User talk:M4V3R1CK32/Archive 1

Ed Bradley good article review
I'm confused, your notice on my user talk page said that you had placed the good article review, "On Hold" -- but the article's talk page said it was failed. Which one is it? Can I attempt to address your feedback and have you re-assess it please? Princessa Unicorn (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Disregard please. I'll take some more time to work on it and re-nominate with a fresh look from a fresh Good Article Reviewer. I appreciate the feedback and I'll take it to heart and note in my edit summaries addressing the feedback. Thank you! Princessa Unicorn (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I'm not quite sure what happened. I'll play around with it and see if I can't fix that. I'm happy to review again when you're done! I really enjoyed reading what you put together and it's pretty close I think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's not failed yet, it's still on hold? Princessa Unicorn (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not failed! You've got time to make changes and I'm happy to go back and look at them again :) It looks like something got messed up with the template put on the page, but I've fixed it. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay great, thank you so very much for your gracious time! Princessa Unicorn (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course! I'm always happy to help improve articles about great journalists. Let me know if you need more time, too. It's a big article to go through! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I'm taking care to go through point by point where I feel it's appropriate, and especially where I agree wholeheartedly with your helpful and specific feedback, and address those points and suggestions and recommendations from the Good Article Review. Then, I note those directly as such in the edit summaries so it's easy to see the numerous edits I have been making in order to steadfastly address your previous comments. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it! Let me know when you're done and I'll be hapyp to take another look! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions
Hello, M4V3R1CK32,

Several of the articles you tagged for proposed deletion had already been PROD'd before which makes them ineligible for another proposed deletion.

Please remember to check the page's edit history before tagging a page with a PROD tag to make sure it hasn't been PROD'd or taken to AFD already. Thank you for your contributions! Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know! I realized my error partway through, which is why I stopped. The troubles of cleaning up assessment backlogs! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: History of cheesemaking in Wisconsin has been accepted
 History of cheesemaking in Wisconsin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask 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_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=History_of_cheesemaking_in_Wisconsin help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Gusfriend (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Suggest that the page Wisconsin cheese is all about how it is now and the new page is all about the history. Gusfriend (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing that so quickly! I really appreciate it! I was thinking the Wisconsin cheese article could be merged with the article I wrote, since it covers a lot of the same ground and Wisconsin cheese suggests to me that it should focus more on Wisconsin varieties, which have their own articles already. Would love to hear your thoughts! I can also take this to WikiProject Wisconsin if you think that would be more appropriate. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the wikiproject is a great place to ask. From my perspective I would expect that there is a lot of interesting history related information and if everything was on the same page it would end up being too long and needing to be split anyway. Think production levels over time on a graph, how it has affected the economy, society (sports, politics, etc.) The current page can then have a brief history of a couple of paragraphs and concentrate on varieties and the like. Gusfriend (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you on all the ways it has affected the state, especially economically. I've done a lot of digging and the really tricky part is sourcing and at what point information becomes trivia. It's really hard to say definitevely the impact cheesemkaing has economically when so many sources talk about the dairy industry as a whole (~$45B to the state economy, a little more than half of the ag contribution in 2018 [I think]) rather than cheesemaking specifically, especially when those sources say 90-95% of milk produced is made into cheese. That leads to a lot of math and started to feel like original research to me, so I decided to cut it. But I will definitely pose the question to my fellow Wikipedians at WP:Wisconsin! Thanks again! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duesenberg
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Duesenberg you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That's very exciting! I'd forgotten I'd submitted it honestly. Please let me know what thoughts you have for further improvements if it doesn't meet the criteria! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duesenberg
The article Duesenberg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Duesenberg for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Duesenberg
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ed Bradley/GA1
M4V3R1CK32, I wasn't sure whether you'd noticed that a new reviewer has taken over, and the review was posted on 17 September. Some issues were found; I'm hoping you're still around and able to respond as you offered to do before the review is closed. If you need time, just let the reviewer know on the review page. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed it! Thanks for the note, . I am still around, but only in passing. Life, uh, gets in the way. I'd be happy to take another look at the Bradley article and do what looks like a pretty substantial rewrite but won't have time until mid-October at the earliest. I think we can close the GAN and open the article for input from any other interested editors. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * M4V3R1CK32, I'm the new reviewer; I'm going to go ahead and fail it now per your comment. If/when you get time to come back to it I don't think it would take all that long to fix the issues I found.  Sorry we weren't able to get it over the line this time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All good! I appreciate the help! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William D. Hoard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schoolhouse. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The Points Guy help
Hello. I see you belong to WikiProject Journalism. Could you assist on reviewing Talk:The_Points_Guy, which is related? I have a COI. Thank you for considering this! Cheergirl325 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, I generally don't deal with COI requests. Also, please review the COI disclosure rules -- you have not properly disclosed your COI on your user page nor your talk page. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Article for review
Dear reviewer, as advised by you, I have made the required changes but those have not been reviewed for a long time. I would like to bring your notice towards it and if in any case it needs further changes, would like to hear from you about it. Thanks.

@M4V3R1CK32 Baruah rishi (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. I think those changes look pretty good. It seems to me there are still some problems to be sorted (such as organization in media ventures, there are too many subheadings, and it looks like most of those organizations could be filed under one subheading, Sadin-Pratidin Group), but I'm not sure those problems rise to the level of not being accepted. However, I'd like a second opinion on that, and so will invite you to resubmit the draft to the Articles for Creation queue.
 * I'd also note that your user name suggests a close relationship with the article subject. If that is the case and you do have a relationship (such as being a family member or being paid by Sadin-Pratidin Group) with the article's subject, please review the conflict of interest disclosure rules and make the appropriate disclosures on the draft and on your user page. Good luck! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello reviewer, I want to clarify that I am an employee of Sadin-Pratidin group. However, I am not being paid for this article. The subject of the article is a well known entity in Assam. The account through which the edits are being made is in the name of his son, Rishi Baruah. However, he is not the person doing it and it is me, a simple employee. As such, at the declarations page in the beginning of the process, I declared what I felt was best to my knowledge. It has thus entered into a conflict of interest region and I would be grateful if you can redirect me to that page as I am a novice and unable to find it. It would be helpful and this time around, I will make the declarations keeping in mind the relation between the subject and the account name. Thank You. Baruah rishi (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! You should visit Conflict_of_interest and look at the instructions under the "General COI" section. Add that banner to the talk page of the draft. Just to be extra safe, I'd go through the process of creating a user page (very simple, start by clicking on your username in the upper-right corner of the window) and adding your COI to your user page as well. There is a good chance other editors may feel your employment by Sadin-Pratidin Group constitutes a paid conflict of interest, even if you are not receiving money directly for working on the draft. If, for example, you work on the draft while being paid for your regular duties at Sadin-Pratidin Group, that may still constitute a paid conflict of interest. However, I do not generally engage with COI edits, so this is the extent of the help I can offer you. Good luck! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

John Henry Hammond (October 3, 1871-June 28, 1949)
Hi Maverick32, you asked for more sources. He wrote a book that is referenced in his Cyclopedia entry that I included as a source and that was recently reprinted with a supplement to it. There are so many newspaper articles about John Henry Hammond, I found 40 of them that corroborate the many organizations and clubs he was involved in and the railroad and business work he did and this barely scratched the surface. And that search was omitting the myriad of NYT articles about his wife who has an article for her on Wikipedia. In the press, Emily Vanderbilt Sloane went by Mrs. John Henry Hammond, and she was constantly in the New York Times and other major publications. His mansion, John Henry Hammond house, also has a Wikipedia article. But there is no Wikipedia article about the man who it is named after. I am pleased you chose to comment on this, as I see you write a lot about Wisconsin. You'll appreciate this figure, since his father, Gen. John Henry Hammond, built the City of Superior, where I grew up, and John and his brother Ogden Haggerty Hammond, who also has a Wikipedia page, both frequented Superior and remained involved in Midwest business, politics and organizations. His father, Gen. John Henry Hammond also deserves a Wikipedia entry and I have a ton of archival material to draw from for him from Superior and Louisville. This is one of the most fascinating families you'll ever study and it's too bad nobody knows enough about all four of the generations of John Hammonds. Singer2cantor (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Singer2cantor, I'm happy to take another look. You've certainly added quite a few sources. The tricky part is verifying what they say. Hopefully, the newspaper archives I have access to will have these articles, but if you have links you can share, that would help a lot.
 * One thing I would note from my quick scan of your new citations is that you've cited a Wikipedia page in the sources. This is not allowed per WP:CIRCULAR, just as a heads-up. I'll dive in here and try to go through all this in the next week or so. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like this doesn't matter because another editor already deleted the whole article and another one accused me of having a "clear conflict of interest." This really sucks. I didn't even hit the button at the top and resubmit this for review yet. Why does anyone contribute to Wikipedia if the editors are just haunched in attack mode waiting to delete all the submissions within hours of them arriving? The response I had gotten was that it would take months for Wikipedia to review, but it seems everyone is poised to delete, even if you haven't actually submitted anything! What an awful experience as a first time Wikipedia entry. Singer2cantor (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I resubmitted it, noting that I was working on reviewing the new sources. Another editor got trigger happy. It happens! Worry not, I'm still reviewing the draft and the new sources you provided. Apologies for the confusion.
 * It's important to assume that the editors you're working with are acting in good faith, even though it can be discouraging when things are rejected so quickly. It looks like the General Hammond article draft was rejected for duplicating an article which already exists. I don't know enough about the elder Hammond to know conclusively if this article and your draft did overlap, but what I've seen thus far would indicate that they do. In those cases, it's better to add new material to the existing article than it is to create a separate draft.
 * I am not sure where the accusations of a COI are coming from, but I can see why editors may think that given your interest in the Hammonds and recent submissions. I wouldn't worry too much about that, unless, of course, you do have a COI, in which case you should properly disclose it.
 * There is something to the comments declining the draft for John Henry Hammond. With the drafts you submit, there should be at least some inline citations, the little numbers at the ends of sentences indicating a reference. Your drafts don't have that, which would then force reviewers to figure out which source goes where, which is a massive time drain, and so the draft was denied. Adding inline citations should help prevent your drafts from being summarily denied.
 * It certainly can be frustrating to see your work disappear like that. There are a few ways to save it:
 * You can use a service like Google Docs to save your work. This is what I do as I'm preparing drafts and large scale edits.
 * You can save it in Notepad or a Word document.
 * You can use the "Sandbox" function and publish your sandbox. The sandbox can be found in the upper-right corner of your screen. There, you should be able to publish without things being deleted unless what you are publishing is a copyright violation, but even then, sandboxes typically aren't deleted unless something is moved into the draft space.
 * I would be careful of throwing around words like "sadistic" in relation to your fellow volunteer editors. They are applying the rules of the platform correctly (though again, not sure where the COI part comes in). Were it not for the claims that Hammond founded Superior, I would have done much the same. The onus is on the submitting editor to prove that their draft proves a subject is notable, not on the reviewing editor.
 * I've noticed in your communications with other editors, you've taken on a bit of a hostile tone as well. I definitely get the frustration, but "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" and all that, especially on Wikipedia. It's better to ask for an explanation than it is to accuse another editor of trying to sabotage your experience on Wikipedia.
 * Unfortunately, without the help of a site administrator, I don't know any way to recover the draft for Gen. Hammond. Should you wish to rewrite it, I would do so either in a service like Google Docs or your Wikipedia sandbox. Should you decide to do so, I recommend going through The Wikipedia Adventure first. It's a great little tutorial for editing on Wikipedia and will hopefully help you out with some of the formatting troubles you're having.
 * Let me know if you have any other questions. I'm reviewing your sources on Hammond now. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I am happy to send you a link to all of the articles I am collecting. I use Ancestry.com for all of my genealogical interests and the newspaper clipping is a very powerful and useful tool. I'm a new Wikipedia writer. The feedback I am getting from editors here is all quite shocking for me, so please forgive me for any errors I may have made and continue to make. Wikipedia formatting especially is complex, and the editing process here is confusing. I will do my best! Are you able to see this page? https://www.newspapers.com/clippings/?user=7287355%3ASinger_Daniel Singer2cantor (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can! That's incredibly helpful. And you're doing great, it's a lot to learn and I am far from perfect at it. I hope the responses are not rude ones, everyone has to start somewhere. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My articles are getting immediately deleted by other editors. How do I get all of my work back? I'm truly disheartened by wikipedia and these sadistic editors who don't want to see a real historical figure appearing in the encyclopedia simply because I am not done yet editing the article. I'm so ready to quit. Singer2cantor (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for cancelling my article. The reason why I chose to cancel this project was because after consulting with a PR professional and then with a company that specialises in creating Wikipedia entries, I was essentially told that while Wikipedia promotes itself as an open and editable platform, the reality is that it is pay to play. The company informed me that the only way to successfully create these articles is to pay their team quite large sums of money for each article so that they can “independently” post the work on my behalf. I now think Wikipedia is just as reliable a source as the ones you have discredited. Just as reliable as Cyclopedia. Equally as promotional. I know these figures are important historically, but they will never become Wikipedia articles because of the business model. Unless someone pays for the articles to be created using a Wikipedia professional editor like yourself, it won’t happen. So I now know where I will focus my money and efforts. Thank you! Singer2cantor (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know which company told you that Wikipedia is pay to play, but if they used that phrase, it's because they wanted money, not because it reflects the reality of Wikipedia.
 * I am a volunteer. I have not been paid a single cent for my 1,700-odd edits. I do not appreciate the assertion otherwise.
 * I have spent over a year learning policies, reading discussions, and making incremental changes as I learned. I have created one article in that time, which I researched exhaustively and from which I had to cut content I knew in my heart to be true, but could not verify in reliable sources, because that is how this platform works. It was accepted within an hour of me submitting the draft because I used good sources, properly cited those sources, and sufficiently demonstrated the notability of the subject.
 * As your first effort, you happened to choose to take on one of the toughest things to do right on Wikipedia, with subjects that do not demonstrate notability in any acceptable sources, from an era notorious for bad journalism, grifting, and self-promotion, and you chose to do so without taking the time to learn Wikipedia's rules, policies, and guidelines first. You have repeatedly lashed out at other editors, including myself, rather than asking for help in a polite way. I have spent far too many hours --volunteer hours -- working on responses to you. I'm sorry you've had a bad experience. Good luck out there. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: A.L. Gebhardt & Co.
Hello M4V3R1CK32. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A.L. Gebhardt & Co., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: all the Google News Archive references HTTP 404 because the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and its associated press companies successfully applied to their content removed from the Google News Archive in 2016. Thank you. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of course I just found out about today. My first thought was "old company, founded in 1895, nominated for speedy deletion? A Google News Archive search will fix that - good enough references sourced from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and its associated press companies!" and so on. (If this talk page message were a work email, I would have included a pic of an embarrassed whippet.)  Please feel free to re-nominate for deletion. --User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shirt58 quite alright! Thanks for letting me know. I may have misinterpreted the whole "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" thing in speedy deletion. The stub really just says that it existed and became a subsidiary, so I think it met that, but am more than happy to let it sit for now. Perhaps I'll circle back to it some day and try to expand on it! Cheers M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wasteland article
Hi, M4V3R1CK32! Thanks for all your great contributions to Wasteland (video game). It is my goal to one day have that article promoted to Good article status. Your edits certainly help make the case. Vivatheviva (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I look forward to working on it more in the future! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, M4V3R1CK32! It's been a while, but I've been tinkering with Wasteland (video game) again, and it's shaping up quite nicely. Care to take a look and see if there's anything else you would change before I nominate it for Good article status? Vivatheviva (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would love to! And I would love to remember to reply to Talk page messages when I get them. Baby steps! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries at all! I wanted to give you a heads up before I nominated it. Vivatheviva (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ed Bradley
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ed Bradley 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ed Bradley
The article Ed Bradley 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:Ed Bradley and Talk:Ed Bradley/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink
Found one last ref that needs to be adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ed Bradley
The article Ed Bradley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ed Bradley for comments about the article, and Talk:Ed Bradley/GA2 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Congrats it's a...

 * Thanks for sticking with this and getting it done! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Ed Bradley
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Quickfail of Morris Bishop
Hey, Maverick -- it's fantastic to see your enthusiasm for the backlog drive. Unfortunately, your quickfail for Morris Bishop isn't one I can give points for, as the points brought up in the review don't relate to quickfail criteria:


 * As you note yourself, the article was in good overall shape -- quickfails are usually about more significant underlying issues. Even when I've seen "ambiguously significant" issues of these sorts, I've generally brought them up personally as a "this article has some significant issues, but let's see if we can get the review done" situation, and I've seen that as the norm for such cases in practice.
 * The prose issues don't seem from your description to be incompatible with a full GA review. Sentence length, use of semicolons, etc. are fairly subjective issues, and not as major as the kinds that usually indicate quickfails (such as obvious English fluency issues) -- these sorts of issues are usually discussed during the review as they come up. That's not to say you can't quickfail on prose, but it does take proportionately more than a quickfail due to other concerns.
 * Similarly, article length and detail is fairly subjective, but in MOS terms this one isn't in a length range where splitting is very common. It might have been better to bring this concern up during a full review. In terms of the GA criteria, the points you brought up (such as the WP:CRS one) are generally the kind of points discussed in a full review, not in a quickfail.
 * Not an issue with the quickfail per se, but it might be a good idea to look into the history of infoboxes and infobox-related disputes.

Again, thanks so much for your participation in the drive, and I hope not to put you off. GAN is a learning experience for the reviewer, as well as the nominator. If you have any questions about future reviews, I'm happy to help in any way I can. Vaticidalprophet 02:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Vaticidalprophet Thanks for the note! I do think that the far larger issue is the disproportionate space occupied by the reviews of Bishop's works. At some point, those reviews are more about the works than the man, and the article about the man suffers for it. I think of it as being similar to how an article about a CEO doesn't also give the full history of the company they lead; when enough coverage exists to warrant a separate article about the company, a lot of that information is removed from the article about the CEO and replaced with a wikilink to better meet summary style. That guideline also mentions that splitting should be considered not necessarily on the size of the article, but how easy it is to split ("Opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up"). That is what I was basing that call on, as I see that being fairly easy to split out.
 * I'm also not sure if Prosesize is accurately capturing the Books with major contributions by Bishop section. When I paste the article body in a GDoc (not the markup, just the regular text sans citations/notes/lead/Table of contents), it comes back with 9,247 words. That's about 3,000 more words than Prosesize said, and is enough that WP:TOOBIG says it should probably be split, but maybe that section doesn't count as readable prose?
 * As far as the semicolons/sentence length goes, I absolutely agree with you that is subjective. I think the greater problem is how difficult some of those long sentences are to understand. Maybe my reading comprehension just needs work, but I found a lot of those long sentences confusing, and used the use of semicolons/parentheticals as a shorthand way to potentially identify them.
 * I actually didn't know WP:CRS was a thing! Learn something new every day. I was just trying to make sure I was offering constructive criticism.
 * At any rate, I'm happy to keep going. Appreciate the note and teaching me something new! If I have questions for future reviews I'll definitely shoot you a message! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Prosesize doesn't count those kinds of bulleted lists, but that's accounted for in the split guidelines and other ones based on prosesize -- it's almost never the case a bulleted list would push things over the edge anyway (but tables can). Bibliography articles are a little complicated, and it's not well-agreed-upon which authors should have them, or totally uncontroversial that they even exist. I definitely get where you're coming from regarding the suggestion, but at GAN it's something I wouldn't push too hard on because it's an area where article writers have so much leeway.
 * I want to note, given this criticism, that the Boursand review is very good for a newer reviewer and shows definite promise. I think you have a lot of potential here -- you just need to figure out how to actualize it. And definitely look into the infobox thing. There is background here. Vaticidalprophet 03:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vaticidalprophet I really appreciate that! I wasn't sure about getting into the Bishop review but decided to be bold! Definitely a case of I don't know what I don't know. I usually work more on stuff about Gilded Age politicians/Wisconsin history/journalism, so I'm not very familiar with the academic side of things on Wikipedia. After this conversation I'm thinking I should have put it on hold (something I debated with myself). Is it too late to change that?
 * I will look at the infobox thing. Is there a good place to start? M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the review can be reopened per se, but if the nominator wants to renominate it now, it is possible to 'reset' it in the queue (so it doesn't lose its age/priority). All depends what the nominator wants, though, and usually people prefer to get another reviewer for second nominations to see the article with fresh eyes.
 * Infoboxes have been contentious in Wikipedia's history, partially for complex social reasons, partially for good-on-the-merits ones (e.g. some common infobox fields are just bad, in that they're very rarely able to be filled with anything useful; "years active" and "known for" are notorious offenders), and partially for personal preference. There were two separate arbitration cases four years apart, which gives a sense of just how contentious. This Signpost article written in the aftermath of the first is a reasonable starting point; it summarizes the circumstances and links to a number of surrounding discussions. There are very strong arguments for multiple perspectives, and a bit of an uneasy armistice. Vaticidalprophet 04:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vaticidalprophet The more you know!, feel free to resubmit, I see now that I was hasty in my rejection.
 * As for the infobox bit, that's a fascinating quirk of Wikipedia history. I never would have thought they would be contentious! By the time I started editing, infoboxes were so commonplace (particularly in my main areas of interest) I assumed that they were just supposed to be in articles. I had a crisis of confidence when writing History of cheesemaking in Wisconsin and submitting it to AfC for that exact reason. I spent far too much time trying to find the right template for it before giving up and hoping that reviewers would accept it anyway. Thanks for providing that Signpost link and some fun reading fodder. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also became an active editor after the disputes, but a couple years ago now myself. It seems to me like there's more 'infobox discussion' lately than I'm used to. I've been debating formalizing some of my thoughts on them; I don't want to reawaken the whole drama morass you'll see there, but it feels like it's stirring with or without it.
 * The take I lean to for biographical and medical infoboxes (the ones I'm most familiar with) amounts to "their inclusion is usually expected, but there are many good reasons to exclude them, and once they're there the expectation flips and adding new fields or content is the thing that needs an affirmative argument for it". Of the biographies I've written, one excludes an infobox on the basis it's problematic to state a specific place of birth -- someone born in 1987 in eastern Germany wasn't born "in Germany", but never meaningfully lived "in East Germany", such that making a simple statement wipes out that nuance. In articles I didn't create I've generally removed more from infoboxes than added to them, because they tend to attract problematic detail. A good rule of thumb for infobox contents is "nothing that would misrepresent the subject if it was decontextualized on a knowledge panel". Many infoboxes violate this, many subjects can argue any infobox would, and many editors feel the risk of an infobox attracting such misrepresentation is high enough to outweigh the positives. Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

First off, a tip of the hat to. I have a terrible memory for usernames, but "Vaticidalprophet" is unusually memorable, and the particular memory is a recent one, of me bitching about VP's choice of terminology for a candidate GA. In the circumstances it's particularly magnanimous of VP to (kind of) defend my wording.

Bishop has been dead for half a century. He was primarily a writer of fairly conscientious but popular nonfiction (to use a word that perhaps postdated him). It's rare for such books to live much beyond 20, and Bishop's are no exception. Bishop was also an unusually prolific writer of material with no academic/pedagogic pretences. Book reviews seem the best kind of source for his books (serious or otherwise) -- which isn't to say that my handling of them couldn't be improved. He seems to have had a serene academic and personal life: I know of no feuds, fisticuffs, scandals, drug addictions, illegitimate children, etc. I think it's proper for an article about such a person to be largely about his books. A division into "Books by Morris Bishop" and "Morris Bishop" (excepting the books) would be grotesque. The only individual work that I think would easily support its own good [small "g"!] article would be A History of Cornell, but I am not equipped to write it. I suppose that if pressed I could create AfD-resistant articles on other individual books, but I believe that WP already has too much of this kind of junk.

I'm warmly in favour of infoboxes for, say, chemical elements. They have their advantages for, say, baseball players, whose achievements can be quantified and compared. For academics, they're redundant at best: The infobox for Ludwig Wittgenstein mostly just repeats what can easily be found in the article, but also depends on seemingly undefined criteria for "notable" and "main". -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As a semicolonist myself, I'm honour-bound :) I remember people impressionistically but have a fuzzily positive impression of you; there are people who stand out to me less positively, but it's exceptionally rare on this project, where most people who make themselves useful have something good to say about them. I agree with the perils of trying to split biographical articles most of the time, and haven't been a fan of the swing in favour of it at FAC/FAR. That Wittgenstein infobox...should probably lose about half its contents. (I wonder how many of the people who supported the 'collapsed fields' compromise know all fields are uncollapsed on mobile.) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , there must have been something wrong with my head when I perpetrated one sentence that I belatedly amended today. But it was (and remains) free of semicolons. I don't know what's wrong with semicolons. Of course they become tiresome when used to excess, but so does any alternative. Since it was only today that I only noticed (and gagged on) the sentence I've just fixed, I'm certain that more horrors lurk within the article. But as I read and reread the one sentence that M4V3R1CK32 comments on, it still seems fine to me. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are some great thoughts here on infoboxes I hadn't considered! I'd agree that the Wittgenstein infobox is a bit much.
 * As for semicolons, I have no problem with them generally. I even used one in this thread earlier! That particular sentence I commented on had me scratching my head trying to figure out the timeline. I think it's reasonable to assume that readers could be divided into camps of the confused and clearheaded, and I think that is the rub. I do think I tend to subscribe more to the Hemingway style of keeping things short and sweet though. Might also be my journalism background.
 * Can I also just say, this has been a fantastic community interaction? So often when disagreements happen online (including on Wikipedia, if that Signpost article is any indication) they turn nasty. It's nice to have a conversation where people can just talk turkey without the anger, even if they debate over who gets the last drumstick. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William D. Hoard
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William D. Hoard 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 Lightburst -- Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello M4V3R1CK32. I have enjoyed reviewing your article. Please check at the nomination to see items that need attention. I think we can wrap this up in the next day or so. Any questions ping me . And if you complete the items at the review also . Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William D. Hoard
The article William D. Hoard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William D. Hoard for comments about the article, and Talk:William D. Hoard/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 Lightburst -- Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for William D. Hoard
I am very active at DYK and I think you might consider nominating the article to be featured on the main page. If you do not know how to do it I can nominate it for you. I am thinking something about his being called the father of modern dairying like. We can also explore other hooks - but it is a great way to have thousands of people see your article. What do you think? Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ALT0: ... that the Los Angeles Times called William D. Hoard "the father of modern dairying"?
 * I will put one together because I have an extra QPQ. You will be credited and can comment in the nomination or offer other hooks. In see that you have participated there before. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about doing pretty much that exact hook! You're more than welcome to spearhead that one. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok perfect. We will have other great editors looking it over and any other details will be caught. There are some smart and diligent folks in DYK. Template:Did you know nominations/William D. Hoard Lightburst (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's true! Writing any kind of hook has never been my strong suit. Excited to see if folks come up with any alternatives! Thanks for putting the nom together. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for William D. Hoard
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the August 2023 GAN backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#98FB98; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> Hello M4V3R1CK32:

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

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

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

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Luke Cissell/popmatters
Hi M4V3R1CK32, I noticed in your review you stated you were not sure about popmatters being RS but it is. I suggest installing User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js which highlights sources green/orange/red based on WP:RSP or Wikiproject documentation. Of course this does not mean a "green lit" source contributes to notability but it is helpful. I also reference WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for music topics. In addition, feel free to post questions or get second opinions if you are unsure about something at the WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. S0091 (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the note! I thought I had removed Popmatters from that note but I guess not. I have a lot of tabs open when doing reviews. I will be more careful in the future, and will definitely look at that list when reviewing music drafts! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A. J. Smith (American football, born 1989)
Can you please help and make the article pass guidelines? Even if you have to delete anything that doesn't work. AJ was all over ESPN and ABC national television this year and a face of the XFL there has to be a way to get him on wikipedia so he can match with the XFL Roughnecks page. You can see interviews and commercials on YouTube from ESPNs account and there are many articles online about him I just don't know how to make it work for WP. 2600:1700:5970:1190:DD7B:4426:5713:35FB (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No, sorry. I don't have the time nor desire to work on that draft. There is no requirement that Smith's article match the Roughnecks article. Both have to be independently notable.
 * I can give you some suggestions:
 * You seem to have a WP:COI given your strong interest in this draft. If that is the case and you are being paid by Smith/anyone/any organization, you are required to disclose it by Wikipedia's Terms of Service. I suggest registering an account and disclosing the COI. Even if you don't have a COI, registering an account will make it easier for other editors to contact you and will give you access to a sandbox where you can continue to work on the draft.
 * Carefully read WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NSPORTS, particularly WP:SPORTCRIT for rules on writing biographies of living people and sports people in particular
 * Carefully read WP:RS. All biographies of living persons must be supported by sources that meet WP:RS. In general for a topic like Smith, that will mean established media organizations (local/national news) of general interest that have a byline, a corrections/editorial policy, and reputation for accuracy/fact-checking. KTAL, ESPN, Fox Sports, Bally Sports, and similar outlets would all work. Local newspapers like the Houston Chronicle would also work. For a more complete list, check out WP:RS/P. Random sports websites and XFL fansites are not acceptable sources for articles about living persons. The byline bit is especially important, because if a source doesn't have a byline, it's most likely a press release and does not contribute to notability.
 * To show a subject is notable, you have to show there is WP:SIGCOV of the subject. This means there are sources about Smith that discuss him, specifically, in depth. Sources that quote Smith or mention him in passing (e.g. "A.J. Smith, offensive coordinator for the Roughnecks, developed a VR headset..."), or which mention him in relation to the outcome of a game (i.e. routine coverage) do not demonstrate his notability. The source has to be about him, or at the very least, a significant portion has to be about him.
 * Interviews do not contribute to notability. They are considered WP:PRIMARY. Commericals do not contribute to notability in any capacity and are not an acceptable source on Wikipedia.
 * The XFL is young, and Smith is still early in his career. Wikipedia has strict rules related to articles about living people for a reason (libel/defamation, mostly) and has strict sourcing requirements to protect both Wikipedia and the subject of the article. If he continues to be successful, there will be more coverage about him. Right now, it's probably WP:TOOSOON.
 * I hope that's somewhat helpful, it's all I can offer right now. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

UGRC rejection
Hello M4V3R1CK32, I'd like to debate your rejection reasons. The repeated declines are more indicative of my first time submission errors much more than sufficient notability. The new sources do increase notability and they mention the agency name, AGRC, which the article describes the name change in 2021.

I would appreciate if you would ignore the repeated rejections since they are from my misguided journey into wikipedia and take a fresh look at the submission knowing that AGRC was the original name which make the press releases much more relevant. Icsteveoh (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll do my best to respond to you with kindness, since I can appreciate the challenges of getting started on Wikipedia.
 * First of all, your edit history indicates your account has been made for a single purpose, to create an article about the UGRC. Please carefully review our rules for editors with a conflict of interest (a simplified version is also available). Long story short, whether you're personally involved with the UGRC and want to do this for the organization you work for or are being paid by the UGRC directly to try to get an article created, you must dislose your conflict of interest (COI). Please review that policy, and make any appropriate disclosures. If you do have a COI and do not disclose it, that is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use.
 * Secondly, I'd suggest you take a look at the general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for organizations. It is plain that the drafts you have submitted do not demonstrate the UGRC meets the notability guidelines.
 * On to "debating" my reasons for rejection. There isn't really anything to debate. Repeated submissions have shown time and again that the UGRC/AGRC is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You say it's more an issues of first-time submission errors, but it's actually an issue of not taking the time to understand and learn Wikipedia's rules for creating articles. The bar for an article to be created is demonstrated notability, and you show notability by showing third-party sources discuss the topic of interest in depth. Your drafts don't do that. The problem boils down to sourcing.
 * You have 19 sources in your draft. Of those 19, 14 are primary sources, either press releases (Deseret News article 1, and article 2) or are from the Utah government or ESRI. Independent sources are required to demonstrate notability, and as stated by the notability guidelines, "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Right off the bat, the sourcing doesn't demonstrate the subject is notable at first glance.
 * For the five remaining sources, you say they mention the AGRC and make the press releases more relevant. First, the relevancy of the press releases was never in question, it is the fact that they are press releases that is the problem. As stated in the preceding paragraph, press releases do not contribute to a subject's notability.
 * Regarding the mentions of the AGRC/UGRC, that is also not enough to demonstrate notability. Drafts must show significant coverage, that is, they must show that the subject has been the focus of a independent source, not just mentioned in passing. For the five sources not press releases:
 * KSL Only passing mention of the words of the director of the AGRC: "said Bert Granberg, director of Utah's Automated Geographic Reference Center."
 * This article is not about the AGRC and does not demonstrate significant coverage or contribute to notability.
 * Deseret News Only passing mention again: "Last week Whittaker received some help from a crew with the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center. Whittaker teamed up with geographer Rick Kelson to map the old Bullion-Cottonwood Loop, a rugged mining and logging road that winds past popular Miner's Park to spacious vistas overlooking Marysvale."
 * I might be inclined to be generous and try to pull together a few disparate details in the article, but doing so runs into problems of the synthesis and original research, which is a policy violation.
 * KSL Absolutely no mention anywhere of the UGRC or AGRC in the article body.
 * Image credits to the AGRC do not contribute in any way to notability.
 * ABC 4 Passing mention: "The site was created in partnership with the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center and the Unclaimed Property Division. Residents can use the tool to search unclaimed property data by census tract, county, senate district and house district."
 * This article is not about the AGRC and does not demonstrate significant coverage or contribute to notability.
 * Deseret News Passing mention: "Partners in the program include GOED, Rocky Mountain Power, GIS Planning Inc. and the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center."
 * This article is not about the AGRC and does not demonstrate significant coverage or contribute to notability.
 * So you've got maybe one independent source that kind of shows notability. The rest plainly don't. That is the issue here, and searches for the UGRC/AGRC don't turn up the kind of sources we need to show notability. Repeated submissions have not included sources that show the subject is notable, and in fact show the opposite, hence the rejection of this draft.
 * I know that's disappointing, but hopefully you find this response somewhat informative. Cheers. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)