User talk:John M Wolfson/Archive 8

GA
Hi John! I'm on Wikibreak, but maybe I'll look and even pick it up. If I do, don't tell anyone I'm breaking my break. 😆 – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marshfield station
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marshfield station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Division station (CTA Logan Square branch)
BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marshfield station
The article Marshfield station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marshfield station for comments about the article, and Talk:Marshfield station/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Hi John, I can see that you were trying to improve the wording but all but the most trivial changes to fully protected pages should really be discussed first. Several people had issues with the wording you introduced that could have been ironed out by discussion in advance and the main editor of the article objected to your changes. Could you imagine the disruption if the main editor was an admin and we had two admins edit warring over the TFA blurb while it was on the main page? As it is, it seems very unfair that they don't get a say but you get to enforce your preferred version by virtue of being an admin. I'm all for being bold, but admins being bold where non-admins have to wait for discussion is not the way we should be doing things. Can I encourage you to use WP:ERRORS or the article's talk page in future? Thanks, HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Central Australia (territory)
Thanks for your expansion of this - the NAA source is great. Any plans for an equivalent article on the North Australia territory? I've been meaning to take a crack but don't want to tread on your eyes if you're thinking along the same lines :) ITBF (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi ITBF, you're free to crack open the North Australia article, which seems to be the more interesting of the two. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:American leaders, 1920s
Template:American leaders, 1920s has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Drdpw (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line)
The article Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line) 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:Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line) and Talk:Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Brachy0008 -- Brachy0008 (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Just 'Murican things"
Would you consider modifying your closing comments at In the news/Candidates? Regardless of how newsworthy we think it is, it's still a serious tragedy. The closing message isn't a place to be "folksy" ("Just 'Murican things"). Zagal e jo (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My point with that comment was to reflect the prevalence of such shootings in the United States, and more importantly the ITN precedent of consequently weighing them less. I was not intending to belittle the tragedy itself, although upon further reflection I believe it would be equally offensive had I said "Just American things". I will change my statement accordingly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Zagal e jo (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Madison station (CTA)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Madison station (CTA) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Madison station (CTA)
The article Madison station (CTA) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Madison station (CTA) for comments about the article, and Talk:Madison station (CTA)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canadian premiers, 1920s
Template:Canadian premiers, 1920s has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Australian premiers, 1920s
Template:Australian premiers, 1920s has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canadian viceroys, 1920s
Template:Canadian viceroys, 1920s has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:


 * Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
 * Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
 * Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
 * BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie,  Thebiguglyalien,  MyCatIsAChonk,  PCN02WPS, and  AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Mail
— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi

 * Hi I look forward to teaching you the ins and outs of Wikipedia! Let me know what help you need. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legislative composition
Template:Legislative composition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chicago wards 2010s
Template:Chicago wards 2010s has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:SVG templates has been nominated for deletion
Category:SVG templates has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Izno (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Martin F. Tanahey
The article Martin F. Tanahey you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Martin F. Tanahey for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SecretName101 -- SecretName101 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
 * Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
 * Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, 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. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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 (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Delecte page
Hello ! Sorry, I will delecte my current user page. Help me. I want Wikimedia's to appear. THANK YOU

R.N.S.K. (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * if you want to delete your userpage, you can simply blank it and I or another administrator can delete it for you. If you want to change what's on it, however, you can edit it like normal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Greetings John
I submitted an article on the Birth date of Jesus. It seems that I was uneducated as to "truth" and "accepted truth". Not your problem. I recommend to you: the PDF at Tribulation2033-2040.com. It has truth. Thank you for being there. Michael. Afellowservant (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line)
The article Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line) for comments about the article, and Talk:Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Brachy0008 -- Brachy0008 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Ministerial by-election

 * Thanks for your work on this User:John M Wolfson - I noticed your expansion of the article earlier this year but didn't realise you'd submitted it for FAR. ITBF (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aw shucks, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from JerryGlennReader (01:14, 29 August 2023)
Thank you. I hope my modest contribution will be helpful to Wikipedia and the readers. --JerryGlennReader (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you talking about here? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I must of misread or misunderstood the message to my page. Im sorry for the confusion. 2607:FEA8:7622:D600:A411:8704:977F:AC99 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Automatically semi-protecting today's featured article
Hi. I missed the village pump discussion, but skimming it now, you write "[...] by the costs of letting vandals replace our most visible page with 'poop shid fard xD'." Are there cases of this actually happening these days? The entire proposal seems definitionally antithetical to the wiki philosophy and there are lots of tools in place such as the AbuseFilter extension, local and global IP blocks, local and global IP range blocks, anti-vandalism bots, etc. In this context, I don't understand how an edit such as "poop shid fard xD" would be made. I personally had to just jump off of a VPN to be able to even edit at all, while logged in, and I've been editing here since 2005. It seems highly unlikely that drive-by IP users would be able to make these types of edits, so I'm curious what you're seeing specifically that prompted this proposal. And more generally, I'm curious how the underlying wiki software and its myriad anti-abuse tools are so insufficiently developed after over two decades that we're now resorting to such drastic measures to keep editors out.

It also feels like a very flawed premise to state that editing Wikipedia is a cultural mainstay when there are people taking the most visible and high-traffic pages and removing that fundamental editing capability. You can think of an article such as Barack Obama for example. How are people learning that Wikipedia is purportedly freely editable when we have thousands of IP blocks in place and thousands of indefinite semi-protections in place, particularly on the most visible pages? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello . To some of your points: a) statistics were collected in trials regarding TFA protection, and it was found that the vast majority of non-confirmed edits were neutral at best and usually ended up degrading the article even if done in good faith; more importantly, as Sdkb pointed out in the discussion, genuine newcomers should not be editing TFA anyway due to the climate of (earned or otherwise) snobbery at FAC and the amount of work that's already been put in the article, and b) I never said that editing Wikipedia was a cultural mainstay, I merely said that the concept of Wikipedia as "something that anyone could edit" has been drilled into students' heads by teachers warning them not to use it as a source, and by popular culture parodying its moments such as the Seigenthaler affair, so the whole "if we protect TFA people won't know you can edit Wikipedia" argument doesn't hold water anymore.Since you were wondering where I got this idea from, I merely looked at WT:TFA and saw a month-old discussion achieving local consensus in favor of Courcelles's daily semi-protections, and decided to make a global RfC about it; even if that RfC had failed, Courcelles or other admins would probably have kept semi-protecting TFAs manually anyway since there sure was no consensus to make them stop. Already back in 2021, there was a trial of automatic PC-protection of TFA, but that was found to be more hassle than it was worth compared to semi-protection. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. It's wild to see a long-time user such as yourself saying that genuine newcomers should not be editing today's featured article.
 * I understand what you're saying about today's featured article page protection status neither necessarily misleading nor educating users about Wikipedia's theoretically open editing philosophy. My point was that, in the most prominent of places, we're actively shutting out participants in the editing process and this is directly in contrast to wiki values. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A fair point, but one that has been rejected by wide consensus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
 * Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
 * Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

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 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Question from Conzr444 (07:37, 5 September 2023)
how to make a wiki page --Conzr444 (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi since you're a new editor, you won't be able to make wiki pages directly. You can use the Articles for Creation process instead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

TFA
There's no need to keep manually protecting it (cc @Ingenuity), I turned the bot on 5 days ago, except you keep protecting it before its time for the bot to take action. Legoktm (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my protection summary, I just wanted to let you know that the edit protection is through the following day of featurement (so, 23:59 day after), unlike move protection which ends on, for example, 00:00 day after. I don't really care either way, but that was the RfC that got consensus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh, that's not at all what the trial data tested, nor what was previously discussed at the BRFA and subsequently approved. Legoktm (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Be all that as it may, it should be a simple fix. Thank you for your service! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's really not. I already made it clear from the very beginning that I wasn't going to implement something that wasn't supported by data. Legoktm (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that the RfC was on the Village pump and widely broadcast throughout the community, and should thus be considered global consensus. The TFA talkpage, where you've stated your insistence on data, is comparably more niche and alongside BRfA would constitute lesser local consensus. As such, while I don't want to make a lame bot war over this I think the former should prevail. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood what I'm saying. I've stated what I'm willing and not willing to do. I've set up the bot as had been discussed and evaluated. If people want to do something else based on no data and just vibes, I'm not interested in participating. The bot is still set up to enact semi-protection if it's unprotected per the parameters laid out on the BRFA, but if it's already protected it won't do anything so there's no edit warring. Legoktm (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I understand you, my point, as echoed by Captain Eek, is that the global consensus recently enshrined in WP:SEMI is for three-day protection regardless of your (or his, or my) personal views on it, so it's rather selfish and against policy to block full implementation of a global RfC that was open for a full week based on your interpretation of more niche discussions that took place with much fewer people. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose one solution would be for to turn off his bot, and the protection to continue to be logged manually while the community finds another admin who's willing to let their bot follow community consensus?   SN54129  15:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that's far too aggressive for now. Legoktm has yet to edit since his bringing this issue to the Captain, and appears to be on some sort of vacation or other involuntary WikiBreak, so I hope/expect him to come around when he gets back. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would make sense, then.  SN54129  18:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Rie.itkilik (18:57, 14 September 2023)
What’s up --Rie.itkilik (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It is the opposite of down, which is the direction time moves slower in. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Melodyc208 (14:15, 15 September 2023)
Hello, I'd like to create an article about a new podcast. Is this okay to do as a new user? To be clear this is not my personal podcast. I am confused by what is considered 'promotional material'. Thank you. --Melodyc208 (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, as long as it's not your personal podcast, you have no connections to it yourself, and you can come up with multiple, independent (from each other) sources consistent with our policies on notability, you should be able to avoid writing promotional material as long as you don't write an ad or puff piece for it. Be aware, though, that since you're a new user you won't be able to create new pages directly, but rather you'll have to use the Articles for Creation process, which should give you more feedback on where to go. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, forgot to post a response from the laptop where I am logged in. To be clear this was indeed my comment: Excellent, thank you for your prompt response. Should I face any problems during the process of creating a new page is it relatively easy to talk to editors to improve my chances for publication? Thank you Melodyc208 (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * When can I expect the article to be reviewed? 4 months is a long time, I would like to know if there is a way to speed it up. Thank you. Melodyc208 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can go to the teahouse or the AfC talk page to try to get feedback on your article, but there is no guaranteed method to get it reviewed faster than the normal process and you might have to wait. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Martin F. Tanahey
Hello! Your submission of Martin F. Tanahey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Suresh Rao49 on Mark Salter (12:15, 27 September 2023)
Hello, sir. I would add to this article the Mr.Salter has collaborated with Ms.Hutchinson and helped her write her book, 'Enough'. Thank you --Suresh Rao49 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a credible source for that claim? If so, please feel free to add it with the citation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from 123456789athletics (02:56, 3 October 2023)
Hi John,

Looking for some advice! I have attempted to create a page for a notable athlete. Originally the contents I included was thin, It has since been enhanced and edited by multiple people but it hasnt been reviewed for approval. Im wondering how I might get it reviewed again? This is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kate_Current --123456789athletics (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would have taken the comments to heart, and re-read our general notability requirement, our notability requirement for athletes, and our policy on living persons, looking at the sources you have used in light of these requirements. However, you appear to have already resubmitted the article for review, and while there's nothing wrong in that all you can do is wait for another review and beef up the article in the meantime. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

ministerial by-election
hello, John M Wolfson! i had a few questions regarding this article and the associated blurb. apologies for all the questions! i hope they're not too much trouble to address. dying (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i had added the reference to parliament in the opening sentence because, without it, it seems that there is a specific use of the word "Parliament" before an explicit reference to it earlier in the blurb. there is an explicit reference to the house of commons, but that is just one house of the parliament of great britain (and later parliament of the united kingdom).that being said, i was trying to determine if you were using "Parliament" metonymically to refer only to the house.  if so, i don't think this is clear from the blurb itself.  i did notice that "Parliament" is never used specifically in the article lead; "the House" is used instead.  would it be more appropriate to replace the two instances of "Parliament" in the blurb with "the House"?  this would also resolve the first issue, since the house of commons is explicitly referenced before the first instance of "Parliament".in addition, i think "require new ministers to face a by-election to join Parliament" appears to suggest that peers in the house of lords also had to resign in such cases.  i'm unfortunately not very familiar with british politics of the 18th century, but having a by-election for peers makes no sense to me.  if peers did not have to also conform with this practice, then replacing "Parliament" with "the House" would also fix this issue.
 * "The House [of Commons]" is more accurate for the reasons you said, but I do use "Parliament" occasionally to refer to the Commons as a whole – yes, the Lords does technically exist, but it's sufficiently common knowledge IMO that the Commons is the dominant chamber and this allows for more varied wording. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the article lead uses the wording "rejoin the House", twice. would it be appropriate to use similar wording in the lead, and replace "join Parliament" with "rejoin Parliament", or "rejoin the House"?
 * No. As I said in my edit summary, the TFA blurb is significantly constrained in terms of length and content it can have, whereas the article itself is not so constrained, so the two situations are not entirely analogous. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the blurb currently has two surprisingly long sentences, both of which are composed of two independent clauses joined by a semicolon. personally, i think semicolons are overused and also often misused on wikipedia, but i couldn't tell for certain whether the uses here were appropriate.  were these two uses deliberate?
 * the first of the two sentences really confuses me. the statements don't seem closely related enough, at least to me, to warrant the use of a semicolon.  i had been trying to determine whether you had meant to use a colon instead, but that didn't seem appropriate either.  the idea behind the second clause of the sentence is presented differently in the blurb and article lead, so i had thought i might ask you about it instead of just splitting that sentence myself.
 * the second of the two read very strangely to me, because it is of the form "$x$, $y$; $z$.", where "$y$" and "$z$" seemed to be more comparable than "$x$, $y$" and "$z$", so i would have expected something like "$x$: $y$; $z$." or "$x$. $y$; $z$." instead if a semicolon was used. in any case, i saw that the ideas had been expressed in different sentences in the article lead, so had incorrectly thought it would be uncontroversial to split the sentence here.  apologies.
 * I'm not going to go over the wall of text you have typed, so I'd rather stick with the status quo, which in any event I feel is more correct, if not a bother. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i admittedly found the image selected somewhat dimly lighted, so i looked through the images in the commons category for the chamber of the house, and found three that i thought might be appropriate replacements. do you think using of any of the alternative images at right instead would be an improvement?  courtesy pinging, who chose the original image.
 * I didn't choose the image, Dank did, so I have no hubbub about it one way or the other. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No preference. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the article asserts that queensland ended the practice "probably accidentally". this surprised me, so i looked up the cited isaacs source, which appears to only state that a clerk "claims that members did not understand that they were repealing the requirement".  to me, this does not suggest that the practice was ended "probably accidentally": the source itself appears skeptical of the clerk's statement.  would it be more appropriate to use the phrase "possibly accidentally" instead?
 * I don't see skepticism of the clerk's claim, and not understanding the full effect of a law would constitute "probably accidentally" its effect in my view. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article "about an oddity of the British constitution from the 18th to the 20th century. Separating the executive from the legislative seems like a very good idea, especially when the executive is not elected while the legislature is. While Americans took such a separation to its logical conclusion by fully banning executive-legislative fusion (with the rule-proving exception of the VP), the British saw keeping the ministry in the legislature as a good thing so adopted a half-measure rule that a legislator couldn't become a minister, but a minister could become a legislator. Thus was born the practice of the "ministerial by-election", where a minister got automatically booted from Parliament but could rejoin when he got freshly elected to it. It was hoped that this would serve as a check on the executive by allowing people in a certain constituency to vote on ministerial appointments.

But alas, even in the 18th century, this practice quickly became a formality as convention became to refrain from contesting these elections, and except for certain times of upheaval nobody quite seriously contested them. It also didn't help that when a party formed a fresh government from a general election, the ministers thereby empowered had to run for yet more elections in the immediately following weeks. These difficulties must be seen in the context of a time where parliaments could and often did last as long as seven years, so a stale government could be challenged in the meantime by these elections. Some of the thornier parts of the practice were reformed over time – a change in a minister's portfolio did not cause a by-election after 1867, the need for a minister to undergo a new by-election was suspended during the First World War, and they were abolished altogether within nine months of a general election after 1919. Nevertheless, they were ever an inconvenience to governments, and could make or break especially fragile governments in both Britain and the parts of the Empire where such by-elections were used (as George Elmslie and Arthur Meighen can attest), so as Parliament became shorter-lived the whole concept of such by-elections underwent more and more scrutiny, before they were abolished altogether in 1926 in Britain and by 1947 in the rest of the Empire – Western Australia was the last holdout, having had a unique tradition of actually contesting its elections and trailing the rest of the continent by 30 years."! --

Question from Crystaljosephus (10:09, 6 October 2023)
What is an accountant? --Crystaljosephus (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, you can find information on accountants through our Wikipedia article on it. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Murshhood (12:26, 9 October 2023)
Good day Wolfson, I'd like to have an article published live on wikipedia but I've been searching thru Wiki to find the article after saving it from my end but couldn't find it. --Murshhood (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Murshhood, I was looking through your contributions and couldn't find anything you were talking about. In any event, since you are a new user you have to use the Articles for Creation process rather than make an article directly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright...Thank you very much for your swift response...I'll do so Murshhood (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please check my sandbox now? I just published something there Murshhood (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canadian premiers, 1860s
Template:Canadian premiers, 1860s has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)