User talk:Aoidh/Archives/2022

Article s6 (init)
Good morning Aoidh. This article s6 (init) is as a draft, I think it should be published because it is relevant to the world of operating systems. Thank you very much. --Rstmnq1000 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reigns
I closed the discussion as per WP:RFC and discussion on the talk page. Consensus was clear to me and that's why I acted. You want to challenge this, don't edit war, follow procedure. Please. --Pete (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Consensus was clear to me" and that's perfectly fine. Consensus is not clear to everyone else, so once it becomes apparent that the "clear consensus" is disputed, it means we shouldn't be trying to enact an early close which you arguably shouldn't have even attempted in the first place. I am respectfully asking you to follow that procedure. If the discussion continues the way it has, or nobody else comments, it probably will be closed the way you prefer, but there's absolutely no harm in letting that play out the way editors are asking you to let it play out. That's all. - Aoidh (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

When the RFC expires, in a little over a week. I'll request closure at the Closure requests page. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No complaints here. I've just seen an emerging consensus rapidly change before, and I think it's only fair to let a thorough and complete consensus emerge, rather than closing a discussion early as soon as it looks like it might be going one way or the other. That way there's no argument later that the discussion doesn't represent a true consensus. It's certainly not going to hurt anything to let that happen. - Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even a mobile editor (who I hope isn't anybody signed out) was attempting to mess things up. Perhaps a level of protection may be required, until the RFC is properly closed & a verdict given. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume it was just a legit IP editor who may or may not have been in the loop as to what was going on with the article and the discussion, but it doesn't look they're edit-warring or anything so it might not be an ongoing issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Another fellow, is trying to enforce what he wants, before the RFC has ended. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Username?
Sorry for the out-of-the-blue question, I'm curious how to pronounce your username. It looks like maybe it's Irish orthography, in which case is it pronounced something like ? Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, it's actually from the Scottish Gaelic form of Clan Mackay (Mac Aoidh) and while I unfortunately have zero knowledge of IPA, I do believe it's maybe pronounced the same as the Irish name Aodh, where you bascially just say the letter "A" but kind of mute your tongue at the end? It's hard to describe over text unfortunately. Take how a Scottish person would say Mackay and take the Mac off and you're pretty spot on. It's certainly not pronounced in any way the sounds like "eye" or "eyed" like some try though. Or even better take the name Aiden, but take the "den" part off, but still put your tongue up like you're almost about to start sounding out the d sound and then you just don't. I'm good at a lot of things, but explaining pronunciations online apparently isn't one of them. :) - Aoidh (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thank you! I had a colleague years ago who was Irish, grew up in one of the Gaeltachts, had the middle name of "Aodh".  I forget which dialect was in his background, but he explained to me that his middle name was pronounced like English "ee", as in "feet" or "cheese": "The AO is pronounced like a double-E in English, and the DH is silent."  Sounds like the Scottish Gaelic "Aoidh" might be a bit different, but in the same general ballpark.  :)
 * And hey, looks like the relevant entries are to be found over at EN Wikt: wikt:MacAoidh, and wikt:Aodh.
 * Go raibh maith agat! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Officials
I left yours in place, please take the discussion to the talk. Fbifriday (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kbabej (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For posterity, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344 was the discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flip (software)
Hello! Your submission of Flip (software) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! M h hossein  talk 12:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

your removal of my links
your removal of my links was unneccesary as it aimed at helping shorten these ever so long links. D.a.d.d.y.fullstop (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit did not shorten any links, and the website you introduced into the article neither had anything to do with the subject in question nor is it a safe site to visit. Adding that site was WP:SPAM. That notwithstanding, per External links, external links do not belong in the body of the article. - Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Flatley citation
Hi Aoidh, regarding your reason for reverting this edit, while it is my opinion that the cited statements are adequately supported by the existing citations, and citation of a third-party source which describes the documentary is not strictly necessary, there is an ongoing talk page discussion in which some editors are objecting to direct citation of the documentary, especially because of the director's history of support for conspiracy theories. I thought that it would not be redundant to cite Flatley in addition to, or instead of, the documentary because it gives us the same information filtered through a non-conspiracy-theorist source that might be found less objectionable. I grant that Failed State Update is not of such high quality as Newsweek, but Flatley's professional background as a journalist warrants some reliance on his account of what is in the documentary, and the goal is to find some consensus with editors who strenuously object to the direct mention of a "conspiracy theorist" source in footnotes. Would you mind if I reverted the reversion? - Cal Engime (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would very much object to that source being reinserted. Yes, he has a background as a journalist, but this is not a news site, this is his own personal website which has zero editorial oversight. It falls under WP:SPS and as he is not a subject-matter expert in any field related to the article's subject, his personal conclusions are unwarranted and inappropriate as a source, especially when the opening sentence on that page reads "The forces of stupidity and banality struck another low blow..." this is an opinion piece on a self-published website of an author who is not an expert in any way. It is not a reliable source. - Aoidh (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that he does not possess some relevant subject matter expertise, since he has written on conspiracy theories and domestic terrorism in edited publications and in work which is self-published but appears to be well-regarded, but I will try to refrain for now from opening another front in the discussion. - Cal Engime (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Having written previously on a subject does not make someone a subject-matter expert on any level, and being well-regarded (even if true) does not change the acceptability of a self-published source. - Aoidh (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

My addition to Voynich manuscript
Hello! I saw that you reverted my addition to the "Decipherment claims" section, the item for Alexander M. Zlamal. You said it was unsourced and I'm wondering how I can correct this. I reference World Explorer Magazine, Vol 9, No 7 which contains the article written by Zlamal. Is the issue that this is not considered a reliable source? Thanks in advance for any guidance you can give me. Greydrizzle (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That World Explorers magazine is not a reliable source. If some other reliable source writes something about this article Zlamal wrote, then you might have an argument for taking it to the talk page and discussing whether or not it should be mentioned in the article. However, your edits show that you have a potential conflict of interest regarding Alexander Zlamal, so it would be highly recommended that you do not try to insert anything regarding him into this or any other article yourself, but rather discuss it on the talk page of the article you wish for him to be mentioned in. As it stands, however, this article by Zlamal is a decipherment claim in a sea full of random decipherment claims, and nothing about this particular claim has been shown to stand out in a way that it warrants being mentioned on the article itself. - Aoidh (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the guidance. Greydrizzle (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan MacMasters
Would you be willing to share your assessment of the image over at .-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  13:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have commented there. The comment ended up being much longer than I intended, but it has all the information I wanted to convey to explain why it's a hoax image in a way that is in line with how Commons treats images. - Aoidh (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Buford High School (South Carolina)
Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Flip (software)
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverted of nationality edits
Hi Aoidh, could you run by me why you've reverted my edits to a number of pages yesterday? I was not editing from a national bias, those pages were specifically picked to conform to Wikipedia's conventions. MOS:CONTEXTBIO obviously states that there is no preference in the British context, but encourages editors to defer to reliable sources, "particularly UK reliable sources".

I thought it better to talk to you directly than go through each article's talk page, but I can run you through evidence for each edit if you'd like? Otherwise to save time, I'll just summarise each of the two groups. I hope it was clear there are two different separate groups of articles, namely Royal Naval Rear Admirals and members of the Fairfax family.

Concerning the Royal Navy, the consensus on Wikipedia is to use "British", as is clear if you consult the majority of inclusions on the List_of_Royal_Navy_rear_admirals page. As a British institution, and one that factors heavily in the development of a British identity, this seems quite reasonable. The Royal Navy itself exclusively uses British when referring to historical admirals https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/, as does the book I crosschecked when editing, Admirals of the British Navy by Francis Dodd. I couldn't find any evidence online that any of the admirals I edited referred to themselves as anything other than British. I specifically left any pages that seemed to have a good reason to use another signifier, but otherwise deferred to the consensus, which for the vast majority is to use British.

The Fairfax family is a different discussion. Forgive me if you're familiar, but Thomas Fairfax, 1st Lord Fairfax of Cameron, was an English diplomat who was granted a Scottish title after the union of the crowns. Hence the confusion as to the family's nationality. For at least a century thereafter, the family seat continued to be in England and they were buried in England. However due to being Scottish peers (of English origins), some of the later pages say Scottish peer. I left these pages as they are correct, if somewhat confusing. The situation is further confused by the famous American cousins, who unaware of their birth right, eventually inherited the Scottish title. What I believe has happened, is that editors have seen the Scottish title and assumed the family was originally Scottish. However I can't find any evidence that the family saw themselves as something other than English (or British in the case of the living Lord Nicholas Fairfax).

Again online, the consensus is to call the family English (https://www.fairfaxhouse.co.uk/fairfax-house/explore-the-townhouse/fairfax-family/) My personal preference with historical figures, who might not have drawn the same national distinctions that we do today, is to not include a nationality, but certainly I feel here the usage of Scottish is incorrect and misleading. I thought my edit for Charles S. Fairfax, "a Scottish noble of English descent", was the most useful. Do you have any other suggestions?

Many thanks

Tchaikovskyflowers (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus on Wikipedia is actually to not go through articles and change the nationality without good reason specific to that article, and MOS:CONTEXTBIO says nothing about changing English to British, for example. You said the consensus is to use British on List of Royal Navy rear admirals, but I clicked on a few random articles in that list (John Weale (Royal Navy officer), John Robert Ebenezer Pattisson, Lewis Beaumont, James Albert Bedbrook, Nicholas Harris) and not a single one used British. I also looked on the article's talk page; the consensus you refer to does not appear to exist. If biographies specific to that person overwhelmingly refer to them as British exist then that single article should probably be changed, but we cannot go through a list of naval officers, for example, to change them all to British for the sake of uniformity simply on the basis that they were naval officers, per WP:UKCHANGE. Concerning Charles S. Fairfax, I didn't see anything in that Fairfax House link you included that calls anyone or anything English, let alone Charles specifically. If you can show that sources, when they refer to his nationality, use English, then that would be a basis for making that change. Absent that, however, saying that he was of Scottish noble descent is accurate to the facts; he was a descendent of Scottish nobility. - Aoidh (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:CONTEXTBIO does cover these changes explicitly, under a footnote [a]. I'll quote it here,
 * "There is no preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality they identify by. A 2018 RfC on Spanish regional identity in the lead resulted in consensus to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most. For guidelines on naming conventions and sourcing Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, see Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities."
 * Meanwhile on WP:UKCHANGE it is clear not to edit for uniformity, but does advise to look at comparable articles for guidance. I apologise for confusing my lists of admirals, if you consult List of Royal Navy admirals (1707–current) (rather than Rear Admirals) you'll agree many more are referred to as British than anything else. I completely agree with you that referring to their profession alone and not their nationality is even more common, and as I said above, my preference is often to remove nationalities when referring to historical figures who wouldn't have shared our ideas of nationality. Would you rather we did this?
 * However I am not arguing to change these for conformity on Wikipedia, but rather than these men are almost exclusively remembered for their membership in a particularly British institution. The consensus elsewhere online, for example on the Navy's own website and on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, is to refer to Royal Navy officers as British. For specific examples where these men are referred to a British
 * https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_crewman&id=2040
 * https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_crewman&id=5100
 * https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_crewman&id=8976
 * You can check the rest if you'd like. I couldn't find any source that referred to them as anything else. This makes sense as they spent a good deal of their lives abroad on British ships, with mixed crews in service to the British crown. In WP:UKCHANGE specifically points out how national bodies like the Scottish National Gallery or the National Museum of Wales or sports people competing under a certain flag, either British or English etc, are all indicative of nationality. Surely the Royal Navy qualifies the same? If any of the earlier sailors had sailed in the Old Scots Navy, they would be labelled Scottish.
 * Also conversely is there any reason why the existing nationality was chosen? As WP:UKCHANGE encourages, I researched each figure before I made the changes and couldn't see anything other than their birthplace.
 * The Fairfax House link wasn't referring to Charles S Fairfax. I was demonstrating the family's English origin. Could you clarify at what point the family stops being English? Robert Fairfax's article shows his ancestry as 3/4 English (he was more Dutch than Scottish). And arguably more importantly than genealogy, he lived and died at the family estate in Kent, where he was MP.
 * When you say Charles S Fairfax was of Scottish noble descent, this is precisely the confusion I was referring to. He was descended from Englishmen who also held Scottish peerages, and yet the link for "Scottish noble descent", leads to Scottish Americans, which none of them were. You can see the ambiguity here is unclear and unhelpful. I would suggest again either, removing nationality, or perhaps expanding on the page of each that they were of English descent in the Scottish peerage. Or alternatively British might be more succinct for more modern members.
 * Again do you have any suggestions other than leaving the pages? I think I've demonstrated there is evidence for improving their accuracy.
 * Tchaikovskyflowers (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that because a person is part of a certain group (in this case the Royal Navy) that it defines their nationality as "British" unless the majority of reliable sources specifically refer to them as British, not just the group they belong to. The threedecks source does not seem to be a reliable source, and the Fairfax House source above never uses the word English in any capacity, unless I'm overlooking something, but being a descendant of someone who called themselves English does not make you English. The Fairfax example also doesn't define him as a Scottish national, but "of Scottish noble descent" and this is accurate, though I agree that wikilink in the phrase should probably go. He is descended from those with Scottish noble title, so that description is accurate and is not a judgement on his own nationality. - Aoidh (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Royal Navy Officers:
 * I've so far given three examples of reliable sources that refer to them as British, I haven't been able to find anything that refers to them as anything else, have you? I don't know what makes you say that Threedecks isn't a reliable source. Please find me a counter example and I'm happy to discuss, otherwise my edits seem quite reasonable.
 * Fairfax Family:
 * Yorkshire is a county in Northern England, where the family had its roots and its predominant land holdings. Being a descendant of many people who call themselves English, living, dying and being buried in England would make you English. I'm glad you appreciate the ambiguity over "Scottish National descent" I'll change that now.
 * So in regard to my suggestions, do you have any comments?
 * Tchaikovskyflowers (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't provide three sources, you provides one questionable source. One single source making a generalized nationality assumption isn't sufficient to go changing anyone's nationality, especially because that source makes no distinction between someone recognizing themselves as British v. English; they lump everything into British by default so of course they're going to list them as British, therefore that means absolutely nothing as far as highlighting the nuance between their nationality/identity. English as a national identity doesn't even exist on that site, so they're not a source we can use to judge whether someone is referred to or especially referred to themselves as English or British. As for Fairfax, you've moved on from the website you cited which doesn't support what you're saying and into "well logically" but that's WP:OR; you can't make assumptions based on what you feel makes sense, you have to go by what is found in reliable sources. Regarding the threedecks, changing someone to British based solely on a website that only refers to people as British is not reasonable; of course it's going to say they're British, that's all it ever says, and therefore means nothing in terms of the individuals themselves and what they specifically are identified as regarding nationality. - Aoidh (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Bethlehem, Georgia
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. TylerJThomas1987 (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note for posterity, the AN3 report was removed as malformed and nothing further came of it, and the report itself was made in retaliation for a uw-ewsoft template placed on the above user's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Seckinger High School
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree to disagree
We can’t seem to resolve our differences so a review is requested There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ExchangeFORD (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Being taken to AN/I for pointing out that sources are trivial mentions and don't show notability is probably a first (certainly is for me), but I've responded there. - Aoidh (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and it's closed. - Aoidh (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Animal Farm
Hi, you have reverted my edit, although the added sentence and the source are about Soviet poets and did not have to imply Animal Farm. That Orwell 'skilfully imitated' sounds as 'the mirror accurately reflected', and not as an exaggeration. You could have deleted 'skilfully', though. And which animal wore Mrs Jones's dress? Doctor Gregory (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't imply Animal Farm, then why include it on the article for Animal Farm? Per WP:OR we can't say "there is a connection with these poets" if reliable sources don't say that. Also the word skillfully wasn't the only issue. Saying countless Soviet poets willingly or unwillingly did so is an unsourced statement in multiple ways, as is saying that Orwell skilfully imitated their style and language. Was he trying to imitate their style and language? Skillfully or not that's WP:OR if we don't have a reliable source that says this. Skillfully I take particular issue with though because it's puffery and not neutral wording. As for the animal that wore the dress I had to look at my copy of the book but it says ...Napoleon himself appearing in a black coat, ratcatcher breeches, and leather leggings, while his favourite sow appeared in the watered silk dress which Mrs. Jones had been used to wearing on Sundays. I did not see the part about the sow which was further down, and I don't take issue with that part of the edit. - Aoidh (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I included the sentence and the source about poets because the paragraph is about Minimus, the poet pig. 2) Daniel Weissbort in the quoted book clearly states: "... genuine creative artists were forced into silence, while doctrinaire Socialist Realist writers or time-servers ... were prepared to subordinate their art ... to social directives, to glorify ... and ultimately to panegyrize Stalin..." (p. 14), i.e. "willingly". Anna Akhmatova, a "genuine creative artist", "trying to secure" her imprisoned son release, "published a cycle of overtly propagandistic poems praising Stalin and the Soviet regime", i.e. "unwillingly". (Wells, David. Anna Akhmatova: her poetry, 1996, p. 21.). 3) Orwell's book reflects events in the Soviet Union and he did imitate Soviet poets' style and language: cf. the lyrics of these songs of the Stalin years with Minimus's poem "Comrade Napoleon" in your copy of the book. 4) You were quick to undo my edits as if they were WP:VANDAL and, of course, "did not see the part about the sow" along with the point as a whole. Doctor Gregory (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The comparison is still WP:OR, and the statements within the edit also still unsourced. Your edit was problematic, and therefore your edit was reverted. I don't need more than a couple of minutes to figure that out, and I didn't accuse you of vandalism nor did I treat the edit as such. Your edit would have been reverted, sow or not, because of the problems with it. I only mentioned the sow part because you brought it up so I wanted to point out that if you reinserted that specific part, I would have no issue with it, but the rest of it remains problematic and should not be reintroduced into the article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have brought the sources and explanations here in this talk and can include them as Explanatory notes in the article. And not to use the word skilfully if it causes a subjective interpretation. Doctor Gregory (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is still WP:OR, even with these sources. The article cannot make conclusions or comparisons that reliable sources themselves don't make. You're comparing a poem with the text of the novel and concluding that they are similar and that one imitates the other. That conclusion is WP:OR. Per WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. You would need a source that explicitly says what you're wanting to include, and those sources just don't. - Aoidh (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet it is not a conclusion, but an observation. Animal Farm represents the USSR, Minimus represents Soviet artists, his poems represent theirs. What is wrong with this statement? When you have the habit of constantly finding faults with everything, you become overly critical and jump to conclusions. Still, you could have inserted a tag, and not undo the edit whatsoever. Does one have to find a source of every single sentence in Wikipedia and if not, to revert them all? You have not convinced me with the templates you hang up and I don't agree that your decision must be final, although I am not going to take any further actions. I wanted to improve the article, but you decided that worse is better. Doctor Gregory (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You can call it an observation instead of a conclusion but semantics will not change the issue at hand. You cannot present an observation like that without a reliable source; that is still WP:OR no matter what you call it. While I do believe you wanted to improve the article, your edit had serious issues. Removing those issues is hardly deciding "that worse is better". If anything it's the opposite, as removing WP:OR is an improvement to the article. I also don't even begin to know what you're talking about when you said You have not convinced me with the templates you hang up as I have never put any templates on your talk page, the article talk page, or the article itself as far as I can recall and certainly have not today. You came to my talk page for an explanation and I have provided it; I am not trying to convince you of anything. - Aoidh (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have decided to resume the talk because the paragraph about the poetic pig needs clarification. If it is not Mayakovsky who represents Minimus and his poems, then who? My edit gives the answer. Templates that do not convince are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because the issue is neither the former nor the latter, cf. WP:UCS and WP:SYNNOT. Source 1 reads that Soviet writers "were prepared to subordinate their art ... to glorify ... and ultimately to panegyrize Stalin", source 2 states that a certain Soviet poet was forced to do this, therefore the phrase "Soviet poets willingly or unwillingly praised Stalin" is verifiable. To remove the words "skilfully" and "imitated", it may be stated in the paragraph: "The style and language of Minimus's poem 'Comrade Napoleon' resembles Soviet poets' countless eulogies". Doctor Gregory (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue remains the same. It doesn’t matter that your edit gives the answer if it’s not reliably sourced, which your edit wasn’t. You cannot draw conclusions that the sources themselves do not say, and those sources you cited do not support the content you added to the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read my suggested edit and let me know which portion of it is not reliably sourced and if the passage itself violates any Wikipedia rule so that it should be immediately reverted. Yes, it is not a direct quote from just one source, but it should not be such, as long as it is a summary of the information from reliable sources (What SYNTH is not). So, please, open the links and read them also. ... Mayakovsky neither wrote anthems nor praised Stalin in his poems. Still, other Soviet poets did, willingly or unwillingly, and the style and language of Minimus's poem "Comrade Napoleon" resembles their countless eulogies. Doctor Gregory (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The comparison is the problem. You cannot compare the poems and go "see they're similar!" that is WP:OR, and the rest of it is irrelevant. You need a source that says this; you cannot make the comparison yourself. You cannot say that the poem resembles anything, unless a reliable source is cited that says exactly that. - Aoidh (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leafpad
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leafpad 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 Legobot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leafpad
The article Leafpad 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:Leafpad for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leafpad
The article Leafpad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leafpad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you so much! - Aoidh (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 6th Military Police Group (United States)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I'm really glad it got the views it did. - Aoidh (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Leafpad
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Jieba
— Maile (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but that is unfortunate that it was this article and not Leafpad above (weird that I got two DYK hooks run at once). I spent all day researching because of concerns raised at Talk:Jieba just to find out that the 300 year part of the DYK hook was wrong. I'm going to take this as a lesson learned and be much more mindful of the quality of the sources that I rely on. - Aoidh (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, it happens to everyone. And usually, it's a lot easier to spot than an error that takes hours of obsessive searching to root out. Forehead-slappingly easier. There are... risks to involving yourself in the less-accessible content that is a non-recent non-U.S. non-pop-culture topic; it is generally more difficult and time consuming to find out what the truth is in those spheres. I think you do a great job of it, I've thought so ever since I read your article on the 6th Military Police Group :) I hope you keep this incident in your head for next time – and I hope there are lots of next times for you, where you get to try things out and learn and grow from your experiences. If you'd like, you can ask WT:DYK to air some kind of correction on your behalf. I hope this hasn't gotten you down too much – after all, I'm excited to see what else you can create. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Eyes of Buddha
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC) This this DYK meet the view mark? It looks like it did but I'm not sure how the 12/24 hour thing works. - Aoidh (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * (: forgot to run that script, sorry! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * all good, thanks. I just wasn't sure if I was looking at it right because it either absolutely was or was not high enough depending on how long it was there and I wasn't sure which was which. - Aoidh (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for LARIAT (platform)
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Retina (typeface)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Buford Dam
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Vegeta (software)
— Maile (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Aoidh, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AAoidh added] the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed' and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned prolific creators of articles where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 19:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And, have you considered requesting to become an administrator?  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 19:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the autopatrolled right. Regarding administrative tools, I have considered it but the RfA process itself is very daunting so it's not something I've approached so far. - Aoidh (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect you'd get through well enough. A first look through your contributions suggests to me that you are a strong candidate. Let me know if ever you want a nomination.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 01:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just spent the last hour or so reading the various RfA pages and user essays and such. Let me think on it for a little while and I'll get back to you about it, if that's alright. - Aoidh (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. No hurry.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 14:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have sent you an email about this. - Aoidh (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Nathan Larson
Check in on it monthly. It’ll be there. Matt.h559 (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, when reliable sources verify the information it can be added, but until then it doesn't belong there. Just to be clear, you personally are not and cannot be used as a reliable source, especially for a claim like that. That is WP:OR; we must be able to verify that the content is reliable. You saying you have authority or knowledge in this matter doesn't make for reliability, as anyone can claim anything; we need published reliable sources to verify what is being said on an article, especially for a biography of a living person. - Aoidh (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center
Vanamonde 00:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shoshin
Hello! Your submission of Shoshin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cbl62 (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've responded there. - Aoidh (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing Michael Knote and Have A Gay Day from the wiki for Jamey Rodemeyer.
Up until a few edits ago Have A Gay Day has been a part of the Jamey Rodemeyer wiki page. Michael Knote started the memorial social media for Jamey and also started the non-profit organization Have A Gay Day and their social media in his memory. The sourcing was on that original edit made almost 10 years ago but when I re-edited it adding it back the sourcing was gone. As far as the edit to the website, if you search Have A Gay Day and Jamey Rodemeyer a host of news stories come up to verify this over the years. Also news articles showing that Have A Gay Day has also received funding from the Born This Way Foundation and Lady Gaga. I am including a few of these articles as reference.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/07/have-a-gay-day/ https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/local-nonprofit-aims-to-support-and-educate-lgbtq-allies/Y5Y6EIWNYVEIHIJEGOMMPI35KA/ https://www.wdtn.com/news/local-news/lgbtq-organization-opens-new-food-pantry-and-resource-center-in-northridge/ https://www.sinclairclarion.com/home/tartan-news/2015/04/19/have-a-gay-day-expands/ https://www.losangelesblade.com/2021/11/21/ohio-lgbtq-organization-does-the-little-things-for-the-entire-community/ Michaelknote (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've commented about this on your talk page, but I do think this is a conversation better had at the article's talk page since it's addressing points that others have made; my main concern (and the reason I reverted the edit) was the fact that the text inserted was an exact copy-paste from a website. - Aoidh (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

David E. Olson
Hi @Aoidh,

I don't believe I need to start with an indent here. Sorry if I should have. This message is regarding the like a résumé tag that you placed on the above article for David E. Olson. A couple of other Wikipedia editors have made some edits to the article since. Can you please take a look again to see if the like a résumé tag should still be present or can be removed? Please advise and thank you in advance for your time.HHA LTP (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag from the article, since it is much improved in that aspect (though still not perfect, as I noted in the edit summary). I did remove a sentence in the lede for reasons I expanded upon in a talk page discussion that I started on the article's talk page, if you'd like to discuss that there. - Aoidh (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Aoidh for removing the tag and including your additional notes. When I can, I will try and further improve the article per your edit summary.HHA LTP (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You removed thing on talk:ROT13
It is not gibberish, it is actually ROT13. The Wikipedia article tells you how to decode it. Look on the first image. That is how you decode/encode it. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:DC70:AC4A:4821:E057 (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspected it might be, but it's still gibberish to someone reading the article's talk page. The article's talk page is not an appropriate place to put coded messages, no matter whether they can be decoded or not. The talk page's purpose is to discuss changes to the article, in plain English. - Aoidh (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Message in English (I can’t remember the first bit, but it was about making a ROT13-encoded Wikipedia.)
 * This wiki will contain everything English Wikipedia has. From rules, bot policies, articles to editors and community. I hope this project is successful. DO NOT TRACK ME.
 * I followed the rules
 * Now you know what the last part is, please do not block me 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:DC70:AC4A:4821:E057 (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The content of the encoded message doesn't matter, it does not belong on the article's talk page which is why it was removed. Making a ROT13-encoded Wikipedia has nothing to do with the article on ROT13 itself, especially when it's not being communicated in English. - Aoidh (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. I only started editing and being part of the community of editors since yesterday. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:DC70:AC4A:4821:E057 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all good, that's just not what talk pages are used for, they're for discussing changes to the article and ways to improve the article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, on other talk pages I have talked about helping the article because the articles I talked on are 1. Hoaxes or 2. Vandalised/Outdated 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:DC70:AC4A:4821:E057 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Shoshin
~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 04:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

proto-Metaverse
The next thing I know, you'll be removing my mention of proto-Metaverse from the lead of MUSH too. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know it's been posted there as well. I have indeed removed it for the same reasons it was removed from the MUD page; it's not relevant to that article's subject. If you specifically come to my talk page to direct my attention to another page where there's a similar issue, I am inclined to follow your suggestion and address the issue. There's other issues with the MUSH page too so I'll work on those issues as well while I'm on the page. - Aoidh (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I knew it had to be done, just didn't want to do it myself(!) --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Polybius (Urban Legend)
You removed my edit mentioning Scott the Woz and marked it as trivia. Polybius is a niche video game urban legend and mentioning it was on a video game-centric web series with a large fanbase seems relevant enough. No different from mentioning how most people only know of Dick Vitale's Awesome Baby College Hoops from said web series. May I re edit the article with a source? -- User:HaydenTCEM (talk) 8:39, September 30 2022 (EST)
 * If you can provide an independent reliable source that discusses the information, I have no problem with it being re-added. If it hasn't received any attention from third-party reliable sources, then it's not "popular" culture and it's just trivia; that it merely exists is not sufficient reason to be listed as an example of popular culture. Citing the YouTube video itself isn't sufficient to show that it's part of popular culture. Look at the other examples and the types of sources that they have; that's at minimum what it needs. - Aoidh (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please do that for me HaydenTCEM (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do what? Look for a source for you? A quick look through Google suggests that there are no such sources because everything I'm seeing is either WP:USERG or in some way not a reliable source, so honestly it probably isn't relevant enough to include. - Aoidh (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. Fuck you then. HaydenTCEM (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I couldn't give you the answer you wanted, but no hard feelings here; take care. - Aoidh (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you at least remove the Ashens mention HaydenTCEM (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry, i was a bit angry HaydenTCEM (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It happens. It's best to step away and cool down when that happens though; nothing good happens when editing while frustrated, believe me I've been there. I didn't see the Ashens part and in fact had to Ctrl+F the name to even find it because it wasn't in the popular culture section but was tucked away in the external links section, but I did remove it because it's not an external link, and there's no sources that I could find to justify including it in the popular culture section. - Aoidh (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Oglethorpe County High School
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Who are you?
Hi, I've observed that you always change at least something everytime I edit something on any Wikipedia page. Why are you doing this? You even change my edits on local topics as well. Noah526330 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this you've edited 14 mainspace pages (so the actual articles, and not counting the talk pages like this one), and since you have started editing Wikipedia, we have interacted on only 2 of them. The very short version is that I reverted you on both of those pages because there were issues with the edits made on both of the pages. For a bit more elaboration on the two articles:
 * I reverted your changes on Gautama Buddha because the current wording is the result of a previous discussion and consensus (the discussion is here, and is a discussion I had no part in). See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD; essentially you made a bold edit and it was reverted. The route to now take is to discuss it on the talk page and see if consensus has changed though given that this consensus was the result of a discussion that isn't even 4 months old I doubt anything about it would change. Despite being asked to, you have not made a single edit to that article's talk page. If you continue to edit war to your preferred version you will likely be reported at WP:AN3 where you may be blocked from editing. Though you have removed it there is still evidence that you have been warned about this edit warring; your removal of the comment "is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" so if you continue to edit war you cannot claim you were not aware of this policy. Please stop reverting to your preferred version as there is a previous consensus and your changes have been reverted by multiple users now; if you want your changes to remain on the article, the way to do that is by getting a consensus for your changes. So far you have only edited talk pages to remove a warning on your own talk page, and to make this comment on mine.
 * As to why I edited Sandeep Lamichhane, the second article that you have also edited, it is because I noticed that your edits introduced a serious WP:BLP violation, one that had to be revision deleted so I can't provide you a diff that you'd be able to see (for example). Basically, per WP:BLPCRIME you cannot say "this person did this crime" if they have not been convicted of the crime. The article can say there's been an arrest and an investigation (which it does), but it can't say that the person actually committed the crime. I made further edits because content was blanked without explanation and the wording you added had to be reworded on a couple of sentences because the content was a copy-paste of the source; we cannot copy-paste what sources say into the article, they must be written in our own words, summarizing what the sources say.
 * If someone else has gone behind you and made changes to your edits on pages outside of the two examples above, then it was someone else, not me. I hope this explanation helps. - Aoidh (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ball Ground, Georgia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ball Ground, Georgia 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center
The article Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center 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:Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center
The article Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ball Ground, Georgia
The article Ball Ground, Georgia 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:Ball Ground, Georgia for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ball Ground, Georgia
The article Ball Ground, Georgia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ball Ground, Georgia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! :) - Aoidh (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alt attribute
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alt attribute 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 Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Tarboro High School
wants to create an article at Draft:Tarboro High School, but I am having a hard time finding sources. Since you do such a good job finding sources, I was wondering if you could expand the draft so it can be published. You don't have to do this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit under the weather so I can't do that kind of prolonged (I don't even know if that's the right word) research at the moment, but a quick look at Newspapers.com gives me a result of "7,330 Matches · "Tarboro High School" in North Carolina". Even if 99% of those results are trivial, routine mentions (which in my experience is likely) that still leaves a few dozen potentially good sources, and that's just for North Carolina (where I'd expect most of the mentions to be). But non-local sources would go further in showing notability, so searching around a few other nearby states gives "382 Matches · "Tarboro High School" in Alabama or Florida or Georgia or Kentucky or Maryland or South Carolina or Tennessee or Virginia" which looks mostly like coverage of them hosting the shelter for the 1999 Hurricane Floyd. I admit I'm particularly interested in the Tarboro Colored School/Pattillo aspect of the article because there's not nearly enough coverage of pre-segregation African American schools on Wikipedia, so the draft has my attention and I'll see what I can do, hopefully in a day or two. - Aoidh (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I'm feeling under the weather myself, so I can't do much either. I did the best I could though. FloridaArmy has A LOT of articles in the draftspace on High Schools that keep getting rejected. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shoshin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shoshin 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alt attribute
The article Alt attribute you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alt attribute for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shoshin
The article Shoshin 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:Shoshin for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shoshin
The article Shoshin you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Shoshin 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking the time to review it, and I’m sorry again that I wasn’t able to address the issues timely. Still in the hospital, but I figured out how to view desktop mode on a mobile phone, but it’s still frustratingly hard to do when you’re so used to the computer. I think books and Japanese-language sources are the route to go for fleshing out the article which will take some time, so I hope you don’t mind if I put that article on the back burner for a while. (I even tried remoting in to my desktop computer from my phone to browse/edit Wikipedia but that was a terrible idea) - Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've probably said before, but I actually edit primarily on mobile. There's no deadline to Wikipedia, so take it at your pace. Offer is there when you are well and able for second review.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. I don’t know how people can spend long periods of time in hospitals, it’s only been a couple of days and I’m already so done with this little room. Thankfully the food is slightly better than I was expecting and the nurses are the nicest people in the world, but I’m still sick of this place. I don’t know how you can edit on mobile, I’m lucky to be able to manage to use the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

CFA disamb page
Just for the record, the Chick-fil-A page mentions this. I don't see how it is personal analysis when the page says " The company's opposition to same-sex marriage has been the subject of public controversy, though the company has begun to loosen its stance on this issue." Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That controversy is not a defining aspect of the restaurant as your edit made it seem; your edit put undue emphasis on that information on a summary that should do no more than identify and disambiguate the entry. The article mentions it because it gives context and WP:DUE emphasis in giving the appropriate weight to the subject within the whole of the text, but just because the article mentions it does not mean it is appropriate to emphasize that detail on other pages. - Aoidh (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I have added the fast food part back, because that is important. What about the chicken sandwich part? Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, when many people mention Chick-fil-A, it's not about the food, it IS about the LGBT controversy. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ”Many people” think a lot of things. See WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUE. “Many people” think of the Watergate scandal when they think of Nixon, yet Richard Nixon (disambiguation) simply says enough to distinguish him, the wording does not seek to cast judgement or overemphasize details. - Aoidh (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ball Ground, Georgia
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Alt attribute
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I thought that one would be "hooky". I do have a question, how are those view numbers determined? As far as I can tell [//pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2022-10-22&end=2022-11-11&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Alt_attribute this method] doesn't show the views for that time period (as of my writing this at least), and when those numbers are displayed and the total views are divided by 12 or 24 or whatever, they usually don't quite match the numbers listed here or in the DYK views template. - Aoidh (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question! I'm not sure why that tool takes a little longer to collect pageviews than mine – we both do the same thing, as far as I know, which is a direct API query to wikimedia. DYK calculates pageviews a little differently; we want to know how many views the article got due to its Main Page exposure, rather than just overall. Say an article that airs on January 3 gets these many views, according to the MusikAnimal tool:
 * January 1: 250 views
 * January 2: 200 views
 * January 3: 10,000 views
 * January 4: 800 views
 * We could just say that the article got 10,000 views, but clearly not all of those were because of DYK – it was already getting some amount of views per day. To adjust for that, we subtract out the "background views" – either taking away the average of the two days before or the two days surrounding the DYK date, which ever leaves the higher count. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand and that makes perfect sense, thank you for explaining. - Aoidh (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Daruma-ji
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Reverting my contribution to "Linux Distributions"
You reverted my contribution. Please can you suggest a more relevant article that I should contribute it to, or better text to contribute to this article. I think the ability to run Linux as a screensaver for Microsoft Windows is important to facilitating the proliferation of Linux, and proliferation of Linux is "Innovation" which is a Good Thing.

Chris99990 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for context, this is the edit in question. Aside from very minor problems with the text itself (effortlessly? says who?) the issue is relevance. The Linux.com article certainly supports the fact that it exists, but that's about it. It comes nowhere near suggesting that "the ability to run Linux as a screensaver for Microsoft Windows is important to facilitating the proliferation of Linux" and if that were true it might be relevant for the Linux or Linux distribution articles, but there's no evidence of that claim. As it stands it's merely a random factoid in a sea of hundreds of thousands of other factoids about Linux, and not one that's particularly worth mentioning. Whatever our own personal opinions on the matter, it's what reliable sources say about the subject that carry the weight, and aside from a Linux.com article from December 2021 saying that it exists, there's been no coverage of Chris Ward's project. There are certainly topics within WikiProject Linux that could use improvement (for example), but as far as including that particular piece of information on Wikipedia, I would say that the lack of coverage on its significance suggests that it doesn't fit on any article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I will resubmit after it has hit the news elsewhere and there are more possible references.
 * Linux itself was new once upon a time.
 * Chris99990 (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These screensavers have been kicking around inside IBM since 2005, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272094609_Linux_screensaver_for_Windows and https://linux.slashdot.org/story/05/12/21/227239/run-linux-as-a-windows-screensaver#comments. They have only recently escaped into the wild ! Chris99990 (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Chris99990 (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much -- I managed to close afd per your suggestion
Thanks so much - I managed to close my afd per your suggestion. I was afraid of the markup it was not as hard to do as I anticipated.

Articles for deletion/IRip

PS I very much enjoyed the quotation you displayed as well "Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill. If our minds are filled with sympathy and compassion, they will be resistant to the evil words we hear.  Well done!  (check out my user page and you find a similar sentiment) "Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! Things like closing discussions and how to use Wikipedia markup are usually well documented on Wikipedia and it's easy to follow along with the documentation, the trick seems to be finding the documentation in the first place. As for the quote, thank you very much! - Aoidh (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * there is so much to learn I am spinning.. (and a bit of it is cryptic) it is a bit addicting I have to say.   I took a "big leap" when reading a "high profile/current" article by trying to improve readability.  FTX (company).   I feel there is a little more back and forth contention between edits and editors with FTX.  Also, I authored two articles for submission.  I am trying to hit all the bases of what can be done in terms of tasks.  ---   Background: My first edit was "quickly reverted" by an administrator (in error, very fast) and I pointed out it was a legitimate edit.  I think I had one other edit reverted due to a mistake - i tried to do an afd manually and apologized for messing stuff up.   Feels like there is tons of work, lots of automated stuff that is too fast for thinking (I got pointed to twinkle - and I am pacing myself - I am slowing down as needed)  There seems is a huge effort going on somewhere in the background to make sure the site is protected.     Anyway, I would like to learn about that aspect; but that seems a bit far off on the horizon.   What do you think I should learn as a next step? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it depends on what interests you, really. One thing I would suggest is find a less active page to edit than FTX (company), which has a current event tag and very frequent editing in the past few days so the article is rapidly changing. One thing you could do is check out the WikiProjects, which are a group of editors focused on improving a specific topic area. So for example on the navigation box at the bottom of my user page there's a short list of WikiProjects I tend to focus on. What you could do is find something that interests you and check out the talk page to see what WikiProjects are associated with that thing. For example, iRip's talk page has WikiProject Apple Inc. and WikiProject Computing. If you were, for example, interested in WikiProject Computing you could view their assessment table, and click on the word "Stub" in the table to view, and could browse that for something that jumps out at you that you might be interested in expanding, as stubs are very, very short articles that need expanding. That's what I would suggest if you wanted to get started on content, but there's also things like Task Center which lists things you can do as well. - Aoidh (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello
Well, would you like to be friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie257 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean. - Aoidh (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Surnames of US-American origin
Hello, Aoidh,

Please do not remove all of the contents of a category so that it gets tagged for deletion. This is considered emptying categories "out of process" and is considered disruptive editing. All of your edits to do this can be reverted. If you believe a category should be deleted, renamed or merged, please nominate it at Categories for Discussion rather than emptying it yourself. Thank you very much. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize, it was absolutely not my intention to circumvent a more appropriate process. I had seen similar categories empty and tagged this way and assumed that they were populated in a problematic way and removed from the articles in question the same way. I saw that none of the names in the articles were actually of American origin so I removed that category from each page but if CFD is more appropriate I have no issue taking it there, I was just not aware that it would be the appropriate route to take. Though I disagree that the categories fit those articles, would it be better for me to self-revert these removals and then nominate the category itself via CFD? - Aoidh (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to elaborate on why I was not trying to do something out of process, you yourself removed a category that did not apply and then tagged the category immediately before posting on my talk page, so I was just trying to address the issue I saw the same way I had seen it done before, though on looking further I recognize that there's a difference between removing a lone article from a category and removing several, but my intent was the removal of the category on articles that it didn't apply to, not the deletion of the category itself; I just thought that was the way it was done and that you were supposed to tag the category when you removed the entries but now that I know it's not the right way to do that I have no problem fixing the situation however is appropriate and moving forward from there, I just need to know what route I should take to address the mistake on my end, which again I apologize for and was not an intentional attempt to circumvent anything. My issue was that none of the names in the category belonged in the category rather than an issue with the category itself, is that still something that should be handled at WP:CFD? I have limited experience with categories outside of adding them to articles I work on and until you commented here I did not even know that CFD was a thing. - Aoidh (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Aoidh,
 * This is a lot of content here to absorb so I'm just going to make a few initial comments and then come back to elaborate. I'm sorry it took me some time to return.
 * The idea behind calling emptying categories out of process "disruptive editing" is because there can be lengthy discussions at CFD about what categories should exist or what they should be called. Right now, there is a CFD debate that has gone on since September about, basically, whether a category should be called "Architecture OF Canada" or "Architecture IN Canada". The people that participate there have a great knowledge about the history of categories and prior CFD discussions on Wikipedia.
 * The problem I saw with your actions in this case is that you didn't just remove one article from a small category (see WP:SMALLCAT for guidance on very small categories) to put it in a parent category, you removed 50 articles from a large category. That's a substantial removal of content and it could be that at CFD, there might be editors who care that this category will be deleted and they know how similar categories about surnames were handled before. They might have come up with a better category title or even decided that other categories with similar titles should be recategorized, merged or deleted.
 * The good thing about CFD is that a simple request can expand into a recategorization of an entire branch of the category tree and go beyond just this one category to others, if that's what the consensus calls for. Also, the participants there have an encyclopedic memory about categories which are kind of an obscure subject on Wikipedia. The bad thing is that CFD discussions can take longer than a week so it is tempting to just go ahead and make the changes yourself (by the way, the CFD discussion I linked to has been going on an absurd length of time and isn't typical).
 * In closing (for now), I'll just say that I leave a couple of messages like the one I left you every week. I have never left a second message about emptying categories, ever! The notice is meant to call your attention to a practice that we try to discourage, not to threaten you. I'm sorry if the language seemed strong but it was intended to get your attention, not to imply that you were headed towards a block or a trip to a noticeboard. I think my approach as an admin is to give warnings early so that problems do not escalate or repeat themselves. If you look at the breakdown of my edits you'll see that about half of my edits are talk page notices so I believe in alerting editors to what I see as problematic behavior as an educational tool.
 * I know you are a very experienced editor and I'm sorry if my encouraging you to try out CFD should this situation happen again came across as heavy-handed. I'll try not to do this in the future. I'll return later to address any questions you brought up that this message didn't cover. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your response, and the explanation of what CFD does makes sense. When I made those edits I thought that MfD would be the proper venue for something like that and the issue wasn't that the category should be deleted but that the answer to the question "does this category describe this page" was (to me) "no", albeit ~50x so I thought it didn't apply to this situation. Even just the name "Category for discussion" describes a different process than "Miscellany for deletion" so I absolutely get how CFD would be appropriate for this whereas MFD might not be. It was not my intention to circumvent that process, I just legitimately did not know that process even existed. As for my being a "very experienced editor", I don't think that should really factor into anything because in the area of categories I was and remain pretty inexperienced, so putting a routine message on my talk page was far from inappropriate (even if I was alarmed at the description of it being disruptive editing). I just needed clarification on what I did wrong so that I could avoid it in the future, and your explanation about CFD does clarify that. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Chōgaku-ji
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

XFL Teams redirects
Hello Aoidh, I understand there is an issue with a user who helped contribute to an XFL page we were working on. I don't know what that is about nor is it my business, however with the recent undoing of things many pages are missing and broken. Im assuming you are more knowlegeable than me on the subject but is there any way to restore the work on the Vegas Vipers and Orlando Guardians page that me and the other user had been working on? I cannot find it. Thanks Camelboiis (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: I restored the Vipers page as i believe the content and information is seperate from whatever the user did that was bad. I will be doing the same for the guardians page. If this is wrong please message me and let me know. I am not trying to start an edit war or anything, rather I am trying to fix the content that was created today. Cheers Camelboiis (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The block-evading sockpuppet aside, the Vegas Vipers has serious notability issues; there is a draft at Draft:Vegas Vipers and if you want to work on the subject I would suggest working on the draft and submitting it as a draft, because it's not ready to be an article. As for Orlando Guardians, I'm unsure on the notability aspect, but all the page moves and edits made a mess of the attribution; the edit history at Orlando Guardians (XFL) needs to be preserved and linked to if that's not the version of the article used, which it should be, however that really should be worked on in draftspace and improved there as well, because it doesn't look ready for articlespace. The Orlando Guardians which was created today is not the version that should be preserved, but rather Orlando Guardians (XFL) which has the editing history intact for attribution purposes. If you're going to work on the Guardians article, I would suggest that you undo the blanking of Orlando Guardians (XFL), move it to draftspace and improve it there so that it can be improved to the point where it's ready for articlespace with sufficient sourcing showing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright thank you for the information. I originally did the editing under the (XFL) version of the page but the other user redirected the page. I just figured he knew more than me on the process so i continued editing on that version. Thank you for the communication. Upon adding references and a roster (although i believe that is just quarterbacks as of now) what else should be added before the page is complete in your opinion? Camelboiis (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What the articles need are to show notability via WP:GNG, namely that they have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So this for example doesn't contribute to the notability of the Vipers because it's about the league hiring a coach, but says pretty much nothing about the team itself. This goes into some detail about the team's uniforms, but it's not an independent source since it's from the XFL itself. That notability, shown through WP:GNG, is what the articles need to be ready for articlespace, rather than the roster details (which may or may not be important for the article, but basic notability needs to be shown first). - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But just for clarification, what the other editor did is a cut-and-paste move, which is absolutely not the correct route to take for moving a page, as there is a page move function that preserves the page history while also moving it to a new title. If you'd like I can restore the Guardians article and move it to draftspace if you're not comfortable doing it yourself and have no issues with that. - Aoidh (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * yeah I'd appreciate that. The original Orlando Guardians (XFL) page was a proper move from the New York Guardians page. I had just figured I had done something wrong. I will work on it in the draftspace over the next few days. Thanks again Camelboiis (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's now at Draft:Orlando Guardians (XFL), and whenever you're ready with either draft you can use WP:SUBMIT, or click the blue "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" button that's on the top banner of the draft, which will take you to WP:SUBMIT but will pre-fill the article title. - Aoidh (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI Report on TEDickey
Just wanted to thank you for your thorough reply made on my report on TEDickey at WP:ANI/I (i.e. [Nov 20, 2022, 24:31]). It turned out that Ted is a maintainer some of the software that the articles are dedicated to. Even though there is a certain risk of WP:COI I think reporting was preliminary so I closed it. Sorry for bothering! All the best. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 08:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Bethlehem, Georgia
Hello Aoidh - I just looked over Bethlehem, Georgia, making an informal Peer Review rather than a GA review. I noticed much of the info in the Demographics section is not footnoted. Here is a link that might be helpful. Two other things one notices right away: 1) it needs photos such as of the town and of the postmark; 2) many of the paragraphs are one sentence—perhaps the sentences could be combined in many cases. A map might be useful, possibly in the Transportation section. Also, there is a Bethlehem CCD in Barrow County—might want to differentiate. Can the Climate data (I know it might not be available.) be updated? Microsoft Word has no complaints about the article, Reflinks says no problems, and it has no duplicate Wiki-links. TwoScars (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By "footnotes" I mean citations. By combining sentences, I mean putting the sentences in the same paragraph. Just some clarification. TwoScars (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With the Bethlehem CCD I think it's insignificant enough that there's no need for a distinguish tag until there's an article for it at least, which afaik there isn't. I do very much agree that photos would be a fantastic addition, but I can't find any on Commons or CC-BY photos on Flickr but short of driving there myself I'm not sure how to address that. For the climate, similar to Ball Ground, Georgia I kept the 1981–2010 data because that's what was available in that level of detail; I found some up to date highs on some websites I've never heard of before, but not precipitation. If there's a reliable source that has more up to date information I'll be happy to update that information I'm just not sure if or where that could be found. - Aoidh (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for An Appeal for Human Rights
~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 00:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
enjoy

Zedsamcat (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 

Undoing “moksh bas dharma edit”
Why you undid dharma to religion i am talking about hinduism page. infact dharma means duties and has a different meaning than religion. The Nerdy science (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing from this section's header, you may be talking about this edit made by ? If that is the edit you're referring to, I reverted the change to the short description because it is not an improvement over the previous wording. Per WP:SDJARGON the short description should avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject. Describing Hinduism as an Indian Moksh-based dharma over simply describing it as an Indian religion is introducing unnecessarily technical jargon. The overwhelmingly majority of English speakers would not know what "Moksh-based dharma" means, so that description is not going to be a helpful tool in distinguishing that article. - Aoidh (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

K-Meleon GA Review
Just making sure because this is my first GA nomination. You've closed the discussion. That means you're officially saying no here, right? There's no reason to explain or change anything; it's done? Rjjiii (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For now, yes. It's not uncommon to have minor issues with an article nominated for GA that require some addressing before proceeding, but they're usually relatively minor things that can be fixed in a short time period. The issues with K-Meleon are much more significant; there are a substantial number of sources that quite simply do not verify the statements that they are attached to, to the point that the article requires a major rewrite or wholesale replacement of many sources. Take away the references that don't verify the information and a significant portion of the article is unsourced or unverifiable, failing the second of the six GA criteria per WP:GAFAIL and Good article criteria. The article can be renominated once those issues are addressed, but in its present state it is still unfortunately a long way from meeting the GA criteria. I absolutely encourage you to continue to work on the article and when its ready to renominate it. - Aoidh (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Rjjiii (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do want to stress that this should not put you off from improving the article and this certainly isn't anything with any finality, it just means that the article isn't ready yet. I nominated an article in October that failed its review (Talk:Shoshin/GA1) because it's still a long way from being up to GA standards, and that's certainly not a negative reflection on me, that article just isn't ready yet. I'm taking a break from that article but I do plan on improving it and I would love to see K-Meleon improved and become a GA as well. I hope this doesn't put you off or discourage you because it's absolutely not meant to, the article just needs additional work before it's at the GA level is all. - Aoidh (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I looked at the tags that you've added to the K-Meleon article. Thanks for the citation needed tags. I can go through those soon and add sources. I also noticed very many "verfication failed" tags. For the verification failed tags what are you wanting to see in the article? Rjjiii (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With the failed verification tags, it means that the source doesn't actually verify the statement in the article that it's purported to verify. Just to take a random one for example, this reference talks about Cyrillic displaying correctly, but it's only talking about Cyrillic, it says nothing that could be construed as Previous versions had excellent support for rendering Unicode characters in web pages. While there is Cyrillic script in Unicode, Unicode is much more than just specific Cyrillic characters, and the statement in the article is a much wider claim than the source makes any attempt to state. In order the claim that it has not just Unicode support but excellent support, the source would need to discuss Unicode support, not just the displaying of Cyrillic; the source doesn't appear to say how it's displayed, it could be using MARC-8 instead of Unicode, the source doesn't say. To pick another example at random is this source, which actually appears to contradict the claim in the article. The article says K-Meleon 1.5 also included a more in-depth graphical interface to change settings from the browser, while maintaining backwards compatibility with the existing text-based configuration files. but the reference says (at least concerning 1.5.3) that It's open-source, and all aspects of the interface are flexible and able to be configured and customised. However - there's no interface for doing so - just a set of files that you can tweak in a text editor. The article says there's a more in-depth graphical interface that the reference specifically says is absent. These are just two examples at random but with each of the tags, the statement in the article isn't supported by the source attached to it. - Aoidh (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining both of those! I've rewritten the Cyrillic section to focus on translation since that was focus anyway. I've also separated the 1.5 section into multiple lines to make the sources more clear. Configuration and preferences can be synonymous but in KM refer to different parts of the browser.
 * If you have other sources or language in the article that you want changed (It looks like there are 12 other "failed verification" tags.) feel free to post on the talk page. Rjjiii (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A quick update: I believe that I've removed all of the tags. Thanks for the assistance and happy holidays Rjjiii (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The Web case controversy
Seasons greetings, Aoidh. You do not act in the best interest of Wikipedia by removing an obviously pending improvement. We already have the Web disambiguation page and the Word Wide Web article telling us how it should be done. Regards, M. B., Jr. (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "obviously pending" means, but in my opinion the edit that I reverted is not an improvement to the article. Multiple editors have reverted this addition, so I don't believe I'm the only one with that opinion. I suggest you make your case for your edits at Talk:Website and get a consensus for your changes before reinserting them into the article. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aoidh. You answer was evasively cynical because I have provided clear evidences, e.g., the Web disambiguation page and the World Wide Web article. Your attitude towards this situation seems dishonest. Regards, M. B., Jr. (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but I can assure you my attitude is neither dishonest nor cynical, merely factual. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the content so that others can be aware of and take part in the conversation as well. - Aoidh (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bethlehem, Georgia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bethlehem, Georgia 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 Grk1011 -- Grk1011 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bethlehem, Georgia
The article Bethlehem, Georgia 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:Bethlehem, Georgia and Talk:Bethlehem, Georgia/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grk1011 -- Grk1011 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bethlehem, Georgia
The article Bethlehem, Georgia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bethlehem, Georgia for comments about the article, and Talk:Bethlehem, Georgia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in 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 Grk1011 -- Grk1011 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Mousepad (software) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mousepad (software). Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Cow Hell Swamp
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Expanding list of natural pareidolia
Well, it was an experiment. First of all to know how many named pareidolia there are in astronomy-related Wikipedia pages. I thought: Let's see if it fits in this article. But... it does not because it is TOO long. Perhaps... it is possible to create an individual page of natural pareidolia? (List of natural pareidolia). DannyCaes (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If it can satisfy WP:NLIST by way of sourcing that discusses it as a group I think it might be okay to create such a list article, it might also be appropriate to make a Category:Pareidolia (which currently does not exist) and populate it with items that would fall into such a list? I was just looking over it and thinking about the category myself. - Aoidh (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The amount of Wikipedia articles which have names and descriptions of astronomical objects that show remarkable (and also less-remarkable) pareidolia is much larger than I thought! The amount of articles which show pareidolia in geological structures and in nature is not very large. This is rather strange. Anyway, I think many astronomers and amateur astronomers want to see a list of pareidolia in named astronomical objects. This subject is scattered all over the internet and in books and magazines, but there's (still) no such thing as an online alphabetically arranged general overview with click-able links to astronomy-related Wikipedia articles! DannyCaes (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, an alphabetic Wikipedia-list of named astronomical objects beyond the solar system (with or without pareidolia) is also wanted. There are several such lists in lots of astronomy-related websites, but... none of them shows a general overview. I have, what I call, a "super"-list of named astronomical objects in a cahier at home (read: the good old-fashioned way of collecting names of astronomical objects: ballpoint-pen and paper!). If such a "super"-list would be online in an individual Wikipedia-page, other astronomers and amateur-astronomers could add perhaps much more names! (The world's most complete list of named astronomical objects beyond the solar system). Who knows... maybe in 2023? DannyCaes (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)