User talk:Extraordinary Writ/Archive 2

Just saying hi
I just wanted to say you are now on my friends list on my user page - beware! You have no way of knowing how much meeting people like you means to some of us, so I want to explain. I first started on WP in July of 2017 and had a really miserable initial experience. I ran afoul of a truly nasty individual who completely ran me off WP. He had been on WP long enough to know how to work the system really well and a newcomer never stood a chance. Personal attacks, complete page blanking even after a consensus said don't delete, block reverts, and a real mean streak in comments were common for him in dealing with women editors. I was gone for about a year and a half when I was emailed of an arbitration hearing about him. After Arbitration's conclusion that he could not write on WP anymore, my faith in WP's processes was restored, and I came back this year. Now when I meet people like you, I know to appreciate and value them and am even sometimes genuinely overcome with gratitude and admiration.

So far this year, WP has been a truly wonderful place filled more with people of good faith, like you, than the other kind. I am learning why people stay connected so long. I like to take articles I have done all or most of the work on to GA because I learn so much every time. Every reviewer has taught me something - generally different things. I think every review has upped my standard of composition. I am more careful. I am becoming more consistent. I am even learning to quote less. :-) You really taught me a lot - really - and you were never mean about it. You were objective and every comment and request you made was an improvement. Hopefully I absorbed it all. If not, then I hope you get another opportunity to teach me again. I am still a newcomer in many ways and still have a lot to learn. Thank you for your work, for your kindness in doing it, and for being willing to be my friend in spite of my addiction to quotes. :-) Bless you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I so very much appreciate hearing that. Editors matter, and all my other contributions are in vain if they don't encourage good content writers to keep doing their work. One of the things I most appreciate about you is that you focus on important topics. Instead of falling into the all-too-common temptation to write about hurricanes, mushrooms, trains, and US roads in the hope of adding more stars to your user page, you work on articles about difficult, complex, multifaceted, nuanced topics that actually matter, thereby improving the quality of human knowledge in a tangible way. While such editors are often underappreciated, they are essential to ensuring that the encyclopedia continues to function. Anyways, keep on doing what you're doing. While nitpicking at quotes is easy, writing thorough, well-written articles about complicated topics isn't. While the former has its place, the latter is what really matters. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that's the nicest compliment I've ever gotten. I am completely overcome. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just stuck my head in here and was quite excited to see another editor mention that improving-important-articles presentation -- I don't agree with all of it, but I think it's an important read. Vaticidalprophet 06:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It diagnoses the problem (broadly construed) quite correctly, in my view, but it doesn't really identify a solution, aside from tinkering with the FA process. It would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed in the decade since that essay was written. If I had to guess, I'd say they've gotten even worse. The Million Award has perhaps helped a bit, but it doesn't really hold a candle to Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crowns and the like. The problem, as the essay suggests, is the incentive structure more broadly, and there's no easy way to remedy that. Alas. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Million Awards are pretty great, imo, but I take the "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude to gamification. I think the 'problem' is a lot of things called by the same name, some of which are problems and some of which aren't. I'm sympathetic to the Iridescent school of thought where Wikipedia's strength is in niches, and we can in many cases do more by improving articles that would be dismissed by that presentation, by providing the only or one of the only serious treatments of them accessible to the general population -- "if Horse was deleted tomorrow no readers would suffer, if all the articles on individual horses were many would no longer have any information on the open internet". Simultaneously, the presentation's focus on WP:VITAL doesn't really work for me, because not only do our Vital Articles tend to have that issue but many of them aren't actually all that popular. did God's work at Earth, but more than a few of the other Vital 1s strike me as both barely being coherent topics and not serving all that many readers. It's a complicated topic without easy positions, imo. Vaticidalprophet 03:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The core issue, I'd aver, is a system that favors quantity over quality. (This issue goes well beyond content creation, of course the ANI disputes involving Carlossuarez46, Johnpacklambert, and CommanderWaterford, to name just some of the more recent ones, display this issue clearly  but I digress.) Why write one FA on a major war or an American president or a world capital when the single star you get shines no brighter than the twenty that you could have gotten if you had devoted yourself to articles on rodents or mushrooms or insects? Particularly when articles on wars, presidents, and capitals attract the sort of editors that make you prefer rodents, mushrooms, and insects? That is the problem, in my view: if you're going to get people to work on these sorts of articles, they need a really good reason, and that reason doesn't seem to exist. I'm glad to see The Core Contest starting up again: cash can certainly be a really good reason. Perhaps (emphasis on perhaps) what we need is for the WMF to redirect some of their absurd expenditures toward paying Wikipedians to write important articles. (Controversial, certainly, but surely it's a better use of their money than whatever they're doing with it now?) Whatever the solution, the problem is a critical one: whether for good or bad, our articles on important topics can, quite literally, shape the public's understanding of major topics. (When I say "major topics", I don't mean vital articles. Your concerns on that front are well founded; additionally, the project is moribund and the task is by its nature certain to result in unsatisfactory compromises.) If we really aim to write an encyclopedia, this is the crucible: do we have thorough, fair, and accurate articles on topics of global concern? It is our duty to the world to ensure that the answer to that question is yes. Well, there's my rant for the month. While its chance of having an impact is zero, it at least presents an interesting thought exercise. Thanks for stopping by: I always appreciate opportunities to chat about wiki-philosophy and the like. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While its chance of having an impact is zero -- never sell yourself short ;) As a participant in two of those threads, I pick up what you're putting sown about the broad phenomenon. The "get the WMF to fund it" is something I half want to see on its merits and half want to see to see the community explode over nitpicking the borderlands of paid editing. And as someone whose first GA was rewriting from scratch an actively misleading scientific-hypothesis article that spent ten years in a state where I kept wondering where all these people insisting on the things the previous version said were coming from...well. Vaticidalprophet 07:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I very much echo that it would be good if we have more incentives to work on important articles. One of the ideas I'm playing with is proposing a re-balance of the points of the WikiCup, with more points going towards good articles instead of featured articles, and important articles instead of niche articles. I will probably be more successful with this proposal after I've at least competed once.
 * The second idea and playing with is to start a WP:slow and sociable collaborative competition on sensitive content, with a focus on those articles with a high social impact such as stuttering, abortion, renewable energy, but also including smaller sensitive topics. I see my work on Earth as way less important than my work on climate change, even though earth score 2 levels higher in the vital article classification. The vital article classification suffers from the notion that the more abstract topics are always more important, even though from a societal standpoint that is often not the case. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of me feels that the easiest way to identify important articles is to just scroll through WP:AEL: if it was worth fighting over, it was important to somebody, and probably lots of somebodies. A competition dedicated to sensitive articles strikes me as a good idea, although working out the details (and making sure the contest doesn't attract the kind of editor that made the articles sensitive in the first place) would be key. Although there certainly are no easy answers, I'm glad to see that people are at least thinking about these issues, for they really do matter. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oh, thank you, Celestina: I really appreciate that. AfD can certainly be a discouraging place at times, but hearing from people like you is part of what makes it worthwhile. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Howell Edmunds Jackson
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Howell Edmunds Jackson has been completed.

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

The article was in great shape and would certainly meet GA requirements if you choose to submit it. You'll see most of my fixes were minor in nature. I did make every date conform to the mdy date tag. I also replaced the HTML code for "(endash)" with the actual endash the Wiki editor provides. This is less distracting when the article is being edited.

Best of luck with the GAN should you move forward with it. Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, : I really appreciate all your work. Side note: did you fix all those endashes manually? There's a much easier way to do it: while in the source editor, select "search and replace" from the "advanced" toolbar. Then, just type into the "search for" prompt and the endash character into the "replace with" prompt. Push "replace all", and you're good to go. (I usually do this myself, but I somehow forgot. Sorry...) Anyways, thanks again for your great work on this. I've nominated the article for GAN; hopefully I'll hear back on it soon. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed them as I came across them; this is the first time I've run in to so many in one aticle. Good tip for next time. Thanks, and best of luck. Twofingered Typist (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oh, thank you, : that means a lot to me. I certainly appreciate all your work too: participating at AfD is one thing, but going the extra mile to turn a stub of questionable notability into a well-sourced high-quality article is truly admirable. Thanks again for your kind comments, and I hope we meet again soon! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Interpreting NPOL
Hi - FYI, I left a response at Articles for deletion/Asaki Akiyo in reference your comment regarding federal/unitary states and NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. NPOL is certainly no model of clarity. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick comment
Just an FYI, I wasn't strongly rebuking you for anything related to the guidelines. I was rebuking you for needlessly referencing what I said about them in my keep vote when I've already been chided/lectured about my interpretation of the guidelines by you and a few other people. I much rather see something brought up for a wider discussion if there's a disagreement or need for more clarity then single users repeatedly be goaded about it. I appreciate that you took the time to open the wider discussion as supplement to the goading. I'd like to see wording in the guidelines clarified as much as the next person. I'm not the only one that thinks it needs to be clarified either. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's hardly fair. Whenever I participate in an AfD such as this one, I provide my reasoning, including (where relevant) which notability guideline I consider applicable and why. That's not chiding, lecturing, or goading: it's an essential part of forming consensus. And it's certainly not personal either: I was expressing my own opinion, not replying to yours. We're all here in good faith, so I hope that we can resolve this matter amicably. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I said in my vote that the article didn't pass NORG and then you said in the next comment that schools don't need to pass NORG. I'm pretty sure there was a discussion from a few days ago that you were involved in (or at least read) where I explained why and when I think schools should have to pass NORG. So I see no other reason that you'd make the comment unless it was to continue the whole thing. You didn't just say it randomly or out of thin air. I'd totally consider that goading. Otherwise, you could have just dropped it and left me alone to vote however I wanted to, for whatever reason I wanted to. Even more so because I already explained to you what my position about it was.


 * I'd like to resolve this amicably myself. It's not amicable when people are unwilling to accept explanations, bring things up repeatedly, or claim that I'm "quite sternly rebuking" them for saying they should ask about it on a talk page instead of continuing the disagreement. Which is more likely to be amicable and resolve this, you continuing to make off hand comments about something that's already been discussed and explained, or posting a question about it on talk:Notability (organizations and companies) if you don't think it's resolved? Personally, I'd say the later. I find it rather bizarre that you don't and think the unamicable thing was me saying to ask about it on talk page if you still had an issue with how I was voting. I could really care less how or why you vote. I didn't comment about it either. You did. So, really, which one of us isn't being amicable here? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In good faith, you explained your reasoning for your !vote at an AfD. In good faith, I explained my reasoning for my !vote at the same AfD, disagreeing somewhat with your reasoning. That's all there was to it: it obviously wasn't part of some grand conspiracy to provoke you. I don't intend to continue litigating this unnecessary and deeply unproductive dispute, and I hope you won't either. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment didn't have to be part of some grand conspiracy to be intentionally continuing things. Nor did I say it was part of one. I don't really see requesting that or getting things are clarified on the notability talk page as a "deeply unproductive dispute" either. I do find it rather hard to believe that you care about amicability or are approaching this in good faith as you claim while also making such hyperbolic and needlessly confrontational comments though. Ultimately, whatever litigation there might be will take place on notability talk page. Whatever the outcome, I'd appreciate it if you refrain from commenting on how I vote in AfDs going forward. As doing so would be (and was) the epitome of unproductive. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Trouted почему не Fashizm(nazizm)/&
You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 31.42.74.135 (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Trouted почему не Fashizm(nazizm)/& bdfy

A kitten for you!
May the cuteness be with you!

V. E. (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC) 
 * Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

NMEDIA rewrite
Hi,

I've been running the (currently on pause) NMEDIA RfC. I've been highly interested by your oppose !vote, which other editors have cited in their own reasonings and which aligns with the concerns that they have brought up.

I'm committed to producing a final document that, like the current one purports to do, "reflects consensus ... reached through discussions" (something that the current NMEDIA text clearly is not doing), and given that I've undertaken efforts to bring the rewrite text closer to the GNG than the current version, I'm looking for input on improvements that you think would result in an end product that will have community support. What changes would you make to address these issues, particularly to the broadcast radio section?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks, Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 06:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out,, and I very much appreciate the fact that you're genuinely interested in finding consensus. I have to agree with Seraphimblade that this is the only guideline we need: the GNG. The reason for this is having an SNG puts a thumb on the scale, as it were, in favor of notability. Per WP:SNG, "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article", and this means that (as I said in my oppose !vote), for better or for worse, articles are likely to be kept with little more than "keep per NMEDIA", with perhaps a gesture toward WP:NEXIST, even if NMEDIA's criteria are theoretically subordinate to the GNG. In other words, if (as consensus appears to reflect) meeting the GNG is necessary for articles in this field, having a separate binding guideline with separate criteria will serve only to distract. Now that certainly doesn't mean that we should all just abandon this project: to the contrary, having some sort of guidance is quite helpful, particularly to non-expert editors (like me!), in assessing whether an AfD should be initiated. But that sort of helpful advice doesn't require a formal guideline. The most obvious possibility would be to work on WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, which lists the common outcomes in AfD discussions. It's a non-binding explanatory supplement, and it generally shouldn't be cited at AfD, but it's quite useful in assessing what will likely happen at AfD. For instance, bishops are subject to the GNG, but WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is quite correct in noting that such articles are in practice almost always kept. That's what we need here: in your experience, what sorts of articles almost always meet the GNG? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure you do, and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES (or an essay of your own), not a formal notability guideline, is the place to put it. I hope this answers your question, and thanks again for your work on this topic. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is probably one of the best explanations I've had here, and I sincerely thank you. It appears the consensus generally is that there is no need for a separate SNG, though NMEDIA as an explanatory supplement-type document (though with many of the language improvements of the rewrite—the current text is not as generalizable as a notability document should be), or with key pieces incorporated in BCASTOUTCOMES, would be preferred.
 * I'm gonna note some things:
 * The television programming area has long been accepted as an almost-SNG, but it's also about to be overhauled. In a parallel development which came up before this, there is a new Notability (television) being drafted. It is nearing a site-wide RfC, and from what I can tell, the text is nearly final. I'm not sure of the exact classification that this document will have.
 * The current BCASTOUTCOMES section does not include newspapers or academic journals, which have separate notability essays.
 * I think my next question is... What should be left of NMEDIA after this process (and also presuming that NTV is offered for public comment and generally accepted)? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , a few thoughts: First of all, I'm glad to see that NTV is being done separately. It would seem to have a much greater chance of gaining consensus as an SNG, so it's good that its merits can be assessed independently of the rest of NMEDIA. Second, I'd recommend replacing the explanatory supplement tag on NMEDIA with an essay tag. Per Template:Supplement, the ES tag should be used only when there's a "well-established consensus", and such a consensus doesn't seem to exist right now. (Per this, NMEDIA is apparently the only notability guideline tagged as an ES, so making it an essay would be in keeping with the usual practice. See, e.g., WP:NMAG and WP:NJOURNALS, both of which are labelled as essays.) Essays have much more freedom than guidelines or supplements, so the new NMEDIA could describe the minority sentiment expressed by, among others, Neutralhomer and Superastig. It would likely be shorn of the "newspapers, magazines and journals", "books", "films", and "programming" sections, all of which are discussed elsewhere, and would focus solely on broadcast media. As an essay, it wouldn't need to reflect consensus. You could then modify WP:BCASTOUTCOMES along the lines discussed above, listing various indicia of notability for broadcast media. Third, the rest of NMEDIA would be returned whence it came: the section on academic journals would be removed since WP:NJOURNAL discusses this; the section on programming would mostly move to WP:NTV, etc. What's left (the new essay) would focus solely on broadcast media, and could even be renamed to "WP:Notability (broadcast media)". Together, these steps would likely reflect the consensus in the RfC: the GNG remains (for now) the only binding guideline, an essay expresses the minority view of broad presumptive notability for broadcast media, BCASTOUTCOMES provides some non-binding but helpful indicators of GNG-based notability, and the remaining parts of NMEDIA are moved to other, more relevant pages that might be able to become SNGs on their own. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've thought about that too. It's a document that is a bit unfocused in scope and, as an essay, would likely benefit from having that shorn off and becoming "broadcast media and a rump section on radio programming that no other page will take". However, I don't know how that will be received by editors with more inclusionist points of view. I don't want to make those sorts of changes until NTV occurs as a courtesy to that process, given that that section does reflect more consensus than the current NMEDIA. A lot of the NMEDIA rewrite text could be useful in OUTCOMES, given that the RfC did address weaknesses with the current NMEDIA, and OUTCOMES doesn't yet address some of the niche areas. (I now understand one of the concerns being "an SNG shouldn't be an outcomes page" better than I did.) I really appreciate the thoughtful comments. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to ping in here because I think the two of you should connect. I've been talking with him privately and I think he feels like the radio stations project, as it were, is being attacked from multiple sides, and he's unsure of how NMEDIA as it stands has been seen as in opposition to the GNG.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 03:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , a few thoughts: First of all, I'm glad to see that NTV is being done separately. It would seem to have a much greater chance of gaining consensus as an SNG, so it's good that its merits can be assessed independently of the rest of NMEDIA. Second, I'd recommend replacing the explanatory supplement tag on NMEDIA with an essay tag. Per Template:Supplement, the ES tag should be used only when there's a "well-established consensus", and such a consensus doesn't seem to exist right now. (Per this, NMEDIA is apparently the only notability guideline tagged as an ES, so making it an essay would be in keeping with the usual practice. See, e.g., WP:NMAG and WP:NJOURNALS, both of which are labelled as essays.) Essays have much more freedom than guidelines or supplements, so the new NMEDIA could describe the minority sentiment expressed by, among others, Neutralhomer and Superastig. It would likely be shorn of the "newspapers, magazines and journals", "books", "films", and "programming" sections, all of which are discussed elsewhere, and would focus solely on broadcast media. As an essay, it wouldn't need to reflect consensus. You could then modify WP:BCASTOUTCOMES along the lines discussed above, listing various indicia of notability for broadcast media. Third, the rest of NMEDIA would be returned whence it came: the section on academic journals would be removed since WP:NJOURNAL discusses this; the section on programming would mostly move to WP:NTV, etc. What's left (the new essay) would focus solely on broadcast media, and could even be renamed to "WP:Notability (broadcast media)". Together, these steps would likely reflect the consensus in the RfC: the GNG remains (for now) the only binding guideline, an essay expresses the minority view of broad presumptive notability for broadcast media, BCASTOUTCOMES provides some non-binding but helpful indicators of GNG-based notability, and the remaining parts of NMEDIA are moved to other, more relevant pages that might be able to become SNGs on their own. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've thought about that too. It's a document that is a bit unfocused in scope and, as an essay, would likely benefit from having that shorn off and becoming "broadcast media and a rump section on radio programming that no other page will take". However, I don't know how that will be received by editors with more inclusionist points of view. I don't want to make those sorts of changes until NTV occurs as a courtesy to that process, given that that section does reflect more consensus than the current NMEDIA. A lot of the NMEDIA rewrite text could be useful in OUTCOMES, given that the RfC did address weaknesses with the current NMEDIA, and OUTCOMES doesn't yet address some of the niche areas. (I now understand one of the concerns being "an SNG shouldn't be an outcomes page" better than I did.) I really appreciate the thoughtful comments. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to ping in here because I think the two of you should connect. I've been talking with him privately and I think he feels like the radio stations project, as it were, is being attacked from multiple sides, and he's unsure of how NMEDIA as it stands has been seen as in opposition to the GNG.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 03:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Twinkle?
Hi Extraordinary Writ, thanks for your suggestion, i have enabled Twinkle and i am going to test it (it is true, i do the tagging manually). Regards! Valdemar2018 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Your GA nomination of Melville Fuller
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Melville Fuller 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Melville Fuller
The article Melville Fuller 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:Melville Fuller for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Melville Fuller
The article Melville Fuller you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Melville Fuller 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Melville Fuller
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Good job!
I was appreciating the Melville Fuller article and noticed a familiar name had brought it to Good Article status. Excellent work! I hope you are well. Muttnick (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, – I really appreciate it. As I recall, it was your GA nomination of William Johnson that clued me in to how interesting SCOTUS biographies can be. And Fuller is certainly an interesting one: by all accounts a pleasant, affable, and competent man who, at least in the minds of most scholars, ended up being dreadfully wrong in almost every major case he heard. The article has come quite a long way from its initial form, and I'm tentatively hoping to get it up to FA status by the end of the year. (To that end, I'd certainly appreciate any suggested improvements!) I am indeed remaining well and trust the same is true for you. Up to anything interesting? Your article on Johnson was high-quality work: we always need more of that! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to hear the Johnson article served as inspiration! I do find it rather interesting Fuller's statue will stand on the court grounds for less than a decade. What a quick turnaround! As for myself, I am currently searching for a topic for my law review Note. If you have stumbled across any holes in legal scholarship, particularly legal history, please let me know. It'd be a huge help. I will also give the Fuller article a thorough reading soon and send any suggestions your way. Muttnick (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for peer review
Hi @ Thanks for your help with the peer review of George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign. (It is now a GA) Since then, I have been working on some other presidential campaigns, and I feel that Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign could be a potential GA. It would be a great help if you could help me with peer review of Reagan's article. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to. I should have some comments for you shortly. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Howell Edmunds Jackson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Howell Edmunds Jackson 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 Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Howell Edmunds Jackson
The article Howell Edmunds Jackson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Howell Edmunds Jackson 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 Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Anupam Kumarr
Hello, Extraordinary Writ. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anupam Kumarr, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Ravencoin
Hi, please approve Ravencoin article because i just make an intro to this coin with two references and i will try to enhance this article. Hint : my time and effort for free in wikipedia so please don`t make any complex routine. Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Number13339 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the draft in question has since been deleted. Let me know if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia: I'm glad to help. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of World Pantheist Movement
Please also follow also the discussion on User_talk:David_Gerard before considering the deletion of the article. Thank you. - Lothaeus (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I relisted the discussion, but I'm not otherwise involved in it. Since I'm not an administrator, I don't have the ability to delete articles. I'd encourage you to let the discussion play out: plenty of experienced editors are participating, so the outcome will hopefully be understandable even if you don't agree with it. Let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks for your answer. I have added the link to the relevant user talk section of David Gerard to the deletion discussion page of the World Pantheist Movement because I think it could be useful to the person who is maybe deleting it. Best wishes, Lothaeus (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Another deletion discussion
Hello. I want to acknowledge that closing the Angola, Deleware Afd way too early was not a good idea. Looking back on the whole thing it was somewhat disruptive behavior on my part.

I mean, when two editors come to my talk page, and one is an Admin, and they both tell me I am in error. And I am told, I need to revert my edit. Well, that was the first clue that something was wrong. And I should have reverted as soon as I saw both your messages. My next mistake was allowing this error judgement to cause a DRV discussion.

I am embarrassed that I let such poor judgement cause a disruption. I am chalking it up to a learning experience and the fact I should have known better. I'm also reading up on this stuff again, such as WP:NACD, WP:INVOLVED and WP:DRV. I'm probably going to post the same message on User:Hog Farm's page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry too much about it, . I certainly understand where you were coming from: after all, the outcome of your closure ended up being correct. But the community nowadays seems to take a much more favorable view of WP:Process is important than before, particularly in the context of AfDs. (Whether or not that's a good thing is certainly up for debate.) I certainly don't blame you for not being aware of that: a decade ago, it's possible that your closure might have gone unchallenged. Anyways, I'm confident that you acted in good faith, and I particularly appreciate your ability to reevaluate your position. Have a pleasant rest of your week. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. And that essay to which you linked is really good. It is food for thought about how important process is. According to that essay, process levels the playing field for all editors. I will keep this in mind going forward. I have to say, Wikipedia does a good job of keeping the playing field level. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome! I'm glad to see that you're getting plenty of use out of it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Howell Edmunds Jackson
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)