrow and see if I have anything new to add. Thanks for the heads up. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Myceteae for collecting more than 1.0 point during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's NOV24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer Alt (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Sorry you didn't get the redirect to happen at the chemicals conspiracy theory article. After seeing this comment from Daniel Rigal, I think it makes sense.

In previous discussions I have raised that the only conspiracy theory is the gay frogs claim, specifically because it involves the government doing it. RFKs argument is a fringe theory, but probably not a conspiracy theory.

The general hypothesis about endocrine disruptors and sexual orientation / gender dysphoria is a question of science. The article seems like a WP:COATRACK.

Zenomonoz (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s disappointing to see a nonsensical name, that is also not a COMMONNAME, survive. RFK Jr. did reference the same chemical and many articles covering his statements explicitly discuss the history back to Jones's “gay frogs” comments. I think it’s a borderline case – not the highest quality article for sure. The article title is terrible but I don’t have a better suggestion for the editors who think RFK’s comments belong but that gay frogs is too narrow a description. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps this needs an RFC or some feedback from those not involved on the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don’t have the energy to fight it nor do I have a better suggestion for the title or a specific question for the RfC. In hindsight, maybe I should have alerted the LGBTQ+ studies project to the two RMs without comment on my position. I sort of backed myself into a corner making an over-the-top MoS proposal without providing context. When pressed for examples, I didn’t want to advocate hard for my position outside of the RM discussions in progress (WP:CANVASS). In contrast to gay frogs, the outcome of Talk:Modern pagan views on LGBT people#Requested move 22 January 2025 was a really nice example of collaboration to improve an article title, so it’s not a total loss. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I thought your suggestion was an improvement over LGBT chemicals. It’s more precise and certainly more linguistically sound. But it could also be much broader than fringe theories stemming from the Xenopus atrazine studies. The article could still have COATRACK problems or could maybe be transformed into an article on a coherent subject with the current title or something like you propose. I’m open to participating in further discussion but I’m out of ideas for starting one. I appreciate your efforts here! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Reply on moving Ampersand to And sign

You can use WP:COMMONNAME to your advantage to move the page. NoahJohnsen (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@NoahJohnsen I don't understand what you mean here. Probably best to reply at Talk:Ampersand#Requested move 5 June 2025. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This is to do with conduct by user Dicklyon in moving - I am informing you as you were involved in the move discussion at 1925 Tri-State tornado or 2021 Tri-State tornado. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you @Departure–. I will take a look and give some thought to whether and how best to contribute. Adding link to help myself locate the discussion later: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent, long-term battleground behavior from multiple editors at capitalization RMs. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

You like participating in requested move discussions, right? Come check this out: Talk:Synurid#Requested move 31 August 2025 Jako96 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 thanks for the heads up! I was on a bit of an unplanned wiki break and missed the discussion before it closed but I do appreciate the opportunity to contribute to these RMs. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! Would you want me to inform you every time I start a RM discussion? Jako96 (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 No, I think that's not necessary. I do look at RMCD pretty regularly but I've been cutting back a bit. I guess if a discussion has gotten too little attention or needs an additional perspective, you can drop me a line from time to time. I may not always be able to jump in in time.

Side note – Selectively notifying individuals of RM (and similar) discussions may raise eyebrows. It could give the appearance of WP:CANVASSing. To be clear, I do not think you did anything wrong here. Your notice here was neutrally worded. Plus, I don't always agree with you in these RMs, so it's not like you were trying to recruit someone from your 'side'. I think it shows your genuine interest in process and participation. If anyone had questioned this notification, I would have defended you on these grounds. Just something to be aware of! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You're right, that would not be necessary. Indeed, I'm not trying to recruit someone from my side, I just asked you that because I know you like to participate in RMs. Anyway, thanks for everything! Jako96 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 You're welcome! And thanks again for reaching out. :) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, you're welcome! By the way, are you by any chance interested in this non-RM discussion? Jako96 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 I responded there. Thanks! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Slate on Erika Kirk talkpage

You even used the same quote I was going to use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång great minds think alike! 😊 --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 12:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Btw, you do know Wikipedia:Press coverage 2025 exists, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder and thanks for adding the Slate piece! I recently discovered the {{Press}} template and Wikipedia:Press coverage 2025. I've only used {{Press}} a few times, mostly for coverage like this with a very narrow focus that doesn't seem to belong at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2025, so I haven't developed a habit to add stories there. What do you think about the Fox News article, which is discussed in Slate, does that belong on WP:PRESS 25? It's framed around the Charlie Kirk article but also discusses other articles and issues. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO it fits, it has some content on WP as whole. If you pick a quote, try to get some of that aspect. What you don't want there is stuff like . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

🤦🏾‍♂️ Good grief! @Gråbergs Gråa Sång --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

On press-templates, you can also put them on Wikiprojects , projectpages , Arbcom cases , Jimbotalk ...

And like with anything else on WP, sometimes people will disagree when you add something: Template_talk:Press#Inclusion_of_Townhall_op-ed. You might find Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_August_6#Template:Press interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång You know, I had a feeling when I stumbled across this a couple months ago that ‘Press’ might be an occasional source of controversy. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

and by "this" I just mean the existence of Press/Press coverage. I wasn't aware of these discussions. Interesting reading, to be sure! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The benefit isn't obvious, to an extent it's a "for fun" thing, at least when the context isn't incredibly tragic. But they can inspire and make people think new things. I remember once where there was a lot of "why should we promote this a-hole?", but sure enough, further down the thread people started to discuss improving sourcing.

Here are 2 of my favorite WP-stories: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I struggle to understand the strength of the objections. I understand, and of course broadly agree with, wanting to make sure every activity has a clear relationship to improving or maintaining the public-facing encyclopedia* and more specific concerns about talk page bloat. But editors can lose the forest for the trees with too-narrow a utilitarian focus.

*And to be clear, I think the Press business likely does have a net positive impact on our end product, even if it mostly goes unnoticed and is sometimes a locus of conflict. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Side note, have you read The Editors, the novel by the author of the Slate article? I learned about it yesterday after reading the article. I'm always saying I need to read more fiction so I might pick up a copy. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I have not, but I have chatted a little with the author. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Oh cool!! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Template_talk:Press#Inclusion_of_Townhall_op-ed just got a closure, so that's one for the Template:Press inclusionists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

New year: WP:PRESS 26. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The House Jack Built

	I Survived Kirk
	Congrats, you survived the Charlie Kirk move discussion. Thanks for all you've done during this time. Wear this shirt with honor. Don't bleach it! Babysharkb☩ss2 (DEADMAU5) 17:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Babysharkboss2! And thank you for your help with the discussion. There were more than a few hiccups and many broader issues were raised and not resolved. I appreciate your efforts to organize this complex thread. Even when I disagreed with particular actions, the role you and several other participants and watchers played ultimately contributed a more orderly and coherent process. Cheers, --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2, I'm coming to this incredibly late, but the shirt should have been red. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course. My mistake lol Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 04:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

If I knew what a redirect molecule looked like I'd get you one

	If I knew what a redirect molecule looked like I'd get you one
	For taking on the task of reviewing the molecule redirects. The back of the redirect queue might actually be usable again soon! Rusalkii (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rusalkii Thanks!!! 🧪⚛️🧑‍🔬😄 --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

List of K-pop films moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of K-pop films. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Thank you for your consistently thoughtful and well-reasoned participation at RfD, which makes things much easier for closers and other editors, and also enhances the reader experience. Left guide (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Left guide! 😃 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

redirect

Hey I recall you objected to a redirect from Next Israeli election, but it appears it does redirect now despite the edit summary says "without leaving a redirect"? I am also not certain how we would do this without leaving a redirect. Slomo666 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Slomo666 Thanks for the heads up! The old title, Next Israeli legislative election, was deleted per the recommendation in the RM discussion but Next Israeli election and the other redirects to the article were left in place. I will nominate these for deletion at WP:RFD. The standard practice when a page is moved is to convert the old title to a redirect to a the new title as an {{R from move}} and to retarget all the existing redirects to the new target. I would not expect the other redirects to be deleted without explicit discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Why actually would it be so bad if there was a redirect? Don't we want ppl who maybe don't follow electoral calendars to find the article? Slomo666 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Slomo666 I nominated these for deletion here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 30#Next Israeli election redirects. Feel free to make the argument for keeping these. Let me know if you have any questions about redirects and RfD. I'm still newish to participating in RfD but I'm quite active there. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Myceteae! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Schmear

Cant reply on the AFD, but I meant that bagel and cream cheese was not linked on schmear, not the reverse. :) ←Metallurgist (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist Gotcha! That makes more sense. I see that the redirect target has already been changed… I think I will take this to WP:RFD for a more definitive resolution. I will ping AfD participants. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I am actually making a post on the redirect talk page right now. Just adding the tags ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist this should go to RfD. I know the closing comment said this could be discussed on talk but redirect talk pages typically have very little traffic. RfD is the correct venue and the discussion would benefit from fresh eyes in addition to participants in the prior discussions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not opposed to that but I already made it... And I suppose thats a fair point. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist Thanks for following up on this! I try to keep tabs on discussions I've participated in and probably would have seen what happened here eventually but this one very likely may have fallen through the cracks. I of course have my own view about the best target but regardless of the outcome I think it's important that this be discussed given the divergent opinions in the AfD and multiple plausible targets. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think this will be an easy consensus tho. Its kinda silly to think about, even bagel and cream cheese being a separate article. ←Metallurgist (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist I think bagel and cream cheese is sufficiently notable on its own but that's another matter! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Unrelated, geh I missed the Israeli election RM. I had meant to comment on that, but I would have supported it as well. There is a Yiddish saying "You cant dance at two weddings". My mother says it as "every wedding". ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist. Wise words, applicable to many situations on-wiki and IRL. :) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ferret!

BumblB645 has given you a ferret! Ferrets promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a ferret, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Give someone a ferret by adding {{subst:Ferret}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

BumblB645 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

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) 00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on steroid tradename redirects

Just wanted to say bravo for diving into all those redirects- at the very least they should be retargeted as you say. Clearly at some point users or a bot just made redirects from lists at PubChem or the like without scrutinizing anything- not helpful! Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mdewman6 I'm glad it's appreciated! I don't want to overload RfD and verifying these is quite time consuming so I'm breaking up the list and manually retargeting one-offs. If memory serves, there were >250 when I started reviewing these last month and almost all of them were created by the same bot. It's a mess. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

God Jul!

Hello Myceteae: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Happy holidays! 😊 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

November 2025 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Myceteae for collecting more than 1 point during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's NOV25 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 6,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Your signature

Could you please adjust the colour shade of your signature? It's hard to make out in dark mode. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@TheTechie how's this? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks! thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 23:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Your signature, as used here, is overlong at almost 280 characters, which is against the WP:SIGLEN policy. It also contains a template contrary to the WP:SIG#NT policy; specifically, this is {{zero width joiner}}, which should be replaced by the entity ‍. You also have an invalid declaration color: color:#324c80 where the property name and colon both appear twice, which means that the declaration is ignored by browsers. The result of this is that your user page link is appearing in the default blue colour, instead of your intended   colour. Did you know that the style= attribute can be used on all HTML elements, without exception? This means that you can eliminate two of the three <span>...</span> pairs, and so your sig may be reduced from 277 characters to 228, as follows:

—[[User:Myceteae|<b style="font-family: verdana; color:#324c80;">Myceteae</b>]]<span style="visibility:hidden; color:transparent; padding-left:2px">&zwj;</span>🍄‍🟫 ([[User talk:Myceteae|<i style="font-family: verdana;">talk</i>]])

which will bring it under the maximum permitted length set down at WP:SIGLEN. Thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Redrose64! Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64 I did make a couple more adjustments. This now has fewer characters and I believe is still compliant. Thanks for your help! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Re: RM on Talk:Leg warmer

Hey Myceteae, the move request on the Leg warmer page was opened by me largely as a procedural matter to resolve the prior undiscussed move. I was already on the fence before and after the arguments made in the RM I'm pretty much convinced that I should withdraw the nomination, as the original mover on whose behalf I opened the RM hasn't commented on it and doesn't seem likely to. I'm messaging you because I'm not exactly sure how to go about withdrawing the proposal short of striking out my own statements, and remembered you helping someone else with the process during an earlier discussion. I'd really appreciate your help with this. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Glasspalace, thanks for reaching out. I am always happy to help a fellow editor! As I see it, there are two options. You can close the discussion yourself as withdrawn. Since there are only 'oppose' !votes at this time, withdrawal is allowable per WP:RMEC. I have never actually closed an RM myself so I don't have first-hand knowledge of the steps. There are instructions at WP:RMCS. The other option is to indicate your intent to withdraw within the listing itself and wait for an uninvolved editor to come along and close it. The most straightforward way to do that is to strike the original nomination rationale statement and at the end append Withdrawn with a brief explanation, signature, and date. This does leave open the possibility that other editors will come along and express support for the move. The discussion may stay open for the entire 7 days but a lot of people watch RM so it's possible someone will come along and close it early as withdrawn based on clear documentation in the discussion. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. Let me know how else I can help. Cheers —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you so much! I've closed a fair few RMs myself so I'm familiar with the closing procedure. Thanks a lot for your help. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 09:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Glasspalace you’re welcome! 😊 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Myceteae!

Happy New Year!

Myceteae,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Agnieszka653 Thank you, and Happy New Year to you! :) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your participation at RMs, RfD, and elsewhere. Your comments are always well-reasoned and grounded in evidence, which makes them very helpful as a !voter. They are also consistently specific and detailed, which is very helpful as a closer. Please keep up the good work. Toadspike [Talk] 10:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike thank you so much for the kind words! I like to think my contributions are constructive. Over the last year or so I have been working on being concise, limiting counterproductive back-and-forths, and not jumping into every discussion. (I'm aware I still have work to do on this front!) It is wonderful to have positive feedback. :) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 I would actually like to learn how you make such great comments. Most of the ones I make are usually pretty crappy, such as "per nom / X" or mere assertions of something. I do sometimes provide evidence with pageviews for a primary topic by usage or Ngrams for a common name, though. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) . . (he/him) 06:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@1isall well I am down right flattered. 😃 I've spent a lifetime thinking about and crafting arguments in other forums. I guess if I have any advice it would be to engage with arguments in a variety of mediums and to maintain an open mind and keep engaging here. I learn a lot and pick things up from my fellow editors. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess I will have to do the same. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) . . (he/him) 14:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Screw it, barnstar time. This is for all the help with the possessive redirects issue; I'm handing these out for all the editors that have helped me get this handled (and helped me when my lack of experience with handling this sort of thing shone through a bit lol). I thus plan to give one of these out to each of the following: MEN KISSING, voorts, Patar knight, Cryptic, and Myceteae. ... and if y'all think I missed someone important, ping me lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Lunamann! I appreciate all your work on this! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Another of the same barnstar for you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For the exact same reasons as mentioned above by Luna, haha. And also for helping me personally out. Thank you! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@MEN KISSING And thank YOU! It takes a village and you've played a vital role! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Inquiry from a newly autoconfirmed user.

Hi,

I hope you are having a good day. I would just like to inquire on how you got so many edits in 30 days, and how I could speed up some of my edits as you do. If possible, for better understanding please look at my recent contributions.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mycaeneangreecetuffboy

3/2/26 Mycaeneangreecetuffboy (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Mycaeneangreecetuffboy, I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for. If you look at my contributions, you'll see that I have been editing for almost 19 years and started off pretty slow. These days, the vast majority of my contributions are to discussion pages, especially WP:RFD, and occasionally WP:RMCD and talk page discussion for articles of interest to me.

I started off by editing articles that interested me but for the most part I was an infrequent contributor for many years. I honestly don't remember how I stumbled upon RM ("RMCD"), where I was much more active before RFD, but I have become more interested in these areas than in adding encyclopedia content. That said, I do occasionally add content to articles that interest me, sometimes inspired by discussions I've taken part in, and I also make small changes and corrections to articles I am reading. For example, updating links, rewording awkward phrases, and correcting small errors.

In general, I think it's a bad idea to try to "juice" your edits just to reach a particular status. Find articles that interest you or tasks and discussions you enjoy participating in. Avoid racking up trivial edits, especially early on. This can give the appearance that you are trying to game the system to access additional privileges, whether or not this is the case. On the other hand, if you are making major changes to an article, go slowly at first and be prepared to engage with other editors who may challenge or question your edits.

WP:TEAHOUSE is a great place for new editors to ask questions and get advice. I wish I could be more helpful. I'm always happy to help new editors but I'm sort of bad at describing my won approach, which is rather idiosyncratic and aligned with my random interests and skills. If you have a more specific question about my main areas of contribution, I will do my best to help. Otherwise, I think the Teahouse is a good place to start, or follow up with one of the editors who has left 'welcome' messages on your talk page. Folks who monitor Teahouse and post welcome messages on new editor talk pages are usually very helpful and have good general advice for new editors. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your response. Juicing the system was also not my intention as well, to clarify, I was just trying to be more productive with my edits.

Regards, Mycaeneangreecetuffboy (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mycaeneangreecetuffboy I understand. I apologize if that came off as an accusation, just wanted to give you a heads up about how it can appear to some folks when a new editor starts making a large number of edits, especially if they are either very minor edits or massive edits. I see from your talk page that you have joined the unreferenced articles drive. Drives and other WikiProject initiatives are great ways to get involved! Since you asked for advice, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Inline citation, which are directly relevant to this drive. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is probably one of the most important Wiki guidelines. Read through the main points but don't expect to memorize or understand every application of the guideline right away. It's easy to be intimidated by all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Keep making your edits, slow and steady, and just be prepared to engage with other editors. If you're especially interested in adding sources to unreferenced articles, look at the WikiProject talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles) and don't be afraid to ask questions there. Another good place for discussions about reliable sources is WP:RSN. Welcome to Wikipedia :) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I hope you are having a good day. I would just like to say thank you.

Sincerely, Mycaeneangreecetuffboy (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Mixing inline wiki markup ('') with block-level HTML (<p>) may break parsing

Myceteae, thanks for your comment at Talk:Mais qui ?. Please don't use constructions like

''<p>[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' does have guidance on this (login required to access linked sections)

as this breaks parsing, which affects syntax highlighting and may cause Linter errors. If you want to use html tags like <p> then think about how you'd italicize: you'd say, <p><i>[[Chicago Manual of Style]]</i> does have guidance...</p>, right? You'd never nest the block-level p-tag inside the inline-level i-tag. Mixing them with wiki markup just makes it harder on the parser, which usually knows what you meant, but not always. If you do use Html, please close all your tags (even ones that most browsers are very forgiving about unclosed ones, like p- and li-tags), and close nested tags last-in, first out (<p><li>...</li></p>). As an alternative to <p>, you can use template {{pb}}, which does not require closing at the end of the paragraph. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The ''<p>[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' was a sloppy error as I copied and pasted. I wasn't aware of the need to close <p> tags here. I haven't thought about that in years! Thanks for the heads up. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries. You don't really *need* to close p-tags if you do everything else right, but you increase the risk of an incorrect parse if there's other squirrely stuff mixed in. Template {{pb}} works nicely, and you can stick it most anywhere. I use it inside the |customend= parameter on Welcome templates like these for example, to add a final paragraph at the end of the welcome message. I'd be very wary of using a p-tag in that context. Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Myceteae. Thank you for your work on De Loys's ape. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment: Nice work! To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with @Mariamnei:. Mariamnei (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei Thank you! I don't want to take too much credit for restoring an old revision and sprucing it up, and though it still needs work, I think it's a real improvement :) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Myceteae. Thank you for your work on C'est Bon. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating this disambiguation page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Quotation marks around redirect

Did you mean to create this redirect with quotation marks around its title? Toadspike [Talk] 01:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike Ahh! No, I certainly did not. I will WP:G7 it. Thanks for catching this! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: I moved "Jeremy Iverson" to Jeremy Iverson and then tagged the original for speedy deletion, which has been done. So the above link still works but points to Jeremy Iverson, while the page with the offending title has been deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at AfD

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran–United States war. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 05:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For always being right when it comes to WP:RMs, especially in tricky ones Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This is high praise! Thanks, @Kowal2701! I had sort or stepped back from RM for a while but I've enjoyed being back in the action. It's nice to have some encouragement. I'll try not to let it go to my head, and of course I don't think I'm always right. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Lol, "practically always". Always well-reasoned !votes that save lazy editors like myself time and energy, glad you enjoy it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Archival of some MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak discussions

Hi Myceteae. Just to let you know, I've already archived some ended discussions at Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak/Archive 1, so the age for the auto archive you setup may need adjusting. Thank you, Fortek67 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Fortek67 Thanks for the heads up! I anticipated there would be questions or different preferences, hence why I left a fairly detailed rationale in the edit summary. I see that your manual archiving has been reverted and the archive is now empty. I also see that someone has changed it to a 30-day auto-archiving period. Perhaps we should have a discussion on the talk page. I hate to clutter it more but there are clearly differences of opinion. Whatever we decide now will need monitoring and frequent adjusting. I tend to be somewhat conservative when it comes to auto-archiving. I think, for most pages, there is little benefit to quickly removing "old" posts. A breaking news article requires a different approach and should still be supplemented with manual archiving. I didn't look at the history to review which posts you archived. <24 hours is a little extreme though there are certainly posts that are resolved in that timeframe. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Myceteae. I agree, 24 hours is a little extreme for some discussions. I wrote to the person who reverted my edits, Mathglot, they encouraged starting a consensus in the talk page. Thanks, Fortek67 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the TP is the right venue to get consensus on archiving. Fwiw, I also favor longer archiving, and use of manual curation for breaking news, keeping what is relevant or provides context for earlier decisions and concerns, to avoid reinventing the wheel on the TP, or churning the article. Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Do one of you mind starting a consensus on the archival of the discussions? I am not very experienced when it comes to archiving. Thank you. Fortek67 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I will start a discussion shortly. Thanks @Fortek67 and @Mathglot for all the work you're both doing on that page! For manual archiving, I would only remove posts that are clearly irrelevant and almost never sooner than 1–2 days. Relevance is arguably more important than age, though it is subjective. For example, the requests move discussion has continued to be a topic of interest and is highly likely to be proposed again. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak § Auto-archiving —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Myceteae! Fortek67 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

I'm sorry for the WP:TRAINWRECK that I could've handled better during the MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak. The truth is that I created the United States page and knew it was going to be deleted. So, I pivoted the page move to the Draft:Timeline of the MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak. I felt like it would've been a permanent stain on my record if I had an article deleted in a basically unanimous decision. Call me a Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning every time you want. However, I am contemplating if I want to move on from Wikipedia because of a lot of blunders I've had in the past: User talk:CostalCal. CostalCal (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@CostalCal, I'm sorry to hear that. I won't sugar coat it, that AfD situation was a mess. I imagine some of the responses may have felt personal but I can assure you that is not where I was coming from nor did I read that as the tone of the other respondents. It might be good to take a short break. I don't recall running into you before, so I can't give an overall comment on your contributions, but just scrolling through your user page and talk page I see you have receive many barnstars and compliments, in addition to some of the "blunders" as you call them, and have made a large number of edits. With fast moving topics like a breaking news story and in the middle of XfD discussions, I would just encourage you to slow down. When I came int the AfD discussion, via the post at Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak, I was rather bewildered by the history. It looks to me like you were trying your best to produce quality content and respond to some of the feedback. I made the AN post in hopes of putting a stop to the discussion, which was confusing and not productive. I was deliberate in not framing it as a user behavior problem, although I do think your actions qualified as disruptive, because they appeared to me to be in good faith and I could see that things had gotten out of control.

For what it's worth, I think the MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak#Timeline is too bloated. I was actually contemplating jumping in to the discussion to voice support for either splitting off the timeline or just trimming the coverage in the main outbreak article. But when I got to the AfD I uncovered larger problems. Also, I've gotten into some back-and-forth with other editors at Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak#Auto-archiving. Everyone is doing their best to respond to a firehose of new information and a huge number of edits every day.

Anyway, I hope you are able to reflect on this, as well as your positive contributions to Wikipedia, and find a way forward. I know I make the most mistakes when I get flustered and start moving too fast. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

i do not want to re-bloat the article talk-page, but

Hi! i think that the following (subtopic) should be collapsed, Talk:MV_Hondius_hantavirus_outbreak#Infobox,_dubious. I am also fine with it being removed/archived.

Have a nice day. ~2026-27573-13 (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I've collapsed it, good suggestion! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Good job

Infobox can be changed to,

"Disease: hantavirus pulmonary syndrome", for starters, if you think that is okay.--Good job on pathogen/infobox! Side note: i will try to use article-talkPage next time. ~2026-29043-04 (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Please do take a look at the article talk page and add your feedback there when possible. I know it can be hard to navigate. I see that I messed up the link in my edit summary—ugh! The full, rather extensive discussion starts here: Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak#Species, not strain. I posted about the latest infobox update within the thread here: Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak#Infobox update. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I have interacted with several of the threads there (before hardware "jumped I.P." on its own).--I might not have anything to add to the "old" threads - only to upcoming threads. Have a nice day! ~2026-29043-04 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to keep track of all the IPs I've interacted with on the page but there have been some strong contributions. Keep up the good work and don't hesitate to create an account to keep the fun going! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Privacy and hantavirus (and my moving on from "old thread")

From "old thread" that i quite possibly have moved on from:

"Now as for the table of cases, I'm increasing unsure we should have this in the first place. It might raise privacy concerns."

My comment: If one thinks there might be privacy concerns, then anyone should consider suggesting to remove any of the following from the table:

• the exact age, could be changed (in the table) to "20-29" ... "60-69" years old, or something like that.
  

and/or remove

• male-or-female gender, from the table.--Note: i can imagine possible privacy concerns, such as a person ending up in the table-of-cases, without having been on a cruise-ship, or without having been in those provinces where the rice-mouses roam. (Without direct age-info and/or direct gender-info in the table, privacy-concerns might be reduced significantly, if not totally.)
  

For now, i am fine with one or both "removals" (above), happening thru a near-consensus of administrators. Thereafter the (main) community of wikipedians can gain consensus, for how to move on.--Wikipedia does perhaps have an ethics-board-et-cetera, and it might be relevant to mention privacy-concerns to such board? Anyway, i expect to move on to newer and "better" threads. ~2026-29043-04 (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Now this definitely belongs on article talk. There is an active discussion at Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak#Status table where I posted just before seeing your response here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I have moved on from "old thread", but anyone is free to use the text in this thread. (Just wanted to let you know - before info gets lost in time - that privacy-concern is not necessarily a frivolous idea, in topics where contamination-thru-droplets are an issue.) ~2026-29043-04 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I have "moved" "my" text into the thread you mentioned. (Seems like it was not one of "my" "old threads".) ~2026-29043-04 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

FAQ (table of contents, and Hantavirus-infectees related to a 100+ passenger-ship)

1. Does at least one person, feel that too many details in that table-of-contents, could be a privacy-concern?

2. By removing the table-of-contents, but keeping all the information spread thru paragraphs and sentences - does that make the concern (feel) smaller?

I think the following is a fair presentation (to some) of concerns:
"We already have details about these unidentified individuals throughout but something about tabular details that list age, nationality, test results, and whether someone is currently in the hospital seems improper even though this information is available elsewhere".

"My" FAQ, has its first version above.

Note: do i think there is much point in answering questions about those details, on talk pages? It might be wise to collect info in a FAQ, and quote whatever present version there is of a FAQ.

Another note: Important points might include: "Non-public figures". ~2026-29057-56 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I think these are concerns worth discussion on the article talk page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Hello, I'm Dafootballguy. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Poop have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 00:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong revert. My bad. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 00:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 01:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour at Talk:Major Oak

I really tried to engage with you, and I don't understand why you want to have an edit war while we're discussing. Can you please stop? Let's discuss at the central venue rather than opening new threads again. I note that one multi-thread was already closed by Redrose64. ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

As you know, I have started an AN thread about this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to review talk page discussion closure —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Spreading Peace

Issac I Navarro (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you for your edits on the RfC at Talk:Clop (erotic fan art). I appreciated your willingness to engage with nuance. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

New AN thread

Hi Myceteae, I've named you as a party here. ~2026-37915-52 (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

For (mostly my) reference, it's here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to review talk page closures (2nd time) and subsequent actions —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Also for my own reference, I wonder what purpose they have for keeping this for later… —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

RNEUTRAL rewrite

In re Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 3 § c-Myceteae-20260702005900-Tamzin-20260626192200, I honestly think a rewrite of RNEUTRAL is due. Not too radical a one substantively, but the current text has a lot of repetition and focuses heavily on how non-neutral redirects wind up existing, which mostly doesn't matter. (Also one of its canonical examples, Barack Obama Muslim rumorBarack Obama Muslim rumor, isn't even a non-neutral redirect!) I'm thinking something like:

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. If the article on the redirect's topic does not give context for the non-neutral term in its lead paragraph, it is generally preferable to redirect to a section or related article that does give context; otherwise the reader could be misled to think that Wikipedia endorses the equation of the non-neutral term and the topic.

• Moscow MitchMoscow Mitch, a derisive nickname for Mitch McConnell, redirects not to the lead section of his article but to Mitch McConnell § In popular culture, which discusses its usage.
• Liz WindsorLiz Windsor, a derisive nickname for Elizabeth II, redirects not to her article but to Personality and image of Elizabeth II § Critics, which discusses its usage.
• Racist Winston ChurchillRacist Winston Churchill redirects not to Winston Churchill but to Racial views of Winston Churchill. Even though the article does not use the exact phrase, it still explains the concept that the term refers to.
• GypsyGypsy, a controversial term for Romani people, does redirect to that article, which explains the term's usage in its lead section.
• Cancer sticksCancer sticks, a term used to refer to cigarettes, does redirect to that article. Even though the article does not use the exact phrase, the lead section clearly establishes that cigarettes are associated with cancer, giving readers context for the name.

More scrutiny should be applied to non-neutral redirects concerning living persons, sensitive political subjects, or claims that have been proven false. On the other hand, it is generally undesirable to delete non-neutral redirects that were previously the title of the article in question for more than a brief period of time.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this! This represents some real improvements though I feel something is missing. I'm not sure it quite captures our actual practice, nor am I confident I can articulate what that practice is. I have a few initial reactions, which are not fully considered and by no means definitive.

One thought I have is to expand the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes § Non-neutral terms and/or perhaps in an essay describing common arguments and approaches. I think there are some considerations and outcomes that may not have the level of consensus of a guideline but that are worth describing.

I do think that some of the wording in the final paragraph is useful to retain:

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

It is useful to be explicit that we often delete these, after giving some examples that have been deemed appropriate.

This is perhaps a minor point, but I think we should include a -gate example just because these are so common. AntennagateAntennagate is similar to the Cancer sticksCancer sticks example in that the term is not used at the target but the coverage is felt to be sufficiently clear to justify the redirect. There are plenty of other examples at -gate that do and do not use the term.

We should include a positive example. There is a reasonable tendency to focus on pejorative non-neutrality but promotional, fancrufty, obscure, and other laudatory or celebratory redirects are also a concern. I don't think CEO of sexCEO of sex is a good example (assuming it's kept). How about King of PopKing of Pop?

Two scenarios that arise at RFD and are not covered by the current guidance nor this proposal come to mind:

1. A non-neutral name is reasonably well documented in reliable sources but is not covered on Wikipedia and is felt to require some explanation.
2. A non-neutral name rarely or never appears in reliable sources but is common in unreliable sources.

Maybe these are too squishy, and our approach too subjective and case-by-case, to describe any sort of consensus approach. The current guidance references both verifiability and reliable sources (as in the paragraph I quoted above). In practice, I think our standards vary with respect to the application of V and RS to WP:RNEUTRAL determinations. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tamzin, realized I never tagged you in my reply. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of K-pop films

Hello, Myceteae. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of K-pop films, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 07:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Palm Beach International Airport move request

hi this move request was just relisted in discussions and as you said there were more support than oppose so I am going to undo your closure as it was premature. you can voice if you support or oppose it. ~2026-38391-81 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

you have not responded so I reverted your closure ~2026-38391-81 (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Please be patient! I was just about to publish this reply before you reverted me again. @~2026-38391-81, that is not how this works. Consensus is not based on a pure vote count but by assessing the strength of arguments. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more information. I provided a detailed explanation for my closure. If you have other questions or concerns about what I have written, please let me know. Per WP:RMRELIST, discussions generally should not be relisted more than once and any qualified editor may close a discussion following a relist. My assessment is that consensus was clear and that further discussion after more than two weeks since the discussion started was unlikely to be productive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

but there was clearly much more support so I think you closed it because you have bias against trump ~2026-38391-81 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You are casting aspersions and making assumptions about my ideology, not engaging in the substance of what I wrote. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

because so many users at the end were saying that president Donald Trump airport was the official name as it was ~2026-38391-81 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes but those arguments are against Wikipedia policy and practice, and were rejected by multiple editors in the discussion, which I explained in my closing statement. You are welcome to start a move review (WP:MRV). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38391-81WP:RMRELIST states that when a relisted requested move discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait after a relist. Whether the closure was correct depends on the assessment of consensus, not on how long the relisted discussion remained open. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I came here to ask for something else but I feel obligated to just say that it was a good close, as I was going to make a very similar one myself, meant to be posted once the first relisting had elapsed only for me to decide to hold off for a day or two after the second one. and then Myceteae sniped it which I'm a bit bummed about but obviously I only have myself to blame for that

There were about two dozen supporters participants arguments consisted of solely of one or more of the following: appeals to official naming, accusations against and attacks on opposers, calling others arguments bad with no elaboration, LLM usage, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:CRYSTALBALL, or none of mentioned but still not giving any policy-and-guideline argument for the support. Compare that to about two opposing participants who fall into that category. Then there were also something like four or five supporters and ten or so opposers whose comments just said something like "WP:COMMONNAME" with no elaboration. So just after pruning, there is way more solid opposition than support. Then factor in the strength of the remaining arguments and there is more than enough of a consensus to close in favour of not moving.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltazarian (talk • contribs) 06:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian thanks for the endorsement and kind words! You're a more experience closer than I am, so this is high praise, and I welcome any additional feedback. There were a few areas I considered expanding on, but I ultimately decided that the close was long enough and sufficiently covered the most important aspects of the discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The close is pretty much exactly as I would have written it except one thing that I detailed below, in perhaps a few too many words... please don't take the wall of text as "this is how wrong you are", I'm just really bad at writing concisely when I'm trying to be clear about nuanced things. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This needs to be reopened and if it is not, I will go to Move Review. For starters, the discussion was closed a day after it was relisted. That alone is enough of a reason to undo the close. Furthermore, you're overriding a consensus with a very weak argument using a bogus interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME where it has been argued that we can't tell yet whether people will accept the new name or not, so we must not rename it. As others pointed out it the discussion official signage, all travel websites, and new articles now use the new name. I don't think anyone has shown an example where wikipedia is using a completely different name (not a slight variation) for an airport than its official name. Like it or not, the airport has been renamed and the name of the article needs to reflect that. Discussions like this is why wikipedia is becoming a laughing stock of the internet.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Look, I'm sure that you genuinely think you are in the right here, but every single word between "..Move Review." and "Discussions like this.." is part of one of various misunderstandings of how requested moves work that have already been addressed in the RM or in other comments here. You are within your rights to go to Move Review, but I assure you that accosting Myceteae with the same flawed arguments used in the RM will not bear fruit. Nor fungi. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian not even a fruiting body. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, as Maltazarian said, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of RM, WP:Consensus, and all the other stuff that's already been linked in this discussion. I decline to re-open the RM. So, you are entitled to a move review. I think it's likely to be unsuccessful. Also, they typically last several weeks, upwards of a month (check out the June discussion still at WP:MRV). You would be better off starting a new RM in a month or two that clearly satisfies WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

For effecting a charged and very visible closure at Talk:Palm_Beach_International_Airport. It was brave, especially so given a supermajority in !votes was against your closure. But we Wikipedians operate not on !vote-count but on policy-based arguments. If I'm correct, this would also be one of your first, if not the first, closure straight off of the WP:CR boards. Join us! In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 04:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Iseult, thank you for the encouragement! Yes, indeed, that was my first closure from CR. I had been an occasional requester there, and more recently have started engaging with requests from others and looking for opportunities to help out! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae, would you be willing consider a change to the closing rationale?

There is an ambiguity in the close that I think risks causing some editors to misread the consensus.

The close notes opposers arguments were based on clear and consistent application of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices, most especially WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, but it is unclear as to whether or not it has evaluated the consensus to be in favour of the post-change COMMONNAME being Palm Beach International Airport or not. Personally I found the best argument by far to be that of those who opposed on the grounds that it is simply too soon to evaluate the post-WP:NAMECHANGE, while the opposition that simply asserted WP:COMMONNAME felt rather weak as there were no sources posted reporting on the airport after the name change that wasn't about the name change itself. That lack of sourcing strongly favours the argument that the article should not be moved as there is no basis to claim a change in common name, while undermining the argument that it shouldn't be moved per a post-change COMMONNAME.

Yes, both views are in opposition to the move, but the distinction is important because bunching them together risks misrepresenting the stronger arguments as having supported the common name being a settled matter for now rather than simply not being able to be evaluated for now. I don't want to see a future move discussion have a bunch of people saying "Oppose per COMMONNAME as established by the previous extensive discussion" followed by arguments over what your close actually meant. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:22, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for the first version of this comment as it had a stupid paragraph of thinly veiled butthurt over having a big and flashy WP:NOTAVOTE close I had my eyes on get done by someone else, despite that being entirely my own fault for not clearly advertising my intentions and the close being pretty much exactly what I would have done. I quickly realized that such a comment was beneath me, not being in line with the cooperative spirit of this project and somewhat disrespectful to the good folks at WP:CR, which is why I removed it.

Somewhat embarrassing, but hey: I don't claim to be perfect. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Maltazarian, if I may appropriate the good Myceteae's talk page for my own purposes, are you the reason why I don't see that many RMs at CR anymore? I liked seeing RMs at CR. I love a good bartender close. Please leave some for me,,,

In any case, I pushed Myceteae to close this, so blame me too. While I also sometimes respect a relist, I think that it was clear that the arguments proffered were exceedingly unlikely to explore new ground even if the WikiProjects came in. Most relists, particularly on active discussions that don't refocus said discussions, are ineffective. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 07:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ha! I must admit, when I recently started perusing CR again looking for opportunities, I was disappointed not to find many juicy RMs. Maltazarian does close a good many RMs at all levels of complexity. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh goodness, @Maltazarian, I did not take any offense to it, nor did I find it unbecoming of a serious editor. I found it quite human and endearing. I already felt confident about my close but the comments by you and others have only made me feel better about it.

I have added an addendum per your recommendation. It feels a little clumsy, so please let me know if there is anything that should be clarified. I share your assessment of the situation with respect to NAMECHANGES and I originally planned to expand on that in my close. I thought I'd had it covered by referencing NAMECHANGES, and that my close was already verging on being too long, but I completely agree that it is important to spell this out. I, too, struggle with writing concisely. I suppose complex closes are my time to shine but it's easy to go overboard.

As an aside, maybe I'll write an essay on WP:NAMECHANGES someday. We have WP:TOOSOON and WP:WHYWAIT but these don't really cover the NAMECHANGES scenario. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to everything at once here (goofy indentation above and this is just simpler):

@Iseult I fully agree that the relisting was unnecessary. I was going to close it once it had elapsed, but the elapse happened while I was sleeping, and when I woke up it was already relisted! I was going to ask on the talk page of the relister if it was okay to close it, but thought to myself that it wouldn't have any effect to wait a day or so because the discussion was a CTOP circus, and those usually take a while for a willing closer to show up.

As for the lack of RMs at WP:CR, I may have to plead guilty as charged. It has become something of a specialty of mine after I saw that it was an area that could use some extra help keeping the backlog clear. I will try to participate in more of them so I can't close!

@Myceteae I think that addendum works just fine to ensure that we don't end up with your fine close being misused in future discussions. A name changes essay could indeed be useful, as that is something that trips a lot of editors up (not just those who are too eager, but also those who are too conservative, albeit to a lesser extent).

It gladdens me that we are all on the same page here and that no offense was taken. Know that part of why I was eager to apologize was because I count you two among the more capable editors on the Wiki – but don't tell anyone else I said that! –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Iseult, I was going to say, @Maltazarian and I both participate in enough messy RMs that there is plenty left for you to do at CR! 😁 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for stirring the pot! It gives me stuff to chew on while strenuously avoiding closing source notability RfCs. Then there’s always post-close disputes; you’ve handled yours well. I look forward to whatever move review comes of that. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 21:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Iseult thanks again for the encouragement! I sort of don't know what got into me the other night but I'm glad I closed it. I've participated in too many RMs like that to count and it's often a relief when they are closed, even when they don't go my way. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Move review for Palm Beach International Airport

An editor has asked for a Move review of Palm Beach International Airport. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Rusf10 (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

For (mostly my) reference, the discussion is at: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 July#Palm Beach International Airport —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Screen Door (restaurant), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloody Mary was added. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Username Barnstar
	Some other -eae's you may know are HIPPOCASTANACEAE CERATOPHYLLACEAE FONTINALACEAE AMARANTHACEAE LACTOBACTERIACEAE MYRTACEAE ADOXACEAE STICTACEAE Now I realized that these are all -aceae, but your name is Myceteae. A word with myceteae would be gasteromyceteae. -- LightningThrower (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @LightningThrower, I'm glad it brought you some joy! I'm not surprised that the full -aceae ending is more common, as this is the essentially universal ending used for family names in taxonomy. "Myceteae" is a synonym for the kingdom Fungi but it's not all that widely used. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)