User talk:ArcticSeeress

Your GA nomination of Apetor
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Apetor 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Apetor
The article Apetor 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:Apetor for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Apetor
The article Apetor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Apetor 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

For your work on Apetor
My first barnstar!! :0 ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well earned. Incidentally, I also recieved my first one today so seemed espescially fitting to pass one on (altough I was planning on giving you one regardless if the article hit GA). Like I said great work, hopefully you'll continue and we'll stumble across each other again working on the sea of articles on the site. :P TylerBurden (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Gosh what a brilliant article on an extraordinary (and sad) story. Mycket bra! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Apetor
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Awesome! TylerBurden (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Woah, that's a lot of notifications. I honestly kind of forgot about this, so I thought I really messed something up to get three messages on my talk page lol. Anyways, thanks folks! ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RateMyCop.com
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article RateMyCop.com 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

GA reviews
I will be graduated soon on 16 June, and will not active on Wikipedia until the end of June. Can you hold the GA reviews for a longer time? Thank you for the understanding. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course, that won't be an issue. I hope your graduation goes smoothly. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you GA review these?
Hello ArcticSeerees. I saw your GA reviews and you're a good great reviewer for being a 9-month-old editor (not nitpicking :)). Think you could nominate my GAN Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series) as well as Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe)? They're newly nominated so I understand if you're just picking on old articles for the GAN backlog and newly nominated for after. Thanks — SirDot (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can get to them at some point, but right now I'm prioritising the old ones (See: WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2022). ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RateMyCop.com
The article RateMyCop.com 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:RateMyCop.com for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RateMyCop.com
The article RateMyCop.com you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RateMyCop.com 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for RateMyCop.com
Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC) 12:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Margot Sponer
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2752 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gerda! I'm still not quite done with that article, but the encouragement is always appreciated. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * you said that well! - improvement is always a work in progress, and I admire what you do in a field that sounds Chinese to me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Iranian Revolution 2022" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Iranian Revolution 2022 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Cristero edit war
Hi, I have unarchived your archive action at the talk page of Talk:Cristero War. I am unsure why you would attempt to put a lid on discussion when the editors were actively edit-warring. If you stop discussion then the editors are going to go on with the edit war. Yes, perhaps it was uncivil but that is preferable to open warring on the article revisions. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I did it because I felt the discussion was going nowhere; it didn't stop them from edit warring anyway, so I wanted to put an end to it before it got uglier. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2019 Alta helicopter crash
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 Alta helicopter crash 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 Trainsandotherthings -- Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2019 Alta helicopter crash
The article 2019 Alta helicopter crash you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2019 Alta helicopter crash for comments about the article, and Talk:2019 Alta helicopter crash/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 Trainsandotherthings -- Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Userbox
I don't know why, but your time userbox gives the wrong time. Copying the userbox here gives the right time in preview mode, but it doesn't match your user page. One fix is to replace "place=Europe" with "text=where this user lives (Europe)" or whatever text you prefer. Art LaPella (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Government in exile
You tagged this section as needing references. Did you try clicking the wikilinks for each item? – . Raven .talk 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't get sassy with me, @.Raven. The section does not have any references, so the template is apt. The verifiability policies of Wikipedia state that all material must be verifiable, which requires inline citations to reliable sources. Other Wikipedia articles do not provide that because they are user-generated content, and thus not reliable. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SS-GB has 15 footnotes; If Israel Lost the War has 7; The Falling Torch has 3; Hearts of Iron IV has 47. That's 72 total. – . Raven .talk 04:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's relevant to the article in question. ArcticSeeress (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are the articles listed and wikilinked in the section you tagged as needing references. Typically in lists, if the items are well-documented on their own pages, those footnotes needn't also be copied onto the listing page. Otherwise all those "Category:" and "List of..." pages would have to be filled with duplicated footnotes. – . Raven .talk 05:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, those list articles wouldn't adhere to WP:V and should promptly be rectified with citations (per WP:SAL: Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines). Also, I don't really see a reason to conflate category pages that are primarily for navigation (and need to be verified anyway: WP:CATV) and content pages like lists that are primarily for summarizing what reliable sources have said about a topic.
 * I'll see if I can add some citations that verify the material in a bit (though the Hearts of Iron one may be difficult to find a reliable source for). ArcticSeeress (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hearts of Iron footnotes 32 and 33 are for the Kaiserreich mod. – . Raven .talk 06:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Neither of them mention anarcho-syndicalism by name, so I may have to revise the material slightly. ArcticSeeress (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In #32: "Unlike in our own timeline, however, French syndicalism, not Russian bolshevism, is the preeminent ideology of the world’s left-wing revolutionaries."
 * In #33: "The most important deviation from our own history is in the rise of Syndicalism, Kaiserreich’s most expansive and divisive force. ... 'Syndicalism is the leading Marxist revolutionary ideology which promotes democratic federations of collectivised trade unions as the basic political and economic units of the socialist state. Trade unions are equally owned by its members, have complete economic and political control over the workplaces they organise and are given great amounts of autonomy from the central government. On a larger scale, the various trade unions elect members to regional and national trade union congresses which form the legislative and executive powers of the central government.
 * Anarcho-syndicalism "is a political philosophy and anarchist school of thought that views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and thus control influence in broader society."
 * Hm. – . Raven .talk 06:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * > "...those list articles wouldn't adhere to WP:V and should promptly be rectified with citations (per WP:SAL...)" – What about WP:MINREF? "Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements.... Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material...." – . Raven .talk 06:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added an external link to If Israel Lost the War: the online text of the novel itself. – . Raven .talk 18:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for MangaDex
BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Thanks for the Pie, Danny! I see you have another GA that's over half a year old, so you may just see me again (maybe (if I get around to it)) ArcticSeeress (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Li Haoshi controversy
Hi ArcticSeeress, thanks for the cleanup you've been doing at this article.

I saw you removed some sentences, and I wonder if they could have remained (see WP:PRESERVE). You removed them as they were not "repercussions", but I think it was still relevant to the article, it just needed to be presented differently. Maybe it's better categorized as a "reaction"?

Similarly, about Nigel Ng could go in the "similar cases" section, as the source itself links the two incidents as similar. Thanks, Wracking  talk! 16:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. And I would like to clarify that the word ‘repercussions’ was not my choice at first, I used ‘consequences’ but it was changed to the current version by more than one editor (into more than one different word). And the response made by the so-called Xinhua New Agency actually indeed falls in the consequences, not just some reaction or repercussion. Since it is the mouthpiece of the CCP (one of the biggest two, the other is the People’s Daily) and if it criticises you, you are in serious trouble ;)
 * As for the Nigel Ng case, I myself actually do reckon that it was completely irrelevant to the case of Li, but various sources took it differently, as listed below.
 * 1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/22/comedian-uncle-roger-has-social-media-accounts-suspended-in-china
 * 2. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/22/china/uncle-roger-weibo-ban-china-jokes/index.html
 * 3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-65669623 Boreas Sawada  17:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chu Tse-tien, @Wracking: Maybe it was a bit myopic to remove the information entirely instead of reassesing the framing of the section, but I felt like that may have been too large a structural change to make without also being familiar with the sourcing (I don't speak any Chinese, and machine translation might have just introduced errors). Anyway, it could be introduced in a "reaction" section, but if that was the only material it might be a bit short. I don't think this information should be in any "aftermath" section considering they are very different things. If there are further sources that talk about public reaction then it might be worth adding a new section to the article about it. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Gerda! That reminds me that I never actually finished adding citations to Voiceless dental and alveolar lateral fricatives, so I should probably get to that sometime "soon". ArcticSeeress (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the August 2023 GAN backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on the article "Communication"
Hello, I have been working to prepare the article Communication for an FA nomination. If you have the time, I would like to hear your thoughts on further potential adjustments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Phlsph7: I think I'd be willing to go over the article, though I don't know how thoroughly I'll actually be able to check. I see you've made a lot of changes since the revision that I accepted as a good article. Before I look through the article, I'd like to hear the rationale for the changes you've made, i.e. why you removed the material you did, why you replaced certain sources, etc., so I can better comprehend the direction you're trying to take the article in. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer! I was hoping for a second pair of eyes to ensure that there are no major or obvious issues before I make the nomination. Hopefully, this would not require the same thoroughness and time investment as a full GA review. I would also be happy to hear about smaller problems and improvements as they catch your eye. However, they can usually be addressed in the FA review itself as long as they are not too numerous.
 * The recent edits did not introduce any major changes.
 * I shortened the lead mainly because it was getting very long and not because I was unhappy with the removed examples and explanations.
 * In the section "Definition", I removed the last passage about Luhmann's definition since it was based on a primary source and is not often discussed in overview sources. I moved the other sentence in this paragraph about communication between individuals and groups into the first paragraph.
 * In the subsection "Non-verbal", I changed the order of paragraphs to talk first about the types and then about the relative importance.
 * In the section "Communicative competence", there was some repetition about subjective effectiveness and objective appropriateness which I tried to eliminate.
 * In the subsection "Barriers to effective communication", I replaced the list of barriers with an explanation of a few barriers to make it more accessible.
 * Many of the other changes were copyedits to have better expressions. In some cases, the purpose of the changes was to condense ideas. For example, I condensed two sentences about the extent of non-verbal communication into one (see the sentence about Ray Birdwhistell).
 * In a few cases, I expanded an explanation in order to clarify an idea. For example, in relation to plant communication, I added a sentence to explain how the ability to ignore signals can be used to distinguish communicative responses from defense mechanisms.
 * As for the sources: I wasn't sure whether Zink 2017 is a reliable source, which is why I replaced it. I removed some sources because they were not cited in the article. I replaced Robbins, Judge & Campbell 2011 with Buchanan & Huczynski 2017 since I had the impression the original citation was already meant to point to Buchanan & Huczynski 2017. Both books have the same title and the same publisher, which is confusing. The current text is supported by Buchanan & Huczynski 2017. Apart from that, I made some changes to the sources for consistency, e.g. using a consistent page number format and using title case for all titles (some FA folks insist on that).
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the overview. I agree that the lead was too long, exceeding 600 words. I didn't comment on this during the review, as I didn't think it was too big an issue. Someone might still comment on its current length in an FA review (see MOS:LEADLENGTH), but considering the scope of the topic, the length might be warranted. Otherwise, I agree with your other assessments here.
 * In regards to Zink 2017: It is self-published, but I didn't comment on this because the author seemingly had appropriate credentials (i.e. being a subject-matter expert on communication). From another glance at her publication history, I'm not convinced that she is, but a more thorough examination might change that impression. From what I gather, the source you replaced it with verifies the same material, but it's published through Springer. On a similar note, Venditti and McLean 2012 is self-published, which someone might comment on the in an FA review.
 * Danesi 2016 may be an inapropriate source here, as the book's thesis is primarily about emoji and not the history of communication or writing, per se. I don't have time to go through all of the sources, but there may be other very specific sources like this whose information would be better verified by overarching sources (in this case, one specifically about the history of writing or communication).
 * I'm not familiar with the FA criteria (more specifically, how they differ from the GA criteria), so I can't give you any specific feedback in regards to those. Maybe I'll take a more thorough look at the article at some point, but I don't think I have the energy for that right now. Anyway, good luck on the nomination! ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional feedback, I made the corresponding adjustment. I hope to make the nomination in the next few days. My FA experience is also rather limited so I'll just have to see how it goes. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wanted to let you know that I went ahead with the nomination, see Featured article candidates/Communication/archive1. So far, there has not been much response from reviewers. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. For a short FAQ of the FA reviewing process, see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm dealing with a fever right now, so I'd rather rest. Hope it goes well. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you get better soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles February 2024 backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies
I recently undid your edit to Windswept Adan, as I wasn't particularly keen on the wording; however, in the edit summary for this revision, I mistakenly attributed the changing of "its" to "their" to myself, which is completely unfair to you, as I had written it incorrectly to begin with (what I mean is, I thought you changed "their" to "its" and not the other way around). I apologize if this came off the wrong way, and I wanted to thank you here personally for your meticulous editing. joeyquism (talk ) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's fine, no harm done. I applaud you for actively apologizing. Congrats on the featured article. Here's a cat for your consideration Cute cat in loaf position.jpg (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)]]
 * Thank you for the congratulations, and thank you for the cat - I am definitely considering its majestic presence! Hope you're having a wonderful beginning to your weekend :) joeyquism (talk ) 02:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)