User talk:Thebiguglyalien

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the alien's nest.
  • If you seek wisdom, you have likely come to the wrong place, but I will do my best.
  • If you seek a favor, I am at your service unless I don't know how or I don't want to.
  • If you come with something shiny or edible, approach slowly and deposit it in the appropriate location.
  • If you come with problems or concerns, consider providing a possible solution or compromise.
  • If you come with insults or put-downs, at least make them clever.
  • Talk page stalkers are welcome. The vast majority are not abudcted or eaten.


765 days since the last alien abduction.


Your GA nomination of Rose Cleveland[edit]

The article Rose Cleveland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rose Cleveland for comments about the article, and Talk:Rose Cleveland/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cesária Évora[edit]

The article Cesária Évora you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cesária Évora and Talk:Cesária Évora/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cesária Évora[edit]

The article Cesária Évora you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cesária Évora for comments about the article, and Talk:Cesária Évora/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Practicalities[edit]

About this comment on merging articles: I have, for many years, encouraged editors to weed the {{linkfarm}}. It's not unusual for one editor to remove some Wikipedia:External links at dozens of articles, and then get reverted at one or two. And my advice is: Move on. Specifically, in the time it takes to even start a discussion, the original editor could clean out links in another 10 articles. Even if they "win" the discussion, the opportunity cost (10 missed articles) was higher than the "win" at a single article could possibly be.

I suggest that this might be relevant for merging stubs. If someone objects, then just move on. Keep the event in your list and add a {{Main}} template. It's very likely that you can accomplish more good by merging up undisputed articles than by talking about the occasional disputed one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, that's a good point, and I generally agree that one merged article is better than a bunch of stubs. It's just that the whole process feels a little self-defeating. Regardless of where the short or non-notable content ends up, it still needs to either be cleaned up or deleted, and there doesn't seem to be much will to do either. Then we're just left with a long list of random events, many of which probably don't need to be on Wikipedia at all. This is all compounded by the fact that the same editors are going to keep churning out more primary sourced content because they can. Merging is good for quickly reducing the number of permastubs, but the underlying problems still go unaddressed, which is discouraging when you're actually in the middle of doing the merges. Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but I'm hoping for a more definitive resolution to these issues, which is why I initially proposed an RfC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible merging shouldn't result in a list of truly random events. It might result in a list of events that is WP:IMPERFECT (which we officially accept) and that make some editors think WP:WEDONTNEEDIT (which is generally invalid thinking), but that's better than what we've got now. Also, if we do enough of it, then people will get used to it, and they'll sometimes spam the new flood(s) into Floods in California, and the new fatal fire(s) into Fatal fires in Egypt, and then they'll stop creating (quite) so many separate articles. It may be a long row to hoe, but it's possible to reach that end point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing I'm going to bring this up again, because it looks like a couple editors are hounding my edits to revert every single merge, stonewalling any sort of organization of these topics and creating duplicate content between the lists and the individual WP:NOTNEWS articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your contributions, we're talking about two reverting editors and five articles, right? And four of the five involve events that happened during the last three months. That can make it a little difficult to guesstimate their long-term significance (tomorrow's news could announce a new law inspired by that incident), but it also means that you might have a bit of difficulty with the possibility of someone being emotionally involved.
Do you have any idea why these two editors objected? (For example, does the merged page contain much less information?) If not, then I'd suggest that you dust off Twinkle and tag only the oldest, Mizhi County middle school stabbing, for merging, and watch to see what happens.
I was successful with this approach at Christian diet programs, and my List of fires in Egypt (which didn't try to merge away, merely to collect them all and make an easy landing space as an alternative) seems undisputed so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, no, about 18 or so of my edits were undone going back to October, causing duplication of everything in List of mass stabbing incidents (2020–present). I reverted one myself because notability was demonstrated, but all of the others were reverted purely because "no consensus". All of the information was preserved, the only difference was the page it was on. Is there anything I should keep in mind with a merge tag if the target already has all of the same info word for word? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya[edit]

The article Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya for comments about the article, and Talk:Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nona Gaprindashvili[edit]

The article Nona Gaprindashvili you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nona Gaprindashvili for comments about the article, and Talk:Nona Gaprindashvili/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Zeno of Elea[edit]

The article Zeno of Elea you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Zeno of Elea and Talk:Zeno of Elea/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of L'OrfeoGreco -- L'OrfeoGreco (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Samia Suluhu Hassan[edit]

The article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan and Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TBUA. Hope everything is going well. We haven't seen you around here in a week and a half or so. I don't mind leaving the review on hold for a little longer. It would help to know if that's something you want. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I went ahead and failed the review. Hope to see you again soon, and best of luck with a future re-nomination. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Autocracy[edit]

The article Autocracy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Autocracy and Talk:Autocracy/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ljleppan -- Ljleppan (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Catherine Samba-Panza[edit]

The article Catherine Samba-Panza you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza and Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Samia Suluhu Hassan[edit]

The article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Zeno of Elea[edit]

The article Zeno of Elea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zeno of Elea for comments about the article, and Talk:Zeno of Elea/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of L'OrfeoGreco -- L'OrfeoGreco (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in[edit]

It's been a while since you last edited. Because the departure was so sudden, I wanted to check in and see if you were well. Please feel free to use the email function to respond. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been thinking about you TBUA! Hope you're doing well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still alive, if that's what you're asking, just burned out. I don't consider myself "retired", but I very much needed to step away for a while. I've become rather jaded with the project and its culture. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not alone in these feelings. For what it is worth, your presence on the project has been a very positive one, marked by a commitment to improving not only free access to information but also your abilities as an editor. If you find yourself unwilling to carry on with editing, you will be in good company. You will also be leaving Wikipedia in a better state than you found it. You should be proud. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just glad to hear you're alive! Hope the joy comes back. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also glad to hear you're ok. Sorry to hear the project culture is getting you down, you're certainly not alone in your frustrations with it. (I related a lot to quite a few of your letters from the editors) Echoing Pbritti that your contributions to the project have been excellent and have done so much to improve the state of the encyclopedia. I hope you find calm and relaxation in your wikibreak. All the best to you pal. <3 --Grnrchst (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: So sorry to hear about the burnout, but really glad to hear you're taking time and space for yourself. I hope maybe I'll see you back again in future -- best wishes for the new year in 2024. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Catherine Samba-Panza[edit]

The article Catherine Samba-Panza you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Autocracy[edit]

The article Autocracy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Autocracy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ljleppan -- Ljleppan (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup![edit]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jane Irwin Harrison[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jane Irwin Harrison you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jane Irwin Harrison[edit]

The article Jane Irwin Harrison you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jane Irwin Harrison for comments about the article, and Talk:Jane Irwin Harrison/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Thebiguglyalien: - I read an essay on inclusion criteria for WP:YEARS when reviewing the same on the 2023 & 2024. I noticed there were some links to a few community discussions relating to ownership of the page by a few users which you started. I am concerned that this issue has arisen again on 2024, in part against the sudden influx of non-regular editors around the new year. I have tried to push-back against this, but have had limited success. I would be grateful if you could take a look at the situation.

You may also be interested to know that the user topic banned in the community discussions has returned as a sockpuppet. I have started a SPI and would be grateful for any suggestions from you. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

33ABGirl, I wish I had an answer. The best I've got is just to make sure that subjects are given appropriate weight and to challenge it if any editor tries to impose an arbitrary restriction like number of deaths or "international notability". On Wikipedia all that matters is how it's covered in reliable sources. Personally, I've written off current events articles (including 2023 and 2024) as lost causes: they usually end up as regurgitations of whatever editors happened to find interesting in the news. Instead, I've gone back to years where the information has "settled" a little bit and tried to give them a more encyclopedic overview, like at 2001 and 2002. And good catch on the socking, assuming it turns up positive. The line of argumentation is definitely similar to what got Jim Michael tbanned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Table[edit]

I just saw your statement at the arbitration page and your table [1]. This Table includes, for example, two participants of almost all these discussions who always voted "Pal". Do you imply they have been engaged in an illegal coordination? I do not think so. This table just reflects two trivial facts:

  1. In highly polarized subject areas (and especially military conflicts) people usually tend to support one specific side. This is just human nature. Consider any other areas, let's say Russia-Ukraine. I was never able to convince anyone of anything. Hence, it is not surprising that vast majority of people in your table always vote "Isr" or "Pal". That does not mean any illegal coordination.
  2. Some contributors edit mostly in the ARBPIA area (and therefore participate in many such RfCs and discussions), but others do not. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes I don't think it's surprising but we do have to work with what is publicly available when we write statements at ArbCom. Given the motions at issue, it's a useful table and I'm glad @Thebiguglyalien created it and put a fairly neutral statement at ArbCom about it. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying this table is useless. It shows who is most active in this subject area and what biases they might have. But it is not a proof of any wrongdoing. Importantly, such discussions are not a vote. They are closed by admins based on the strength or arguments, no matter if the argument could be interpreted as "Isr" or "Pal". In fact, classifying contributors as "Isr" or "Pal" may be seen as a confrontational approach. My very best wishes (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, impressive work. I'm curious, did you do this all manually?
Your data seems to indicate heavily polarized views, suggesting that editors have a strong desire to voice their opinions on the topic. This isn't necessarily indicative of a battleground mentality, which concerns the nature of arguments made, rather than the frequency of voting. It's quite possible that people are voting in many discussions but engaging in civilized debate and using well-founded policy-based arguments.
For the sake of fairness, I suggest amending your statement to clarify that your data indicates similar patterns of involvement from editors on both sides of the debate. Marokwitz (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Federalist Papers[edit]

Hiya TBUA, glad to see you're back. I'd like to apologise for your failed GANs - I grabbed Zeno of Elea before she timed out, but missed the others. You've got two open GANs in your papers series, and I'd like to review both of them to be honest, but I'm aware that you've been away for a while and out of mainspace editing. Are you OK with me reviewing them now, or do you want to leave them? (we're likely going to have a backlog drive in the coming months, so they'll certainly get picked up by the end of it)  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frzzl, yes, I'm less active than I was previously, but my full wikibreak is over. I left my GANs up because I do intend to respond to them as they're reviewed. The Federalist Papers ones especially tend to be very easy, and I hope to nominate more this month. Also, I never thanked you for your involvement with Zeno of Elea, so thank you! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Thor (Marvel Comics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CBR and Heroes Reborn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be offended if I split back out a few of the mass stabbing articles you merged into those decade lists?[edit]

I think, generally, you were right about the lack of continued coverage in most of these incidents, however in for a few of them I do believe there is future significant coverage that constitutes lasting notability (though it wasn't present in the articles in question at the time). I would add the later coverage back if I split them out again. This isn't an immediate thing though PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, if there are secondary sources that justify an independent article, then by all means! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus please[edit]

I agree with the post above, you are deleting lots of hard work and just blindly merging articles without even gaining consensus, I'm reverting some of your edits. Please have a little respect and take anything to Afd that you don't think should exist on the site before making such drastic changes. Inexpiable (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your Afd nominations I agree with, like this one: October 2023 Hartlepool stabbings. I agree that particular article should be deleted. However, I find it absurd that you chose to nominate the Hartlepool article (the weakest and least notable case) for Afd without merging, yet you chose to just blindly merge the far more detailed and well-written articles that are much more arguably notable. Although some of the merges you made I may agree with shouldn't be articles, I still think you should nominate each one for Afd before just blindly deleting them please. Regards. Inexpiable (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inexpiable, merging does not "delete" an article, it moves it to where it can be better maintained. I believe that this is a valid edit, and "no consensus" isn't a very good basis to challenge it. When an article is short and all of the sources are primary sources, it's better to have it somewhere else per WP:NOPAGE rather than keep it as its own article, and my reading of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NEVENTS is that it's poor practice to create an article purely using primary sources in the first place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this generally, however I think in some cases it's not too hard for a check for later coverage to be done and your merging is sometimes a bit hasty. For example the stabbing in Crépol, France is a massive, massive deal with ramifications for the French far right, and while the English article did a very very bad job of evidencing this (and should be renamed "Death of Thomas Perotto" in line with the french article - see this, recent, English article. I sympathize with your goals but I think a bit more research could be done. NOPAGE is for the topic of an article, not necessarily the current state of an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA, fair enough. I've restored that particular article and added some further reading links that demonstrate notability, including the one you found. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
also btw, if you find articles relating to mass/attempted mass murder or similar incidents that you think are probably notable but in an unsatisfactory state and are mostly written in the immediate aftermath, feel free to send them my way, i like writing and improving these kinds of articles PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: I have reverted all your merges not already reverted. You cannot go like this. Please read WP:MERGE for a description of the merging process, including esp. merge discussion. Your newly created article List of mass stabbing incidents (2020–present) also runs afoul of WP:ARTICLESIZE, and despite its title is not a list-type article at all.
Once you have sorted out ARTICLESIZE, you are welcome to propose the merges on respective talk pages, so that editors who work on these articles have an opportunity to weigh in. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 23:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?[edit]

Hey, thanks for reaching out to me regarding my attempt to rewrite and GA/FA Ida Saxton McKinley. As I was doing a check of the article, I saw the section "Murder of George Saxton" included which addresses that topic but I don't think has much relevance to McKinley's life. I'm contemplating creating a separate page for the Saxton family and dropping that section there, but I'm on the fence on whether the article would be able to stand on its own two legs. From the research I've done so far, her ancestors seem semi-notable but I haven't found a whole lot to create a decent article. I'm reluctant to remove the section, so I'm seeking a second opinion[a] and your history of working on First Ladies is one of reason why I'm seeking your opinion. Thanks! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 22:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ I've also posted a request on the talk page but I don't know who looks at it, so I'm asking you directly
HistoryTheorist, generally when I find less-than-relevant sections like this, I incorporate everything that's relevant into the main biography where it goes chronologically (improving the sourcing if necessary), and then I remove the rest. It looks like she was fairly involved in the affair and it had an effect on her life, so a little coverage in her biography would probably make sense. I'd hold off on creating an article for the family unless you can find solid sourcing for the family as a whole. On the other hand, George Saxton or Murder of George Saxton might be a viable article. A quick search turned up Canton's Greatest Tragedy (1899) and a chapter in Murder in Stark County, Ohio (2020), and such an article could then be padded out with info from McKinley biographies and contemporary newspapers (note that a search also turns up A Woman Scorned: The Murder of George Saxton by John Stark Bellamy, but that's self published and not a reliable source). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I will probably end up removing that section later but still retain a passing mention of the murder. The only way Ida McKinley was involved according to the article (the sources may disagree but I've yet to reach that point in my research) is that she was really sad. I would still like to retain that information, so I might end up spinning off the section per your advice. Thanks a lot! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on walled garden discussion[edit]

I didn't want to derail that thread more, so I'm posting my response here. I think project-level rejection/ignorance of NOTNEWS, PRIMARY, and SUSTAINED is a hugely under-acknowledged issue, and the only way to really tackle it is for more editors familiar with PAGs to get involved in niche deletion discussions etc. I've had the DELSORTs for sportspeople, academics, academic journals, and nobility watchlisted for a while now, but I wish there was some sort of yapperbot-like service that could alert us to a random selection of active discussions that only have one or two DELSORT tags. That way we wouldn't have to watch a whole category we're otherwise disinterested in but could still provide an outsider perspective at the AfDs very few people normally see. JoelleJay (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay It's probably my single biggest pet peeve on Wikipedia. I've found that whenever I start or join a deletion discussion and !vote to delete on the basis of those P&G, people double down and ignore them even when I quote them directly. Of the AfDs I've created or !voted on, I have a seemingly never-ending list of examples where policy was ignored in favor of subjective personal opinion. Current events has its own cohort of editors just as roads and sports do, and they get just as touchy when you try to clean up the messes they make. I've tried to tackle the issue at the Village Pump among other approaches, which saw some interest but very little to show for it. I honestly don't know what to do at this point to improve the lack of accountability on sourcing. There are already a few methods of sorting AfDs and I'm sure there's a way to set up such a yapperbot, but even then we still have the issue of more competent editors watching it and taking interest in these niche AfDs. And don't even get me started on WP:ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too have a long list of "bad closes", which I've put in a bookmarks folder. I also have bookmarks folders for good closes in various subjects as well as AfDs where the closing admin makes a good statement on the P&Gs discussed. Perhaps I'll start participating in CE AfDs, although probably only for pages where enough time has passed that the lack of sustained coverage can be used to bolster PRIMARY concerns. JoelleJay (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of these days I'll take a bad close to deletion review, but honestly I just don't want to deal with the drama or with the editors who don't understand how sourcing works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah DRV honestly isn't any better than AfD in a lot of cases. The "regulars" there are pretty uniformly on the side of keeping everything and so their !votes typically overweight the ILIKEIT AfD arguments and ignore the expectation that closers discount !votes that go against PAGs. This was a real problem back before the NSPORT RfC, where one cohort of DRV participants routinely argued "meets NFOOTY" was valid despite NSPORT always requiring GNG be met. I think more editors watchlisting DELSORTS for problem areas is the only real way to change things since apparently numerical majority overrides argument quality... JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(orange butt icon Buttinsky) Not that either of you asked me what I think, but couldn't help but notice that of the examples of bad closes above, the 3 no-consensus were 2021 and 2022 events (nom'd in 2023), 1 was a road so that's a project-cabal issue, and all the rest were, in my opinion, just nom'd too soon: 2023 events nom'd in 2023, in some cases within days of the event. That's too soon to determine SUSTAINED (and thus whether it's NOTNEWS), and all the sources about current events will be primary; by definition, it takes some time for secondary sources to be written (need multiple primary sources to be created first). So, I wouldn't say those are examples of the community ignoring the policies, just examples of why it's hard to delete current events -- without secondary sourcing, and without the passage of time, it's hard to judge SUSTAINED, so editors make their best guess, and invariably they're going to guess that a big tragedy will get sustained coverage (even if they end up being incorrect a lot, that's how the votes will go). I bet with a sample of AFDs where 1+ year passed, you'd see fewer keeps and more no-consensus, and then 3+ years or 5+ years, you'd see a lot more "deletes." Levivich (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich, part of why I'm hesitant to jump into CE AfDs is precisely because I wouldn't know how long is long enough for SUSTAINED to be assumed for notable topics. But another issue is that I don't know whether there are some unstated criteria for CE that the more "curationist" among us use in that area, so I wouldn't want to jump in and piss people off applying the standards I use in AfDs on other topics to events. So it's possible the sourcing is obviously deficient to Thebiguglyalien but not to us. I know I find it aggravating when people unfamiliar with sports coverage show up in athlete AfDs offering what is clearly (to me) routine transactional news (and then I have to go through the exhausting motions of explaining that "routine" applies to sportspeople, no I promise you it's not just for events, look at the text of NOTNEWS (and even ROUTINE!) ffs, here are a dozen AfDs where admin noms or closers affirm transactional coverage is routine...). I've certainly run into that at athlete BIO1E AfDs where the 1E is very recent, which tend to attract a broader crowd than other athlete bios. For example at Maddy Cusack where it was so obvious that all the "significant" coverage of her death was primary and all the background was purely derivative of a couple press releases, and yet I guess it's sexist to discount such coverage since it's so much more than any other women's football player receives... And don't get me started on the non-independent and trivial profiles that pass for GNG on other women's bios if they're mentioned at WiR...
On the original topic, I think one of the other good ways of contributing to AfDs in unfamiliar areas is to regularly comb through DRV. It definitely would have helped if more people who understand LOCALCON and know that NJOURNALS is neither a valid guideline nor a predictor/application of GNG had weighed in here... That area is especially frustrating because the journals crowd refuses to actually formally re-propose their criteria as an official guideline (it failed in the past) and has explicitly threatened sanctions on anyone "outside" who tries to do so since it would be "POINTY". So instead we get the status quo of regulars misrepresenting the essay as if it was a real guideline or as if its criteria aligned with GNG (no, getting an auto-generated impact score and field ranking from being listed in a "selective" index§ the journal applied to join is not IRS SIGCOV!), pointing to the decade they've been doing that at AfD as evidence it has widespread consensus, and claiming it's "just like citing HEY or TNT". And check out the talk page for what happens if you try to edit the essay itself to emphasize meeting GNG is required...
§ The essay states that having ever been listed on SCOPUS or WoS is enough for a journal to have its own page, regardless of whether there is any sourcing for any content beyond its own webpage. Where else is "not being a literal scam or obvious crap at some point in history" an acceptable criterion for SNG notability? And that's assuming those indices actually do filter out predatory and shitty journals...[2][3][4]
I'm not bitter at all and these things never keep me up at night! JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have strong thoughts about this sort of thing. In your examples I see canvassing, tendentious editing, and pointy misuse of notability guidelines. Sanctions are long overdue for some of these gatekeepers. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the table[edit]

If there were a script that would make one of these tables for any given set of discussions, that would be a very cool and useful tool. I'm not at all surprised by the results -- including that it seems the majority of participants did not participate in the majority of RFCs -- i.e., different editors are deciding these discussions, it's not always the same "block".

I had a bunch of questions, feel free to ignore or answer whichever ones you want:

What do you think about making the table sortable?

Adding horizontal and vertical totals?

For whatever method was used to categorize "Isr" and "Pal" (I assume that maps to "support"/"oppose", "keep"/"delete", etc. as applicable?), is it possible to categorize the outcomes of the 15 discussions as either "Isr" or "Pal" or neither/other/no consensus/whatever? I see some green bars and some blue bars, and I want to know if the outcomes--the consensus--is either a green bar or a blue bar or patchwork or what.

Also "match rate" would be interesting. Someone might vote one color all the time, but it tells a whole different story if their match rate is 0% or 100% or 50%.

It's a cool table, thanks for putting it together. Levivich (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really it's just a table of associations based on who !voted the same. Certain editors always voted as a group, so they're "Group A". Other editors always voted as a group, always reaching the opposite conclusion of Group A, and that's "Group B". I then labeled the groups Pal and Isr because I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that's not what it is. For the most part it was just who voted support or keep and who voted oppose or delete, but on the non-poll discussions I had to actually read through them to see who agreed with whom. I'm probably going to blank the sandbox now that the motion has been passed, but I believe that evaluating discussion patterns like this is a viable method to identify possible WP:CPUSHers. The moral of the story is I'll find anything to occupy my time if it's an excuse to avoid real life responsibilities for a little while. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation[edit]

Please revert this edit immediately as it is a violation of the 1RR rule imposed on the Red Sea crisis article. At this moment, I am in the process of adding more references including this article titled, “US-Iran proxy war rages back to life in Iraq”, which satisfies your issue. Either way, please revert immediately. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I did not see the 1RR notice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no problem. Thanks for reverting! Also, I did have a question regarding your concern. (Noting, I just added an article by the Council on Foreign Relations titled, “U.S.-Iran Proxy War Intensifies, Sudan Conflict Rages On, Sundance Film Festival Marks Forty Years, and More”, so your concern about it not being titled exactly is no longer an issue).
Your concern was that the NYT article, titled “U.S. and Iran Wage a Proxy War” doesn’t actually say US-Iran proxy war? May I ask why you think that those words don’t mean it is a proxy war? I will note, the article has since been re-titled “U.S. and Iran Battle Through Proxies, Warily Avoiding Each Other”, however, the original title still shows up as the “page tab title”. I’m curious about why you think it doesn’t actually mean it is a proxy war? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does mean it's a proxy war, and I would have no issue with using it to source "the conflict is a proxy war" or something to that effect in the body. My concern was that it doesn't support that being the actual name of the conflict. It would be like using this source to rewrite the lead to Blue whale to say The blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), also known as the world's largest animal, is a marine mammal and a baleen whale. It's true, but it's not the name unless other sources say it is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edith Roosevelt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christ Episcopal Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Thor Volume 2 Issue 11.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thor Volume 2 Issue 11.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question on copying within Wikipedia[edit]

Hey, on my draft of Ida Saxton McKinley, I'm working on the historic assessment as it is an easy section to write. Is it alright if I copy the description of the study that Siena College performs on the First Ladies? I've poked around multiple FL articles and they seem to have the exact same description. I might end up modifying it later, but is it alright for me to use the description? I'm a bit nervous as this is my first attempt at a GA and I want to avoid as much trouble as I can. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text I'd Use

Since 1982 Siena College Research Institute has periodically conducted surveys asking historians to assess American first ladies according to a cumulative score on the independent criteria of their background, value to the country, intelligence, courage, accomplishments, integrity, leadership, being their own women, public image, and value to the president.[1]

  1. ^ "Eleanor Roosevelt Retains Top Spot as America's Best First Lady Michelle Obama Enters Study as 5th, Hillary Clinton Drops to 6th Clinton Seen First Lady Most as Presidential Material; Laura Bush, Pat Nixon, Mamie Eisenhower, Bess Truman Could Have Done More in Office Eleanor & FDR Top Power Couple; Mary Drags Lincolns Down in the Ratings" (PDF). scri.siena.edu. Siena Research Institute. February 15, 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2022.

HistoryTheorist, it shouldn't be an issue. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia goes into detail, but really all you have to worry about is writing "Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution" or something similar in the edit summary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I had some idea that attempting a GA would be a lot of work but the first attempt is always a bit nerve-wracking, and I'm paranoid that my writing either includes too much details, too little details, or is too boring. Oh well. Your GAs have been great inspiration! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found that GA is actually the best place to figure that sort of thing out. Having an objective editor going over your work and listing further suggestions for improvement is invaluable. The real killer is the wait time. I nominated Anna Harrison almost five months ago and I'm still waiting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 24[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 24 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 23[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 23 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 1[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 1 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 25[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 25 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 1[edit]

The article Federalist No. 1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 1 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 24[edit]

The article Federalist No. 24 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 24 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 24/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 23[edit]

The article Federalist No. 23 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 23 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 23/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 25[edit]

The article Federalist No. 25 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 25 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 25/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter[edit]

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Samia Suluhu Hassan[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined sfn reference in Edith Roosevelt[edit]

Hi, in this edit to Edith Roosevelt you added {{Sfn|Morris|2013|p=437}}, {{Sfn|Morris|2013|p=445}}, and {{Sfn|Morris|2013|pp=447–448}}. Unfortunately no such work "Morris 2013" is listed. This means that nobody can look the references up, and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source that would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Anna Harrison[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anna Harrison you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dugan Murphy -- Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Don't Be a Sucker[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Don't Be a Sucker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Anna Harrison[edit]

The article Anna Harrison you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anna Harrison for comments about the article, and Talk:Anna Harrison/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dugan Murphy -- Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Don't Be a Sucker[edit]

The article Don't Be a Sucker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Don't Be a Sucker for comments about the article, and Talk:Don't Be a Sucker/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Samia Suluhu Hassan[edit]

The article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan and Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

I was by Ray May this morning putting up a portrait and I saw you laid a "no significant coverage (sports)" template up for him last May. The guy played in 118 NFL games with 88 starts — that strikes me as a pretty inappropriate template for such a subject, no matter how terrible the stub is currently. Please find a better "sources needed" template for NFL players if you feel you must template rather than going the far preferred SOFIXIT route. Thanks, —tim //// Carrite (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, WP:SPORTCRIT is clear: Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Template:No significant coverage (sports) is specifically made for articles like Ray May where the only listed source is a database entry. This is the better sources needed template. Please find significant coverage before removing the no significant coverage maintenance template. If significant coverage is not available, then the article should be merged or deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter[edit]

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hi Thebiguglyalien. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
  • Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
  • Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Autocracy[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Autocracy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Politics of Botswana[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Politics of Botswana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Youprayteas -- Youprayteas (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Catherine Samba-Panza[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catherine Samba-Panza you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Catherine Samba-Panza[edit]

The article Catherine Samba-Panza you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza for comments about the article, and Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to Differ with Articles for deletion/Henry Sullivan (composer)[edit]

I corrected the references for Henry Sullivan (composer).

I wanted to add that Sullivan wrote the script for the Broadway show Murray Anderson's Almanac (1929), of which some of the sketches were written by Noel Coward. From that show, he wrote the song I May Be Wrong (but I Think You're Wonderful) which has had its own Wikipedia page since 2006. It was sung by Doris Day as well by other notable singers. Starlighsky (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starlighsky, it's entirely possible I was wrong. Right now it's in an Articles for Deletion discussion, which is a chance for anyone to come forward with sources to prove that it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. If it can be shown that he meets any of the listed items at WP:MUSICBIO, then I'll gladly withdraw the deletion nomination. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His song I May Be Wrong (but I Think You're Wonderful) clearly meets the WP:MUSICBIO criteria:
Starlighsky (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Keeps are clearly the majority and it clearly meets the criteria the music notability. Is it okay if I delete the Articles for Deletion banner? Starlighsky (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles for deletion banner will be removed by an administrator when the process ends. I'm not sure what you mean by "the keeps are clearly the majority", as no one has commented on it besides you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is responding but me. Because of this, keeps are in the majority.
His music is clearly notable. However, the Article for Deletion is for a notable part of 20th century contemporary music. Starlighsky (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who voted voted Keep. Can I remove the Article for Deletion banner? Starlighsky (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues on Scott Conger[edit]

Hi. Thanks for spotting the copyright issues on Scott Conger. I've declined the G12 as that applies only if all versions of the article are copyright violations. Earlier versions did not have any of teh copyrighted material that I could see. In such cases, you should revert to the latest clean version and use {{copyvio-revdel}}. On a related note, when you tag for G12, it's helpful for the reviewing admin if you do not blank the page. The G12 template includes a link to the copyvio tool which assumes the copyvio is in the current version. When the page is blanked, I have to manually set up the correct version to use the tool. Additionally, stuffing multiple URLs into one URL parameter also requires me to manually separate out the URLs and set up the copyvio tool. WP:Twinkle makes it easy to tag and supports multiple URLs for G12. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man-related[edit]

Hi. I have noticed that you have been very protective of the Iron Man article including the decreasing of the alternate version bios like the Tony Stark of Earth-818 who operates as Ant-Man. Would you have a problem if I was to sort the "Other characters named Iron Man" from the "Alternative versions" section considering that the former details the Iron Men of Earth-616? I'm just asking here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rtkat3, I moved up the other characters who used the name to "Allies", so now "Alternate versions" is just alternate realities, not alternate identities. Does that look good? I'm currently trying to remove all of the low quality sources like ScreenRant and CBR (and obviously primary source usage of the comics themselves). If you know of any higher quality sources that cover the different interpretations of Iron Man, that would be really helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relocation edit has been seen, but do you think there should be a separate heading for the other characters named Iron Man as there have been similar sections for other comics characters like Cobra and Hulk to name some examples? Rtkat3 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be unreasonable to have that be its own section, but it also seems a little unnecessary to me since it's only two sentences (both of which need to be changed anyway because their current sourcing isn't helpful for encyclopedic coverage). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you add in the brief information of James Rhodes, Arno Stark (the Earth-616 version), and Victor von Doom's first appearance as their versions of Iron Man with a reference to the first comic book appearance, it would suffice. Right? There was also an Iron Man imposter named Clarence Ward who killed Rumiko Fujikawa. As for his different A.I. versions of Tony Stark, perhaps something can be figured out. Sonny Frisco and Andros Stark are the known Marvel 2099 inhabitants that took up the name of Iron Man in different versions of Marvel 2099 even though we haven't seen the Earth-2099 version of either one yet. As Iron Maniac currently redirects to Iron Man, either a brief information will have to be added your way or his history will have to be transferred to List of Marvel Comics characters: I with a mentioning in the comments section on the transferring and importing that most other editors on this website do. Rtkat3 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're trying to write the article backward and then use primary sources to justify inclusion. The standard for what should be included depends entirely on what aspects are covered by reliable secondary/tertiary sources, and ideally high quality ones at that. If you'd like, I can take another look through the Marvel handbooks to see if any alternate versions are considered significant—still not ideal since they're not independent sources, but it's better than content farm sources like CBR and way better than using existence as justification for inclusion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to go through the handbooks, go right ahead. Any one of them can contain the information that we're looking for. Rtkat3 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through a few handbooks today, including Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Alternate Universes. As far as I can tell, there are only two alternate universe Iron Man characters that have significant coverage in them: Iron Man (Ultimate Marvel character) and Iron Man 2020. These also happen to be the two alternate Iron Men that have articles on Wikipedia. I think the best way to go about this would be to have those two mentioned on the main Iron Man article because they seem to be the most important, and then give the other ones some dedicated space of their own on the "List of Marvel Comics characters" pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Iron Maniac can be redirected to List of Marvel Comics characters: I if that is alright with you, the section should still have a brief mention of the Tony Stark of Earth-818 who operated as Ant-Man and the Tony Stark from Earth-6160 who currently operates as Iron Lad because the Howard Stark of Earth-6160 operated as Iron Man. Perhaps Google can help you find the right sources that aren't the websites that you mentioned. Right? Rtkat3 (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the justification for including these other than you personally thinking they're important? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just stating some facts while reiterating that Iron Maniac still redirects to Iron Man as well as the fact that Ant-Man of Earth-818 was a main character in the second Avengers: Forever series. The rest of the already mentioned alternate versions that are already listed can have proper sources found on Google and/or with collaborations with editors who are experts at finding sources. Rtkat3 (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My congratulations on adding the sentient Iron Man armor to the part with the other characters that went by the name of Iron Man. That sentient armor was responsible for killing Whiplash. I can look for how it sacrificed itself to protect Tony Stark to elaborate on that part if you like. If brief information on the tenure of James Rhodes and Doctor Doom can be added, it can be it's own section like how some comic book character pages have an "Other characters named [insert character name here]" section. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Samia Suluhu Hassan[edit]

The article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan for comments about the article, and Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of War Machine[edit]

The article War Machine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:War Machine for comments about the article, and Talk:War Machine/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation[edit]

Hi Thebiguglyalien :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hugo's House of Horrors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haunted mansion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

This is brilliant.

Thehighestd (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]

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

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

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

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vrxces -- Vrxces (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hugo's House of Horrors[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hugo's House of Horrors you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vrxces -- Vrxces (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Leucippus[edit]

Congratulations, Thebiguglyalien! The article you nominated, Leucippus, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC PR request[edit]

Hey dude! Since you made the review for the first failed FAC for AC/DC (archive3), are you able to review the rest of the article? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 00:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iron Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy for comments about the article, and Talk:Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vrxces -- Vrxces (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your mass addition of this rarely used template. I believe it badly needs a larger discussion/consensus than the few editors far down in this discussion, and for the two articles I spotchecked it wasn't even accurate to say that there were no sources from after the event. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17 Your mass revert was inappropriate and I'm going to ask you to undo it now. You personally not liking the template is not a valid reason to remove it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not. As I said above: my spotchecks of your mass addition of this template to over a dozen articles over just a few minutes showed that you were not taking enough care in placing it. For example, while 2006 Falk Corporation explosion is not an example of one of our best articles, there are entire sections devoted to the subsequent investigation and legal actions. It probably meets the criteria for Template:Update, but it does not fit anything listed at WP:NOTNEWS, which is the prominent link in Template:Old news. (It actually doesn't say anything about issues with "contemporary reporting", which is an issue with the template.)
I do now see that the link given in the template's history was not the full discussion, so while I do still believe it needs a stronger consensus and its wording/links badly need more thinking/discussion, I have less of an objection on that front. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The investigation and legal actions are sourced to contemporary sources as well; several contemporary sources for several events do not make a retrospective source for any event. I agree that the explanatory link on the template could be changed, but I don't believe that invalidates the template as a whole. I personally would prefer it if focused more directly on WP:EVENTS or similar pages. I actually wrote an essay with this specific issue in mind, though it's more general-purpose and either way I'm not going to suggest using it on any template. If my initial response seemed abrupt, it's because this looked like a WP:DRNC issue from my perspective. Is there a specific venue you're thinking of when you say "stronger consensus", or is this a more general sense? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That essay has sent me down a tangent, but I'm not sure it hits the mark. Effectively disallowing citations to things that meet the definition of reliable sources (per the title and "it should be removed from the article", but perhaps I'm missing something) would run into significant opposition per the last line at WP:PRIMARYNEWS: "Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." If the essay is not meant to be read that far, I might consider changing the page name to something like "prioritize secondary sources". I'm also staring at the line "Contemporary sources can still be written well after an event initially began or took place" and the examples that come after, which do not recognize that subsequent reporting can sometimes be secondary or have characteristics of both when describing events that came before. It depends on the quality of the source, and each need to be evaluated on their own merits.
Overall, I worry that this essay too narrowly focuses on the wrong issue. It's not that editors use contemporary news coverage in articles—you're arguing that editors are poorly using their editorial content discretion.
Back to the template: I would argue that explanatory links are a core requirement in a maintenance template, as they give necessary additional context to anyone who reads them. This template feels like it ought to be a village pump topic because it could be added to a large number of articles, particularly new ones, albeit depending on the final scope of the template. I wrote down my quick/immediate thoughts at Template talk:Old news#Template problems, and may return to that later when I have a chance to think through things more. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ed17, where are we at on this? I'd like to keep sorting the events articles that don't have any retrospective analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left that message on the template's talk page, which unfortunately no one seems to have seen yet. I won't be able to get moving on a village pump post at the moment as I'm about to head out on my honeymoon. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Autocracy[edit]

The article Autocracy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Autocracy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article I Am Not Going to Get Up Today! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I Am Not Going to Get Up Today! for comments about the article, and Talk:I Am Not Going to Get Up Today!/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are all good articles so if you manage to get this page to GA quality, you can make a good topic. Okmrman (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leucippus scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 May 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signups open for The Core Contest 2024[edit]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Your GA nomination of Hugo's House of Horrors[edit]

The article Hugo's House of Horrors you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hugo's House of Horrors for comments about the article, and Talk:Hugo's House of Horrors/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vrxces -- Vrxces (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Green Eggs and Ham[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Green Eggs and Ham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Green Eggs and Ham[edit]

The article Green Eggs and Ham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Green Eggs and Ham for comments about the article, and Talk:Green Eggs and Ham/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding unjustified removal of content[edit]

Hi, as an uninvolved administrator could you please review this discussion regarding a conduct dispute. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IOHANNVSVERVS, I do not have access to administrator tools. If you need to contact an administrator, I suggest requesting assistance at the administrator's noticeboard. If the dispute is totally intractable, then it should be raised at the incidents noticeboard. Regarding the subject of the dispute, you may wish to read WP:BURDEN, which says that Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not have access to administrator tools." — Oh...
Thanks for the guidance and for citing this relevant policy which I was not sufficiently aware of. Although reading it I do see that it says "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article."
I'll proceed to the administrator's noticeboard, and thanks again. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents pages[edit]

Hi, I've noticed you've been marking a lot of incidents pages appropriately. As you know I've been nominating many for deletion. The vast vast majority are created within a day or 2 of the event, and come under WP:NOTNEWS and not meeting WP:EVENT for lasting coverage. One person in an AfD said that an additional source 2 months later made it have a lasting effect... LibStar (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar And let me guess, the "additional source" is still a contemporary source, just used to support "there was an investigation" or "there was a court case"? Believe me, this is my number one pet peeve on Wikipedia. The template thing is on pause because someone mass reverted a bunch of them and put it in limbo (see User talk:Thebiguglyalien#Template:Old news above). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage of guards who were involved, no lasting impact of effect... LibStar (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]