User talk:Armadillopteryx/Archive 3

Yvie Oddly
Please see RuPaul’s DragCon NYC. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, ! First, I want to say that I think you're doing a great job writing and sourcing articles on Wikipedia—thank you for all your contributions! I think RuPaul's DragCon NYC, like the other articles you're working on, is well written and well sourced. Regarding the reason I assume you posted here, I'd like to say that it is important to consider whether any article you create meets general notability guidelines. Whether or not it does is subjective to some extent, since the guidelines are not interpreted exactly the same way by every editor.


 * I will offer you my opinion about this article: I think that the as-yet nonexistent parent article, RuPaul's DragCon (currently a redirect), would meet GNG, and in that article it would be appropriate to have sections for both DragCon LA and DragCon NYC. I think having individual articles for each version of DragCon is probably overkill, as the premise of each is the same, and the main difference is only the location.


 * Because the article you've written is, IMO, sufficiently detailed, sourced with reliable sources, and contributes valuable information to the encyclopedia, I am not opposed to having it here (I am an inclusionist). Other editors have a more deletionist mentality, and it is possible that someone else will nominate this article for deletion on the basis that it is too narrow an event or is only relevant to mention as a section in a broader page, like RuPaul's Drag Race or possibly RuPaul's DragCon. That would, of course, be followed by a discussion that would ultimately see the article kept or deleted. Such a nomination may never occur, but I wanted to offer my thoughts since it would not have been my own judgment call to deem DragCon NYC by itself worthy of an article. Drag Race articles in general seem to attract a lot of debate on whether specific subjects related to the show are notable or not. There have been a number of contestant articles, for example, that have been deleted and recreated more than once after WP:AfD discussions.


 * One other small thing I want to mention to you is that I see you sometimes using curly apostrophes and quotation marks (such as above, where you wrote RuPaul’s DragCon NYC. The Manual of Style imposes the use of straight apostrophes and quotes instead. If you notice, the article link you posted actually redirects to the article title written with a straight apostrophe. Be mindful of this not only in titles but also in article bodies. I trust you can check your own writing in those :-)


 * And one other (other) small thing is that all the official materials for DragCon (such as here) write both "DragCon LA" and "DragCon NYC" without periods in the city abbreviations. I notice that you've been writing DragCon NYC without the periods but have been writing DragCon L.A. with periods. Unless your sources use those periods (which they don't appear to), I would advise sticking with DragCon LA, since that's what the event is named officially. Did you have a reason for using the periods?


 * Anyway, nice to have you here on Wikipedia, and happy editing! Regards, Armadillopteryxtalk 22:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words and insights. I looked first to see that the sources, just on DragCon NYC were there before writing. I think RuPaul’s DragCon should become a disambiguation to the LA and NYC articles. They each are massive historic events with their own stories, and although similar are not identical. The bomb threat only impacted the LA one and I couldn’t use statistics on the LA one to really help the NYC, for instance. And I think an LA article could easily be just as sourced as the NYC. The two combined would be a long mess I’m afraid.
 * For curly apostrophes and quotation marks, I don’t have any say in those.
 * As for the periods in LA, I put them there because sources did but I’ll readily accept the official name is without them. Thank you for your feedback! Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO the differences you mention (the bomb threat, different statistics) could easily be treated in the appropriate sections of a single article. As long as we don't include trivial details (which we shouldn't), I don't imagine there'd be a length problem. You're free to do what you want, though. I'm just one editor, and this is only my interpretation of the situation (which I don't feel strongly about). If someone else feels more strongly, they'll make it known.
 * As for the curly apostrophes and quotation marks, when you make edits like this, it appears that you're purposefully keeping the curly punctuation in the article—why create the pipe link RuPaul’s DragCon NYC just to display a curly apostrophe? That goes directly against MOS:'. I'm not sure what kind of keyboard you have, but some have different keys for ’ and ', where all you'd have to do is choose the straight version. If all else fails, you could always copy and paste the straight apostrophe—it's what I do with symbols I can't easily strike on my keyboard. If that's too much of a bother, though, and you can't figure out why it's happening, there are bots and editors around who can come through with a script (or like this) to change them afterward. That's happened to a couple of my articles when I've accidentally copied and pasted reference titles with curly quotes into citations. It's certainly not the end of the world or worth disrupting your workflow, just something to be aware of. Armadillopteryxtalk 09:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the LA and NYC drag communities and cities are similar in some ways but also noticeably distinctive. With LA’s proximity to Hollywood and the southern border, and NYC’s rich Broadway traditions, differences will arise. And potentially other DragCons will also be launched. I’m guessing Chicago or Dallas. But time will tell.
 * I only have ‘’ “ available on this device so hopefully changing them afterward won’t be too problematic.
 * Thank you again for the feedback. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Honey Davenport
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Honey Davenport has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Venus Xtravaganza
Hi, the reason that I added The List of solved missing persons cases to Venus Xtravaganza is because she was missing for 4 days and her body was then found. I wasn't talking about finding her killer, just that she was found after she had gone missing. Davidgoodheart (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, fair enough! I didn't realize what the precise definition of a solved missing persons case is in that article. Are you also going to add an entry for Xtravaganza at List of solved missing persons cases? Armadillopteryxtalk 22:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I should soon, I just don't like that table format and I am currently upgrading articles, plus I am very tired right now. I can add her perhaps tomorrow or the next day when I am much more alert. If you can help me upgrade some articles, then I can add more entries to lists. Could you please help me do that as I am really need of help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, and apologies for the delayed response! I haven't had a chance to edit for the past few days—got a lot going on IRL. Feel free to do what you want with the table (and I'm of course fine with the fact that you added List of solved missing persons cases back to Venus Xtravaganza). I wish I could help with your upgrading project, but unfortunately I don't have the time right now. As it is I'm lucky if I can log in and do a quick once-over of my watchlist a couple times a week. All the best, Armadillopteryxtalk 22:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes to name
If it must match the quote then you can always put a bracket around her name to show that the particular name/ word is not from the original source. We do this all the time in legal briefs and academic essays. Or remove the cite. It is transphobic, triggering and incredibly disrespectful to have Venus’s deadname on her page. Legaleagle2025 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think you're confusing my edit summary with a different edit. The comment about the quote was to an editor who added an s to the word "Venus'."


 * With regard to Venus' birth name, it is relevant to state in a biography about her life. However, we never refer back to her by that name, nor do we use a masculine pronoun anywhere in the article. Deadnaming would be if we referred back to her as "Pellagatti" or otherwise implied that she was a man—which we do not, and I do not believe I or other editors would support doing so; I agree with you that that would be transphobic. However, simply stating that Venus was born with X name and then never mentioning it again isn't deadnaming. It's common practice in a biography of anyone who has undergone a name change (not just trans people) to cite the subject's birth name once in the lead, once in the infobox, and once in the Early life section. Outside of those specific places, we avoid using that name and never use the corresponding pronouns. Take a look at Caitlyn Jenner (a good article) and Elton John for examples of this precedent. Happy to chat about this further if you'd like; perhaps Talk:Venus Xtravaganza would be a constructive place for further discussion. Armadillopteryxtalk 18:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't Revert
You can clearly see they are in the 21st-century American rappers category. The American rappers category is a container category and should only contain subcategories. Having them in the American rappers category is redundant. Don't revert just because you don't like it. This is the way things are done. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a good point about the categories; I agree that only the most specific one should stay. That said, no one is a mind reader, and you shouldn't assume that everyone notices the same things you do. I had no idea of your reasoning since you did not state it in your edit summary. If you don't do that, you will sometimes get reverted by people who see your edits as non-constructive. For context, we often get edits like yours by POV editors who, for example, don't think the subject should count as a rapper. This is how your edit appeared to me, and it's why I mentioned the category's sourcing in my edit summary.


 * I would like to recommend that you make a better effort to assume good faith and not leave people presumptive messages ascribing disagreements they have with you to things like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That approach is not constructive to reaching consensus about what is best for the encyclopedia. Note that in this case, I immediately agreed with your position once you clarified it. A polite message would have also sufficed. Best, Armadillopteryxtalk 03:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. This article is too long, need to omit some unnecessary paragraphs, help summarize this article (copy edit and add source). Thanks you. 117.4.107.199 (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm a little confused as to why you're contacting me about this. I have never edited this article (or been aware of its existence, for that matter). Were you looking to contact another user or a WikiProject? Armadillopteryxtalk 02:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Miss'd America
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Violet Chachki
Hi, I saw your message about Violet's drag daughter and thank you for giving me advice. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I don't really know that much about citations. Is it ok if a add it back with a citation? Thanks Char1ene16 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be fine to add that back with a citation. Do you have a link to a source (for example, a news article) that verifies that fact? I can show you how to make the inline citation if you want! Armadillopteryxtalk 18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Honey Davenport
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Honey Davenport 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 Lizzy150 -- Lizzy150 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

List of self-identified LGBTQ New Yorkers
You appear to have great depth of knowledge regarding the drag performance scene in NYC. Thank you for adding so many positive contributions to this article. Please do augment this article with the many notable entries you are aware of. In fact, within a few years, I would not be surprised in the least if "List of drag performers in New York City" is spun off as a satellite article from this satellite article itself. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message! I'm glad I've been able to help :-) I can definitely think of a few other people for that list. I'm in the middle of something at the moment, but I will try to add some more over the next couple days. Best, Armadillopteryxtalk 08:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Terrific and thank you! Castncoot (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, it would be wonderfully appreciated, if you get time in your busy schedule, would you be interested to add a short preface paragraph under a new New York City Drag culture section header I've created? If you're busy, no worries, I'll get to it, but I really think you'd be able to do justice to this section better than I would. Castncoot (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would like to do that, but I'm not sure I will have the time. I'll add it to my to-do list. I know I won't get to it this week, but I may be more available toward the end of next week. Let's touch base again in a few days, and I can give you a more certain answer. Armadillopteryxtalk 05:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Coincidence that we're crossing paths with edits here. I wasn't aware of your edits on the Talk:List of self-identified LGBTQ New Yorkers until just a few minutes ago and just responded to you on that page. Yes, sounds great as above. Castncoot (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Honey Davenport
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Honey Davenport
The article Honey Davenport you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Honey Davenport for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lizzy150 -- Lizzy150 (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congrats again! Curious, do you have plans to promote any other articles about RPDR queens to GA status? Either way, keep up the great work! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't have much time for content work atm, but I might pick one up in the future. Armadillopteryxtalk 18:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: my question
Can you please answer this? Use ping if you respond here. Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! It seems like we edited simultaneously; I pinged you on the article's talk page. Armadillopteryxtalk 22:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Nice, thanks. I didn't want to make double conversation--thanks for being so helpful. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Barracuda Lounge
Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Cock
— Wug·a·po·des​ 23:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Finding coordinates

 * Thanks for your interest. It is my feeling that the instructions on Wikipedia on how to find and add coordinates are too long and confusing. My method is simpler. First, the goal is to get the coordinates to point on top of the object. In the case of a storefront bar, closer to the street is better rather than the exact center of the building, but that is not always possible. But trying to point directly to the edge of the building may cause problems because Google/Apple/Bing maps can disagree by as much as 2 meters, worse in poorer countries and in mountainous areas. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I use Wikimapia.org. It continuously displays the coordinates of the little reticle, and when you have got your spot, just click on them in the lower left corner and they pop up so you can copy and paste. Wikimapia allows you to instantly toggle between Google Maps, Bing Maps and OSM. Also Wikimapia usually has the object already marked if it is interesting. In terms of precision, I find that D°M′S″ (Degrees, Minutes, Seconds) works for most everything; a big park could be marked with only D°M′ and no seconds, but the average user would probably find D°M′S″ that leads to the Visitor's Center or main parking lot more useful. In the case of the little bar, or a statue, either D°M′S.s″ or D.dddd° is pretty much guaranteed to hit the object. Any attempt at a finer gradation, and what hits in Google will miss in Apple Maps. So I always try to fit D°M′S″ first, then D.dddd°, then D°M′S.s″, then D.ddddd°. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this info and the resource! Armadillopteryxtalk 03:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No prob, always glad to help people who care about coordinates... Abductive  (reasoning) 03:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Club Cumming
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race terminology
RuPaul's Drag Race terminology is fun to work on, reading these terms and definitions in journalistic sources and reminding me of the show's older moments. Feel free to join if you'd like! I'd love to see this list kept legit (good sources only) and ultimately promoted to FL status. Either way, happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That does look like fun! I'm a little busy IRL at the moment, but I'll try to pop over and help out when I get some time to devote to content work. Thanks for the ping! Armadillopteryxtalk 08:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Club Cumming
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Club Cumming 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: GeneralNotability (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Adding incorrect information in lead
Since you gave no edit reason, what spurred you to change information in the lead that's sourced in the body (and well-known enough that I knew it before editing this article) to something else, in these edits at Naya Rivera? Did you not consider that when an IP with no other edits can't even spell the word they're inserting you should probably fact check before accepting (and then building!) on it? Kingsif (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As it happened, I had just seen this clip from the show where she talks about a romantic encounter with a male character as well, so I thought the change was right. When it was reverted back, I went digging and learned that the character apparently did identify as a lesbian and then didn't change it again. In other words—fact checking it is exactly what I did. You'll notice I was the editor who accepted the corrected version if you look carefully. Could you please try assuming good faith? Thanks, Armadillo  pteryx  04:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did AGF? I just figured you didn't fact check: people can be well-intentioned and make mistakes, but it's better to be cautious when you're a pending changes reviewer, don't you agree? I still don't think you went about fact-checking the right way: I left this message when I thought about what I might have done to fact check, and remembered there is a good portion of an entire section of the article about the impact of the lesbian character; I would have probably read the article first, since information in the lead should be cited there. Did you not bother to do that? (And yes, I did see you accepted the correction; but if nobody had done that, what are we left with?) Kingsif (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was just a misunderstanding. Above I explained (with a link) why I thought the change was accurate. I certainly made a mistake, but it wasn't due to a lack of fact-checking; it was because I misinterpreted a source. It doesn't feel much like good faith that you assume/imply I didn't fact-check (and describe the addition of a Wikilink as "building" on the mistake). I tried my best to make it right by doing more thorough research when the edit was reverted, I caught my own error in doing so, and I accepted the revision of the editor who corrected me. Is there something else you think I could do to improve the situation at present? Armadillo  pteryx  05:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, a misunderstanding, I'm not trying to jump down your throat, sorry if it's coming off that way. An improvement? Well, as said, I wrote it off as nothing until I remembered how simple Ctrl+F "lesbian" would have been to do - reviewing changes in the body is simpler because sources are present, but lead statements should always be supported later (so, the addition of "bisexual" should also have needed a source...); checking the article first saves everyone's time. To not sound pushy, if you could take that on board (and maybe leaving an edit reason to say you checked it out, so I/others don't assume you blindly accepted a bad revision? Though I don't always do that...) Kingsif (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean in the review window? I'm still getting used to that, so yes, I will make a point of leaving a message there from now on—thank you for the advice. Previously I've always left a message when rejecting/reverting a change, though usually as a regular edit summary. I also agree with the CTRL+F method for fact-checking the lead and do use it when dealing with a new subject—this was honestly just an oddball situation where I thought I already "knew" the fact. My bad, though. And no hard feelings btw—I appreciate your messages. Armadillo  pteryx  05:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Therapy
Bummer. I'm sure this is already on your radar. Holler if you're interested in expanding this at some point (depending on how much you enjoyed working on Club Cumming), or even co-nominating for Good status. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a bummer :-( I would probably be up to expanding it, sure. I'll start gathering sources. Armadillopteryxtalk 22:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Awesome, I'll be following along! This was a no-pressure ask, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on toes. Glad I could go here at least once before closing. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, another one bites the dust. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Darn. :-( Armadillopteryxtalk 02:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, quick note! The publisher field is for companies who own the publications, not people who serve as publisher. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oof, I didn't know that. Guess I have a loooot of citations to go back through x) Thanks for the heads-up. Armadillopteryxtalk 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sure thing! Sorry, I fixed a few, but quickly realized best to tell you for future reference (and retroactive fixing, sounds like). Thanks for your work on Kameron's page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I especially appreciate that right now, as I'm currently making large/long edits to the page to expand it and would like to avoid edit conflicts. Armadillopteryxtalk 18:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sure thing, I'll stay hands off for a while to avoid conflicts. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you may want to spot-check your other GAs/expansions to see if other citations need to be fixed. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, worse. I have to go through literally every citation in every article I've ever done :-p Armadillopteryxtalk 18:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the "publisher" documentation you linked says, Not normally used for periodicals. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher). I interpret this to mean that the publisher field should be omitted for all magazines and newspapers, since they're periodicals. Is that correct? Armadillopteryxtalk 18:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I generally leave out the publisher field when the names are similar (New York Times, New York Times Company) or the publication is independently notable. In other words, I wouldn't usually add for USA Today but would for a local publication without a standalone Wikipedia article. This can be a bit subjective-- sometimes GA reviewers have me add or remove publication fields from citations. I wouldn't overthink the issue, but I would remove names of people who serve as publishers as possible. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm more wondering about Not normally used for periodicals. Are there any real guidelines for when, if ever, a periodical publisher would be included? Is it the independent notability threshold you mentioned? Armadillopteryxtalk 18:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I dunno, maybe just don't bother adding the publisher field, unless someone asks you to mention. I've stopped adding publisher field for citations if the work/website field is about a notable publication, but I'm not sure the rules are set in stone. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I just want to have a consistent guideline to apply, since I'll now be going back through hundreds of citations and don't want to do it again :-p Armadillopteryxtalk 18:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand. I'd err on the side of leaving out mention of publisher unless the publication is not well-known. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Club Cumming
The article Club Cumming 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:Club Cumming for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lady Red Couture
Hiya, I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Red Couture and had some minor queries. RIP LRC. Mujinga (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Club Cumming
The article Club Cumming you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Club Cumming 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Alaska Thunderfuck revision
Hi, I saw you reverted my deletion of the statement of Alaska’s social media activity. The paywall isn’t the only reason I reverted it. If you look at Archive 1 on the talk page, I had worked quite a bit to clean up this article previously when a sockpuppet was adding dozens of deliberately fabricated or erroneous references, and I tried to visit as many as possible to make sure they were real. There were so many that I asked other editors to help proof the article. Unfortunately, I couldn’t verify this claim anywhere else at the time - or now - and decided to delete it to err on the side of requiring tangible proof, as it is trivial anyway. You may leave the statement if you wish, but it is very possible that it is fabricated. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , your edit summary only said, -ref that couldn’t be verified - it is behind a paywall, so I wasn't aware there was any other reason for the edit. The additional info you've provided here certainly does sound like a good reason to remove the reference, so I would agree with taking it out now. Thanks for clarifying! Armadillo  pteryx  05:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perfectly understandable, as you can see, the explanation is longer than what would comfortably fit on the history page. I probably should’ve worded it better somehow. :) LovelyLillith (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries—easy enough to sort out on a talk page as well. Great work on that article btw—that one is on my watchlist, but I only check in on it casually, so I was not aware of the overhaul you're doing! Armadillo  pteryx  05:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Dianna Agron
Hello again :) through my news notifications to keep an eye on the Naya Rivera article, I noticed that co-star Dianna Agron was in the news today (divorce, not dead). I looked at her article and it's, to be short, messy. I thought I'd try to at least make it sound more encyclopedic but figured I should check with recent editors first and caught you in the history - looks to be pending changes but if you watch the page, do you know of any frequent editors? Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I only started watching the page in the past 24 hours—it came onto my radar through pending changes. I just paged through the most recent 300 changes or so, and I have to say it's a little hard for me to work out who the most regular editors might be. Armadillo  pteryx  22:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did the same and there don't seem to be many regulars. I'll just use edit summaries and hope nobody gets too upset! Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed! Armadillo  pteryx  22:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You may benefit from using RedWarn
Hello, Armadillopteryx! I'm Ed6767, a developer for RedWarn. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to try RedWarn, a new modern and user friendly tool specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over two hundred other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on RedWarn's talk page at WT:RW. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed  talk!  19:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll try it out. Thanks! Armadillo  pteryx  20:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't really for me—I think the icon-heavy and conspicuous interface will probably be very helpful to a lot of users, but I found it disruptive to my editing flow. I also prefer to have the page refresh automatically once my edit is saved, so I didn't like being left at the diff once I performed an action with the tool. Either way, best of luck with it! I can see it's a handy tool that lots of folks will probably like. Armadillo  pteryx  22:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's okay, thanks for the feedback :) Ed  talk!  22:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I will try it out for a little longer to see if I can fit it into my groove somehow—I do like the fact that it processes certain tasks faster than Twinkle. I didn't see this in the settings, but is there a way to make the rollback buttons any smaller? Armadillo  pteryx  05:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , awesome - please let me know how it works for you going forward. Unfortunately, there's no way to decrease the size of the rollback icons at this time, but I've noted the suggestion :) Ed  talk!  23:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's actually going pretty well so far—I was very grateful to have something faster than Twinkle earlier today, when we had a very enthusiastic vandal at TFA. One thing I wanted to ask: is there a reason that the rollback edit summaries always include "to revision XXX by YYY"? I think that, for the most part, is superfluous information, and the extra text makes it a bit harder/slower to scan an article's history/one's watchlist/a contribution page for what, specifically, was going on in edits with custom summaries. So I'm now finding RedWarn more handy to use, but it slows my review process down. Any chance some of the revision # info could be cut out of the auto-generated edit summaries, or does it serve a purpose that I just don't personally use it for? Armadillo  pteryx  19:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's great to hear! To clarify, that info does server a good purpose in terms of debugging, as RedWarn is still in beta and errors have very rarely occurred with the rollback algorithm, which can be patched out much quicker with the info being there. Ed  talk!  19:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , that makes sense. Thanks! Armadillo  pteryx  19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

New York Post image with Bezos
Hi, You have been undoing my changes where I have been removing the image of Bezos. You said I should chat with you about if I have a reason however I feel I could be asking you the same question. What is your reason for insisting on that image? It's over two years old and is unsubstantiated. And why do you care? Do you work for the New York Post?

Amazon has a partnership with the New York Post. So if you need a reason for me to remove the image, that's it.

Can't you just pick a different one?

Thanks.. Jimclark8567 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your message. Currently, that image is the only recent New York Post cover image that we have on Wikipedia. It is a fair use image that was uploaded under a set of particular copyright conditions specifically so that we can have a picture in the infobox. In principle it doesn't have to be that cover, but replacing it would require a new cover to uploaded under the exact same fair use terms, and the current image would need to be deleted not only from the article but also from Wikipedia. If you feel strongly about choosing a different cover, you could start a discussion over at Talk:New York Post to see if other editors agree with your suggestion. If they do, the image could be changed. However, simply removing the infobox image is seen as a disimprovement to the article.  Armadillo  pteryx  18:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Lady Red Couture
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Armadillopteryx. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AArmadillopteryx enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 16:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

DYK for Paradise (nightclub)
M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  06:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Club Feathers
M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  14:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference before punctuation
Hi. You reverted my bot edit on Barracuda Lounge. As this case is not one of the exceptions listed in WP:REFPUNCT for not putting the reference after the punctuation, I think my bot is behaving normally. And it will do it again (currently, I'm trying to trim this list of error, so I run it on this error almost every day...), unless specifically told not to do so. If you really want to keep the reference before punctuation, despite the MOS, I think you can either put a comment between the reference or the punctuation (to be tested if it's enough, but it will also tell human editors why), or add the page in the whitelist (but it's global for the article). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 11:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message. Since there's one ref stating that the person died in 2010 and another stating that he died in 2011, the sentence puts this simply as died in 2010 or 2011 and includes an inline citation immediately following each year. Moving the 2011 ref after the period (as I know is standard in most cases per the MOS) makes it look like that ref itself claimed the person died "in 2010 or 2011", which is not accurate. I think the list of exceptions at WP:REFPUNCT should probably be expanded to include cases like that, so when I get a free moment, I will ask about it on the talk page. In the meantime, I will add a comment between the ref and the period per your suggestion. Thanks! Armadillo  pteryx  18:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I confirm that my bot won't move the reference with the comment. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 18:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I've posted the question at WT:MOS. Armadillo  pteryx  18:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paradise (nightclub)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paradise (nightclub) 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paradise (nightclub)
The article Paradise (nightclub) 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:Paradise (nightclub) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paradise (nightclub)
The article Paradise (nightclub) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paradise (nightclub) 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Armadillo  pteryx  02:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Cock
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Cock 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) 17:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Cock
The article The Cock 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:The Cock for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Cock
The article The Cock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Cock 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) 10:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Love seeing articles about LGBT establishments promoted to GA status. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Armadillo  pteryx  18:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Nilsen
The topic is male homosexuality in a documentary. Especially given the era in question. Subjects are gay men. I expected that to be reverted. Not prepared to bother arguing. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous wording ("gay men") is both WP:STABLE and has an inline citation to a reliable source. There was a very recent RfC (on the talk page) that determined that archaic wording should not be used. If you think your wording ("male homosexuality") is preferable, I recommend providing a reliable source to back it up and proposing the change on the talk page. Armadillo  pteryx  05:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. I am not being argumentative. I very largely populated the article over the years. Should you read the talk page history, or better yet, look at the extensive contribution history (over the years) for the article, and the general data statistics, you will find that. I'm not prepared to argue. I stand by my judgment here, but literally can not be bothered arguing.--Kieronoldham (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, no argument assumed. I see you've done lots of work on the article. If you feel strongly about this change, I would recommend a discussion on the article talk. I didn't encounter anyone being argumentative there, specifically in the RfC. Armadillo  pteryx  06:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. Kudos. We collectively strive. I do personally, but as I said on the talk page, I only weakly oppose the edits. A topic should be "male homosexuality" not "gay men" or suchlike. I can live with the edit. It does not read as "encyclopaedic" to me. Just me, maybe. All the best.--Kieronoldham (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Georgies
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)