User talk:John M Wolfson/Archive 6

Typo
In the answer to question 2 in your RFA, you said on metapedian note to mean Metawiki. However, metapedian generally refers to people who edit Metapedia. – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The original version of that answer said "endopedian", but MetaWiki said the correct word was "metapedian", and I linked it thereto to avoid confusion. I do not wish to have such misrepresentation, but I don't think any has currently resulted. I could change it back if you think that's appropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I use Metawikimedian since it's Meta Wikimedia.  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll change it to "endopedian". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

my question at your RfA
Hi. I apologise for my odd question at your RfA, and also for this delayed message. But I am glad that you havent been online since I posted the question there. I just wanted to know, kindly dont take the question seriously. Well, the second part actually. You may take the first part seriously. I hope your RfA succeeds. Best wishes :) —usernamekiran (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

First!
Cheating by jumping the gun, but unopposed at >150 supports with an hour to go - congratulations are in order. Feel free to reach out if you ever need a second opinion. Cheers! Girth Summit  (blether) 16:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Your successful RFA
Here is a totally not-template-created message to let you know you (of course) were successful in your RFA. The downside of this bespoke notice is that I don't remember any of the links to the fancy places like WP:ADMIN, but if you've got questions, I'm sure you can find someone to help out. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your successful RfA. Well deserved — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 18:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations John! I'm excited to work with you in the admin corps. Someone will drop off the customary swag shortly, I'm sure . One essay I like to highlight for every new sysop is WP:MUSHROOM, which is worth a read and potentially a bookmark. Best, Kevin ( alt of L235 · t · c) 18:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I assume the pages Primefac is referring to would be WP:ADMINGUIDE and WP:NEWMOP.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Primefac may be referring to Template:Administrators' guide I think there was one more similar to this. Cant be sure. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I usually support per Precious but was busy and saw you didn't need it ;) - best wishes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats on this well deserved milestone! Looking forward to our continued interactions at WP:ITN and WP:ITNRD amongst other places. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your RFA John. Very well deserved!, Happy blocking! :). – Davey 2010 Talk 18:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I am so impressed by how smoothly the process went and the unanimity of the vote. You deserve it! Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignore the above advice. Go out there, delete the main page, block Jimbo and generally enjoy the power! Bwaa haa haa haa! Seriously, congratulations, and if I could find a template that said that I'd use it, 'cause I never do what anyone says — O Still Small Voice of Clam 19:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! It was my great pleasure to support your uncontroversial RfA. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * From one new admin to another, congratulations John! --   LuK3      (Talk)   19:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats on both your new (if used) mop and on your unopposed run! Remember, in your first few months people accept your apologies so it's the best time to block your enemies at critical moments. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the mop. Happy mopping! Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for adminship !!  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! --rogerd (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and good luck! Donner60 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you already were etc etc etc etc etc. Brilliant news, well done, you deserve the positive feedback.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A perfect RfA is an amazing feat. Congratulations! Feel free to drop by (email or TP) if you ever have any questions. I would also suggest checking out my JS or that of any other admin in case you find something you might like. My CSS also has some lines that may be of interest (combined with User:Stwalkerster/grouphighlight.js) for spotting other admins, stewards, 'crats etc. Congratulations once again! -- The SandDoctor  Talk 04:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You now hold the magical mop. Enjoyer of World💬 05:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Aw shucks, thanks everyone! :) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Airbornemihir (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the recalcitrant one :)
Congratulations, John! I almost never Support, but sure did not feel the need to oppose. Hope to see you around FAR, all the best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sandy. Your work at FAC, as always, is appreciated! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Menagerie!
I have added you to the weird and wonderful Admin Menagerie as one of our six lupine members!
 * I didn't even know that was a thing. I learn something new every day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations
Don’t know why I’m always late to the party these days, but anyway, congratulations champ!! Celestina007 (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ITN for 2020 Polish protests
Thank you, friend, for your kind words, however, all I did was to create the article. We all collaborate. In this respect - I must say to you as well - nice work! --Ouro (blah blah) 05:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a true Wikipedian. Have a nice day! :) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent deaths
Hi John, when you add an RD to ITN, remove one as well so that there is a maximum of six entries. Great to see you posting there! Stephen 19:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is, the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by. In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were, , and. The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
 * wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Congrats - I think - on getting the mop,

Bearian (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC) 
 * Thank you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays
This year, many people had COVID to fear, The holidays are getting near, One thing that will be clear, We will still have holiday cheer, Happy holidays and happy new year!! From Interstellarity (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

ITN numbers
Hi John, hope you’re well. Happy new year! We try to keep consistency of number formats across all blurbs. Because there’s a seven which has to be a word, that’s why I’d put the larger numbers in the blurb above as words too. Best wishes. Stephen 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, happy new year! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't like rollback either
Re: this - I found Twinkle's fake-rollback much better than the real one, "because edit summaries." davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  06:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC) .mw-rollback-link { display: none; } 
 * Yeah, I had the Twinkle tool before I had real rollback; I guess I should go back to using it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I had the real rollback and gave it up, I like a little "friction" when it comes to editing. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  06:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I share the sentiments for a bit of friction. I use this code in my css to get rid of the button
 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

AGF revert
We are discussing the 4th blurb or combining blurbs on WP:ERRORS thanks -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, duly noted. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Paint It Black
Hello John M Wolfson! I was wondering if you would be able to take a look at "Paint It Black" and comment at its peer review? I would appreciate your input and am reaching out per your comments at Featured article candidates/Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)/archive1. Thank you for your time and I understand if you are unable (or do not wish) to. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it sometime tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That is highly appreciated. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 05:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Chicago community areas
Hello there, I noticed that you brought Washington Heights, Chicago to WP:GOOD status last year. I've been following your template to bring my home neighborhood of Beverly, Chicago to the same status. I'd love for you to take a look at it next week (after I finish the history section) and provide feedback before I nominate the page. Thrakkx (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, just start the GA review when you're ready and let me know. I've also started a one-man community area taskforce if you're interested. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This in particular should be of use. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, for various reasons I cannot continue with Beverly, Chicago. If you want to finish my work, all that I have left to do is 1) write the 19th and 20th century subsections of its history and 2) take a good hard look at the list of notable residents. These are the sources I was using for the history section:
 * (Related to above...)
 * (This one has a list of notable residents as well...)
 * Thrakkx (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (This one has a list of notable residents as well...)
 * Thrakkx (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (This one has a list of notable residents as well...)
 * Thrakkx (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Home Insurance Building
Hello, John M Wolfson! Well, I've just visited the Home Insurance Building, a page in which you have expanded a while ago. There, I found that the citations you were put in there miss their parent source (for sfn link/the Larson source). So, I decided to research the work that you cited. Then, I got this source from the 1987 journal named Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Vol. 46. No. 1, titled "Toward a Better Understanding of the Evolution of the Iron Skeleton Frame in Chicago", written by Gerald R. Larson and Roula Mouroudellis Geraniotis, which I think pretty close to the cited work. Therefore, I came here to know whether it is true or not. So, is this the source, Sir? Samuelsp15 (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think so. I don't remember off the top of my head, but I think it was a book called something like "History of the Skyscraper" that I got off archive.org. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you! I'll try to find it. Samuelsp15 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Good news, Sir! I found it, finally! Here it is: https://archive.org/details/chicagoarchitect00zuko. Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia records
You seem to be the top editor on this page. I believe I have a couple of Wiki-Records that are on the image captions of the two images on my User:Doug Coldwell/Did You Know article subjects. Would it be correct to add these "records" to the above linked article and if so how and where? Thanks for your help on this. Reply here, if you don't mind and ping me = I have a watch on this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, just put it in the "Articles" section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for entry of Shortest time between article creation and appearance on the Main Page in DYK. FYI, these are articles I created that are in the DYK Hall of Fame -and- multiple articles in the same hook I did that both I have put on my User Page. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great job on all of those! Unfortunately I don't think they are appropriate for the records page, but keep improving Wikipedia! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * O.K. I plan on doing 100 Good Articles this year and that is keeping me busy. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Darn, you should have signed up for the WikiCup this year, too bad signups closed recently. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind for next year, when I plan on doing another 100 Good Articles. With all the Stay home, stay safe time I have plenty of time to work on these articles. I have the feeling that the pandemic will go more than a year and maybe into 2 years time, before it is all over. I'll just have to make Good Articles during all this time then. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, take care! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

ITN images
You can add a picture at Main Page/Commons media protection and it gets protected within a few minutes. Saves the trouble of local upload and protection. Stephen 03:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll remember that for later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All these little things to discover, your help at ITN is really appreciated. I switched the image and deleted the copy for you.  Stephen 04:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and indeed. Experience is truly the best guide. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your templates on county results
Hey! You may remember me from reverting your template looks from Cook County, Illinois but I now think your template looks are great. I even did it for a few counties so far and I think it would be great if all counties pages would have that. TylerKutschbach (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I tried to put them on with AutoWikiBrowser but couldn't quite master regexes on it. Thanks for your help, and I might solicit some more. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
 * Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
 * 🇷🇼 Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
 * 🇺🇸 Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump (proposals)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments on GM companion article
Not everyone realizes how far Death Valley is from Pikes Peak unless they learn it's 1000 miles (Regushee (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC))
 * That's not in the original source, and I believe it would be improper for us to grant that kind of information without an explicit source. Besides, I think it's not quite notable and including it might be a bit ham-fisted; people interested or unaware could click on the links to find out more in the respective articles. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

ITN image
Sorry to have had to revert you, but there may be an issue with the post-fire image. Probably best we don't have it on the Main Page. It may even need to be removed from the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just saw the Commons link and thought it was kosher. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok.
Well, ok. I'm not actually new, but I will listen to their advices. Thank you. Doctorine Dark (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just be much more active in the next 6-12 months and come back to us. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RFA review
Thanks for the feedback, I’ll learn how to be a true Wikipedian before I become an admin. JTZegers Speak Aura 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
 * Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember 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 (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge info pages?
I like your new addition at History of the Main Page, but I think the prose can easily be merged into the older Main Page history info page I started as I expect the pages will interest the same audience and they're not that long. The section on "Appearance" already touches on the content you wrote. The new lead would begin with your lead. Any objection? Fences &amp;  Windows  20:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, just expand the prose on the target page and make sure none of the information is lost. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Carmania
Greetings I'd like it if you could tell me more about this region I find it so hard to find more information about it even though I live here thank you. Aarimtaa (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Lynching of John Carter
John M Wolfson, I get the feeling you're being a bit too picky here, in all kinds of ways. , I don't know if you can "fix" those coordinates, but if there's a better place to put them, or a better way to display them, that would be great. From what I understand they are showing up in an inconvenient manner only with certain settings. John, maybe you have the same settings that I have, and that's unfortunate, but "The problem is that I CAN'T find such a place since I don't know how coordinates work on here" strikes me as very odd. How they work? You click on them--or am I misunderstanding you? And maybe they don't mean anything to you, these coordinates, but for the Black history of Little Rock they are very meaningful. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It interferes with the top line of the race relation nadir template (and before it was added, it clashed with the header title line). And I don't know how the template works in code since I don't usually do coordinates. It seems the only options for display are either inline (in prose) or on the article title (which I've tried to make but without success). Please do find a way to make this work. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw your edits--thanks for trying. For me, with my settings, it doesn't make a difference. What would help is making an infobox, but I'm hesitant to make an infobox for "racist murders of Blacks". Maybe I just have to get used to that idea, but given the racial makeup of Wikipedia, and my own whiteness, I'm just not sure how to do this respectfully, without it being salacious. Infobox person is an option, of course. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried Infobox person, but the coordinate templates there are only for burial/resting place; they are of the Mosaic Center Museum, which has a monument to Carter, so I believe that's enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue has nothing to do with the present article, but is a problem introduced by the MediaWiki devs on Thursday. I would suggest to either wait until next Thursday or go to T283206 and yell at the developers. Or both. I think the infobox workaround is a good idea to make it not look embarrassing while it is on the Main Page. —Kusma (t·c) 18:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the background. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

LS swap
Hi John M Wolfson. I noticed that you recently created a redirect for LS swap, and I decided to go ahead turn it into a short stub. (I'm surprised we didn't have a redirect for LS swap until last month, much less an article.) I think there's potential for a good DYK hook once the article is expanded. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the contribution, Lord Bolingbroke. If you're interested, I also have a car-related FAC you could review. In any event have a great day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I will try to take a look this week. Although I've observed FAC for a bit I haven't participated yet, so my review may be limited. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your interest. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

General Motors companion make program scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the General Motors companion make program article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 15, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 15, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
 * Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for General Motors companion make program, introduced:""Gee our old LaSalle ran great, those were the days." General Motor's former "five brands" (the current three plus Olds and Pontiac) seems like a lot by today's standards, but back in the late 1920s GM tried to do even more. For a few years it had "companion makes" to fill in four of the classic five. Two of them, Viking and Marquette, you've never heard of because they were quickly killed in the Depression. You might have heard of LaSalle, since it carried on for another decade and gave Harley Earl, who invented the Corvette in the 1950s, his start at GM. You've definitely heard of Pontiac; this companion make program is the reason Americans (used to) have it instead of Oakland. We don't have a whole lot of car FAs on Wikipedia, and this is a fairly obscure niche of automotive history, but I've tried to do it justice here." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 15 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 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Thank you for participating in my RFA
One new admin to another, thanks for your support and your trust. I'd like you to feel invited to point out the obvious if I'm missing it. There's material to read and policy to better understand, but there's nothing like the intrinsic motivation generated by pure experience. If I can be helpful, please call on me. BusterD (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And you'll get the hang of it if you haven't already, don't worry! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Tiruppur Urban Agglomeration
The article Tiruppur Urban Agglomeration was deleted, because administrators felt that it is the recreated article of the old article Tiruppur Metropolitan Area. But even after my explanation that Tiruppur Urban Agglomeration is not related in anyway related with Tiruppur Metropolitan Area. The only problem was that Tiruppur Metropolitan Area was created by me, in perception that metropolitan area and urban agglomeration was the same. I accepted the reason quoted by the administrators that Urban agglomeration is different from metropolitan area. But now, the deletion of Tiruppur Urban Agglomeration article defines only the urban agglomeration of Tiruppur approved by Indian Census Department. It is definitely wrong and injustice to delete the article. Ccmtt12345 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article's content was identical to the deleted article notwithstanding the title difference. If you have to make an article on the topic please use the Articles for creation process and work through the kinks there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN shows as Wednesday on my iphone
Thanks for posting the IPCC report. For some reason on my iphone it is showing as Wednesday 9 instead of Monday 9 Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't get the day of the week on the desktop version, so I don't think it's a problem with the template. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Local government in Minnesota
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Paint It Black nominated for FAC
Hi John M Wolfson! Paint It Black has now been nominated at FAC. If you have the time, would you be willing to take a look at it? -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

BrilliantProse
Your page would be fitting in the WP: namespace; see my comment there! – SJ + 14:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski,  BennyOnTheLoose, 🇷🇼 Amakuru and  Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, 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). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice PR
Hi John M Wolfson, I was wondering if you may be able to take a look at Peer review/Tumbling Dice/archive4 and offer any feedback? I'd love to take "Tumbling Dice" to FA soon. If not, no worries. Thank you for your time. -- The SandDoctor Talk 02:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Red categories
You keep adding a task force called "regional capital" in Albany, New York. But it simply creates a red link to Category:GA-Class regional capital articles, which does not exist. If this task force exists, it has not even created its own categories. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a newly-created taskforce that replaces the importance category with a core list, a national capital taskforce, and a regional capital taskforce. It's not even 72 hours old, calm down. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

""Florence Ilott"" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect &. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Body image disturbance
@John M Wolfson sorry man, was my fault. Im troubling to find the correct procedure with Vital Article. My fault Srobodao84 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries at all. Have a nice day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

ELECTCOM2021
Hello John M Wolfson, thank you for self nominating for ELECTCOM2021! You beat us the the framework for the page by a little bit, but it should be sorted out now. While in no means required, I suggest you add a statement to your section. For an example of what type of statement could be used and the types of questions that may be involved you may want to refer to last year's electcom rfc, here. Best regards, — xaosflux  Talk 09:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have added my statement. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"Ai" el o
Just out of curiosity, mind my asking what you were trying to achieve with this edit? Not only did it break the template, but even if you meant to put or, it still makes little sense in the context. Nardog (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do kind of mind given the answer, but I glitched and thought that "ILO" was the intended initialism. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, actually that makes perfect sense. We err, we've all been there. Nardog (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

NYC mayor elections
I see that you have tried to move or merge some content but I do not see an article talk page discussion. Did you start one, can you start one describing what you see and why you think there should be change? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I gave my justifications in the edit summaries, per WP:BRD. It has been reverted, but I'll open the discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw the deletion of a lot of text. I did not know if you moved it or how many articles were affected, or where the text went.
 * Normally edit summaries are fine, but in this case, a lot of text changed. A talk page note would be helpful. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have started the discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alderman Paddy Bauler 1964.png
Thanks for uploading File:Alderman Paddy Bauler 1964.png. 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) 17:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Biography removals
Hey, is there any chance you could be persuaded to change your vote on removing Kafka? Of all the writers on our biography list he is the most unnecessary as far as I'm concerned, so I wanted to see if you had any inclination to change your mind on his disinclusion? Zelkia1101 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe so, no. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright Zelkia1101 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Vital articles
Hi, I expected to find Molière in the list of biographies, as one of the greatest writers in the French language and world literature. French is often referred as "the language of Molière". Regards, Yann (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can propose it if you'd like, but we already list Voltaire and are currently trimming, not adding, biographies. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Short description for Denotified Tribes
Please take another look at my edit to the short description you added. While I get that you added quotation marks as an indication not to take the word "criminal" literally, you can hardly expect every user of the written English language to grasp your meaning, and we have a responsibility as Wikipedians to avoid inadvertently further stigmatizing an already heavily stigmatized group of people. Best, Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If people don't know scare quotes, that is a problem to be remedied outside of Wikipedia; nevertheless, I would agree they are unprofessional, and while your short description is a bit dry, I can't complain too much about it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They are unprofessional because they are ambiguous. Without prior knowledge of who wrote them (an admin who understands Wikipedia's core policies, not some serial POV-pusher on articles about indigenous peoples of India), nobody knows whether the quotes are scare quotes in the first place (as opposed to, say, an attempt to quote statutory language for emphasis), or what is intended by them if they are (doubt? disapproval? irony?). Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)