User talk:Ixtal/Archives/2022/May

Talk:SpaceX/GA2
Ixtal, do you plan to review this nomination, or did your plans change along with your name change? If you plan to take over, please do begin soon. If not, however, it would be appreciated if you'd let us know as soon as possible, so we can try to recruit someone new. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I finished the review and marked it as on hold. I am now awaiting fixes and once a week passes if fixes haven't been started I'll proceed to fail the review. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 22:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Template request
Your request for a country specific inline globalization template can already be done by just passing a parameter to the existing template. That is, or. --CBD 11:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Collins
Yes, that is much better. I suspect the Collins article will get a lot of traffic trying to do what the edits I had reverted did, and I will ask for protection if it does. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I already have asked for protection for one week, although it may be denied, . There's been repeated instances of vandalism on her page this month and I expect it to become a significant issue. There is some probability if not protected we'll end up with revdeled calls for violence imho. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 07:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 WikiProject Finance & Investment Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 1) Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
 * 2) 🇨🇽 AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
 * 3) Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
 * 4) Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
 * 5) Vexilloid of the Roman Empire.svg Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
 * 6) Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
 * 7) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Chris Wilkinson (architect) and &#32; Talk:Conductores de Venezuela on "Art and architecture" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 01:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Phinance photos
Just a follow up on the message you left at WT:WIKICUP regarding finance photos. Figured I'd throw out that if you're looking for specific buildings/locations/whatnot in NYC (given the number of financial institutions here), send them my way (or post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City). WikiNYC has a few photographers (me included) who can probably help out. Specific asks help, though, rather than pointers to large categories. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I will most definitely keep that in mind, ! Thanks for the offer :D — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 14:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:American Airlines Theatre&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:The Bear, Oxford&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 17:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:383 Madison Avenue&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:4 Park Avenue&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Tomb of Tutankhamun&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:In the Ploughed Field. Spring&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Lunch Atop a Skyscraper&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2 Park Avenue&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Fresh Wind. Volga&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A not WP:GA assessment of Rosetta C. Lawson
I see that you do GA feedback requests, and although I don't think it's ready for that yet, I was wondering if you had a few moments to take a look at Rosetta C. Lawson and let me know what you think. Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You sure it's Rosetta C. Lawson, ? I get more newspaper results using Rosetta E. The article looks alright, though I do think it needs more context about the organizations she was in to reach GA level. Imagine you are writing for a reader in Portugal. Would they know what was so important about her work? She led the WCTU for 30 years. What did the WCTU do that was significant during those years (e.g. influence laws, notable protests or addresses, etc)? I imagine that won't be easy work to write but I do think it's quite essential to get it past C level. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The name thing is weird, because she was born Rosetta E Coakley, then got married and was Rosetta C Larson some of the time. Rosetta Larson alone gets the most hits, though. I just removed the middle initial, and now I'm going to see what I can dig up with the E initial. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's quite an interesting inconsistency, . Good luck with the article! It definitely seems like not only a good candidate for a GA goal but also an important GA to have (as a notable black, female activist). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, after digging with that initial, really the only other thing I found is a lower quality image, and an anecdote that she took over running the "Home for Friendless Girls" in Washington DC in 1909, after the first woman who ran it died in a horrible accident at the home, and then her daughter took over, then quit so Lawson started running it. When did she stop? Who knows. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Worth a try at least, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * you might also want to look through places like the LOC and such for photographs, such as this one which isn't directly relevant but might help. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * it seems like the LOC is a good resource for her. shows the actual source for the infobox image, rather than twitter. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like most of these are newspapers and summaries of meetings I've seen. Although it appears she testified before congress, so that's another noteworthy thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * members of the Book Lovers Club, a black women's literary group led by Rosetta Lawson This woman literally ran every club, conference, meeting, council, association, congress, union, consortium, and group for nearly 80 years. If there was a club around DC in 1909, you can bet ol' Rosetta Lawson was there, keeping everything running. There are so many random associations that I saw in the newspaper articles I was reading, I just left most out. She was the president of the Mother's Club too. And like 8 different church groups. Unfortunately it's WP:SYNTH to say "Lawson was very active in her community, with membership in a wide variety of social and activist organizations" with 40 120 year old newspaper articles as sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could take another peek? I added more refs, and about doubled the prose with context. See anything left that lacks context? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me now, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, there's like a second person worth of information with a different initial. I get about the same google results for each initial. Odd how history can't keep track of middle initials sometimes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Got time for another?
I got to thinking that Mrs. Lawson might just be lonely in mainspace all by her lonesome, so I figured she'd probably feel better if she was wikilinked to her husband. Any chance you can take a quick pre-GAN look? I took on board what you said the last time, so I tried to provide context for each group he was affiliated with. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, ! It seems I didn't read your comment here. The article looks alright, although might need more explanation of what the AAC is in the lead as well as the University's life after him (they decayed shortly after which seems important to describing his importance in the institution). — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 11:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the university might actually be the next article I tackle to get up to GAN. There's a lot more sourcing out there about it than is being used in the article. There's a whole cluster of articles that I plan on, eventually, getting built up around where I started. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a great good topic to go for, :D — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 11:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe in a few years I can get enough together for that. The more I research the more it webs out to other notable people and groups I've never heard of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Universal suffrage&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC
Hi,

RFC template was removed by the bot. Does it mean that RfC finished here?

--Abrvagl (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. If you wish for it to be formally closed please add a request at WP:ANRFC, . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 20:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah!
Just wanted to say I was awful confused when you commented on a discussion I'm involved in and mentioned your involvement in WikiProject Catholicism, then saw you had changed your name (mononyms are far better, aren't they)! Glad to see you're still with the project and still working hard! Always feel free to ask for help; I have the time and also have an offsite friend/brand new editor eager to get their teeth stuck in on some of the problem pages on the Catholicism project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, ! I changed the name because my pseudonym might cause problems if there are irl people with that name. Thanks for the offer. Also, please tell the brand new editor my talk page is always open for them if they have any inquiries or doubts. We're all excited to see new people join the project :D — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 06:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Hey, just wanted to introduce you to another member of the Catholicism WikiProject, an editor who you can check in with if you want a tip or some help dealing with an issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Saw this awhile ago, not sure why I didn't reply. Noted! thanks.
 * Maximilian775 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Help with COI request
Hi Ixtal. I'm Michael from Sculptor Capital. Might you be willing to take a look at my pending edit request regarding including the resolution of the lawsuits. Other editors have provided input and guidance in the past, but they are not currently editing. I'd be grateful for your assistance as an active editor and member of WikiProject: Finance & Investment. Thank you Michael at Sculptor Capital (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Procedure for RfC
I do not want to discuss the NGEO RfC at Village pump (policy) per se here, because it's best to keep the discussion at one place, but I do want to share with you my my interpretation of the instructions on how to conduct a RfC. A RFC is not a vote. For me, this means that we must avoid polarization. Most of the time is not black and white. A RfC should be based on a discussion. For me, this means that even the question can progress. I know that the instruction says that the description of the RfC should be simple and allow for a simple answer, but that should not mean that it has to be frozen. In other words, it is pointless to view the RfC as a fixed support/opppose proposal. The discussion is the central part of the RfC and it's fine to add a survey/vote at some point to help get the big picture of where we are, but it should be seen as one step in a multi-step process. In all cases, it's the discussion that matters. The survey/vote is only there to help the discussion. After the survey, if no consensus is reached, we can decide to stop because there is nothing more to be said or we continue with new ideas. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the other editors participating in the RfC have not raised issues about the format and have given their opinion without issue. I have closed a number of RfCs at WP:ANRFC and have always seen the format I used be employed (alternatively titling the section "Discussion", but with people 'voting' in the same manner). It is the fourth discussion on the matter so far (with 1 previous RFC and 2 discussions at WP:VPIL), so at this point it really is about supporting or rejecting a proposed addition to the guidelines. If it does not gain enough support and is not implemented, I will take the feedback and improve on the proposal, but there is no need to do so in the current RFC. To be honest I'm not entirely sure why you are nitpicking the RFC so much when it is doing its job. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 21:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that the current format works well. Of course, at the end, communication will occur and it will happen in many steps, just as I describe above, but it will happen despite the current format, not with its help. Having many RfCs on a single issue is not ideal.  It's preferable to set up a format that naturally supports this multi step natural process. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * . I see it working. You don't think it is. I am perfectly fine walking away disagreeing with you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 21:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, but it's your lost. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really, . In your eyes it is, but then again this whole issue is based on subjective opinions. So flies the hummingbird. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 21:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion happens, but it's scattered over many RfCs and it's less encouraged. It's more likely that one comes to give his "vote" and go away without even caring about the arguments. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The perfect discussion does not exist. The perfect RFC does not exist. The previous discussions had faulty RfCs or were made to draft new ones. Change, especially positive change, is an incremental process where the solution gets better over time. I don't see anything wrong with the current discussion that's happening and to be honest it's pretty weird in my opinion to be receiving such endless and verbose commentary from an editor who, to the best of my knowledge, neither participates in the geo area significantly or has much experience in creating, participating in, and closing RFCs outside of an extremely niche topic area. I'd appreciate it,, if you stopped trying to discuss this when it is clear that we are in irreconcilable disagreement. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 21:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you have this negative attitude, i.e., start to attack me personally, i.e., attack my competence, status, etc., instead of replying to the arguments themselves. Attacking the status of the person, suggesting that the person is not competent, etc. is not nice at all. You argued that it was only in "my eyes", so you should have expected that I provide counter arguments. Now, I agree, let's stop there. Don't accuse me, because I will reply... You created this negative situation. I am OK to stop. I don't want to pursue this further. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have this negative attitude because you keep making unconstructive comments about the RFC, saying that the format is harmful to discussion and making passive-aggressive remarks (e.g. Of course, but it's your lost [sic]). There have been almost 15 or so editors (13 at this RFC and 8 discussing various wordings of the guideline in this thread, counting duplicates) that have previously participated in related RFCs and you are the single person making so much noise about the "Survey" format or even bringing it up. In fact, the format that I used is supported by the Wikipedia information page on RFC formatting (It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?"), which is why it is doubly annoying for you to point it out as if it is some major mistake. It's not. When someone says that something is in "your eyes", that means that it is a subjective disagreement and not an objective one. It is not an argument you "win" nor one where you must convince the other. I said "so flies the hummingbird" to mean that subjective disagreements without an objective solution are a natural part of life. As an editor I have great respect for tends to end their comments, in the case of RFC formatting like in many others, "reasonable minds may differ". If you find yourself at the natural end of a discussion, just drop the stick. Before my previous comment I had already said twice that I saw no point in discussing it further but you insisted. It should be obvious to you then that it would not be productive or even healthy to continue talking about the RFC format. At that point, don't be surprised if the other editor gets annoyed at your conduct if you insist on having the last word by making a passive-aggressive comment or restating an argument you have made already, . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 10:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify one thing: I did not come here with the intention of telling you personally how to do this particular RfC. I only wanted to share a view with you. It certainly not that I felt like you were a newbie and I had to tell you how to do things. Now, you claim the sentence It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?" supports your position and contradicts mine. However, the section that contains the sentence actually supports my position. It says that it is only suitable for yes/no answers. You can turn every issue into a yes/no question, but when you constantly need to rephrase the yes/no question, it means that the issue was not really a yes/no issue. Also, you failed to point out that the section also refers to a point of view against vote, which reflects the opinion of many editors, and that the second sentence in the page is Don't use a "voting" style when you want to encourage comments and collaboration.  From this, I see that you are not interested in really discussing the structure of RfC in a detached manner, but only defend yourself against perceived criticisms and  your counter argument is essentially that I am nobody and that I should shut up.  There is no point in pursuing this further. However, if you keep criticising me, I will reply. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Signpost Interviews
When does the next issue come out? After all, I'm famous! kencf0618 (talk
 * Never mind, I see now that it'll be published May 29. (I'd gotten it into my head that it was weekly or every other week.) kencf0618 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh I'm so sorry I forgot to respond, ! But yes that is indeed correct. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 17:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've decided not to begin a timeline on Monkeypox, in part for the sake of my mental health (doom doom doom), but mostly because I want someone else to! kencf0618 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, . Me personally I'm not too into working on timelines (except for the 2020-2022 Chinese property sector crisis which is kind of a timeline) but hopefully someone else takes the initiative with the monkeypox. We'll see :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 14:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject report mixup?
I noticed something odd in one of the replies in the WikiProject report that you are editing. It switches between Swine Flu and Spanish Flu in the same sentence. Just wondering if that's intentional. Maybe you want to check with the interviewee. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, ! I assume it was intentional and it seemed alright on a first read, but I have messaged the editor to see if they could add some clarification. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Silver Scrapes (May 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbrks was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Silver Scrapes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Silver Scrapes, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Silver_Scrapes Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pbrks&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Silver_Scrapes reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– Pbrks (t • c) 14:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick review, . I have fixed the legacies.lol link which contains more coverage (including a short video documentary), although this might not be enough additional coverage. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 15:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure why the Forbes mention is not considered to add to the notability of the song, even if the coverage is not extensive enough to be considered significant. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 15:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. Unfortunately, legacies.lol is not independent of the subject. While it can be used as a source, we do not consider non-independent sources when checking notability. And yes, even if it could be used to demonstrate notability, we still need more sources that cover the subject in depth. The Forbes article does not cover the subject in depth, either, as it only gives a passing mention of Silver Scrapes. Let me know if you have any other questions. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Euskadi Workers' Commissions
Hello, Ixtal. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Euskadi Workers' Commissions, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)