User talk:SecretName101/Archives/Archive 7

Illinois gubernatorial elections
Regarding your points, I moved the information to the separate pages and left a link on the main pages, so there should be no issue of duplication now. Other states seem to have gubernatorial election articles separately, so I left a note saying main page on the general articles. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

But my main point was that there is no reason for a second article to exist. If all the content can be perfectly presented in the main article about that year's elections in Illinois, what is the need for a spun-off article about the gubernatorial election? SecretName101 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did it to be consistent with other states' articles for gubernatorial elections. Furthermore, gubernatorial election articles tend to be longer. I added a little more info to those pages. The Senate election articles are similarity separate. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It would have been "consistent" with most mayoral elections to have had independent mayoral election articles for those in Philadelphia from 1951 through 1963, but instead we included them as a section of 1951 Philadelphia municipal election, 1955 Philadelphia municipal election, 1959 Philadelphia municipal election, 1963 Philadelphia municipal election. Most cities don't have comprehensive articles for their municipal elections in most years, and that is why the mayoral elections are often standalone articles. Philadelphia did for these years. It didn't make sense for the mayoral elections to be spun-off, as they fit comfortably within those articles. Likewise, most states don't have comprehensive articles on their states elections for all years, often because that election data is difficult to find. Illinois does for many of its years. For some of those years, I'd argue that there is just no justifying having standalone elections for their gubernatorial elections.And the Senate elections are separate because, even normally, we have not include infoboxes and election boxes for federal races in the main articles about Illinois elections. So, already, the senate articles would not fit comfortably within the main articles. SecretName101 (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the issue, I notice that many states have both general articles detailing all the elections held in that year, plus standalone articles for the major elections. For example, Alabama has both 2018 Alabama elections and 2018 Alabama gubernatorial election, Virginia has both 2017 Virginia elections and 2017 Virginia gubernatorial election, New Mexico has both 2014 New Mexico elections and 2014 New Mexico gubernatorial election. Mainly it seems to be a brief summary on the overall election pages and detailed results on the separate page. The information regarding the gubernatorial elections seems like it's long enough to warrant a separate page. 73.110.217.186 (talk) SecretName101 (talk)00:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, but those gubernatorial election articles are far more extensive (including polling data, endorsements, etc.) and would not comfortably fit in the main article of their state's election. That is where it makes sense to be spun-off. SecretName101 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding Illinois' pages it seems that all the elections from 1956 onwards have separate articles for such things, so I'm not sure where such a cut-off would be, since none of the election articles prior to 1994 Illinois gubernatorial election have polling data or endorsements.73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And those, at a bare minimum, include a section describing the turnout in the primary and the general, if not more additional info. And that BARELY makes the cut. For all elections before then, we simply do not even have the data on the primary election turnout. Trust me, as someone fascinated by Adlai Stevenson, I would love a spun-off 1948 Illinois gubernatorial election article, but cannot justify one in its current state. SecretName101 (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should be brought up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums? Edit: Brought it up on talk page. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for bringing this back up, but could such articles have background information from the articles for the candidates added to warrant a separate article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Depends. For instance, the Democratic primary subsection of the 1936 race in 1936 Illinois elections has some background on who Herman Bundesen was and why he ran, but it is not excessive enough to justify spinning-it-off into its own article. Should depend whether it can comfortably mesh into the main article on the Illinois elections or not. SecretName101 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If you can add the information without spinning-it-off, then probably don't spin it off, essentially. SecretName101 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also remember the lutenient gov election was a completely separate election until 1972. So, especially when a main article on Illinois elections exists, it is preferable not to combine it into the gubernatorial election article like was previously done. SecretName101 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Dill Robertson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1948 Illinois gubernatorial election
Hello! Your submission of 1948 Illinois gubernatorial election 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 as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Herman Bundesen
Hello! Your submission of Herman Bundesen 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 as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, we just had an edit conflict. Kindly add back the information you wanted to add. BTW, you are adding too many common links, and many that you're adding are redirecting (e.g. Epidemiologist → Epidemiology. Yoninah (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, the redirecting is not a problem. You aren't supposed to unnecessarily pipe if a redirect exists. SecretName101 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to that rule? You also have pages redirecting to this one. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Piped link, "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects". Learned this rule within the last year myself. SecretName101 (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But the examples they're giving there and at MOS:PIPE don't speak about the epidemiologist/epidemiology link above, just examples like Mozart. Nevertheless, I appreciate your letting me know. Yoninah (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Of course they aren't going to cover every possible pipe. Those are just examples, and epidemiologist/epidemiology is similar to those examples. And the rule is that it is not good practice to "pipe links simply to avoid redirects". This is an instance of that. SecretName101 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Going to remind you about newspapers.com because the articles you write seem like a real hand-in-glove fit for it. Nearly two years ago, I was told about WP:TWL at DYK, and it resulted in me writing more articles than ever in my topic area of broadcasting. You should apply for access. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Diversey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Herman Bundesen
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 1930 United States Senate election in Illinois
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of 2018 Virginia Beach mayoral special election for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 Virginia Beach mayoral special election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2018 Virginia Beach mayoral special election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  02:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg 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 Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg
The article Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg 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 Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Special Relationship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 1948 Illinois gubernatorial election
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Netroots Nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Bullock.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1992 Irvine mayoral election


The article 1992 Irvine mayoral election has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:EVENT; no sign of any enduring or non-routine coverage."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mayoral elections in Garland, Texas


A tag has been placed on Category:Mayoral elections in Garland, Texas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1998 controversies in the United States


A tag has been placed on Category:1998 controversies in the United States requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1990 Irvine mayoral election


The article 1990 Irvine mayoral election has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No sign of substantial lasting coverage sufficient to meet WP:EVENT."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review
I'm not sure why you didn't get the Legobot notification, but I'm working on the GA review at Talk:Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg/GA2 right now.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg
The article Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg 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:Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bait30 -- Bait30 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson
Hello! Your submission of Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson 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 as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cbl62 (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

what is ur name
Thedefender35 20:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

come on let a bro in on the secret :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedefender35 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Query
Can I email you? No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. SecretName101 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I can't see your email link from user tools, but you coukd send a test email to me I guess. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

For some reason I hadn't had the setting enabling it on (which is odd, because I could have sworn it was on before). It's on now. SecretName101 (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of 2018 Chesapeake mayoral special election for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 Chesapeake mayoral special election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2018 Chesapeake mayoral special election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mayoral elections in Tacoma, Washington


A tag has been placed on Category:Mayoral elections in Tacoma, Washington requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 17:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2017 Vermont elections


A tag has been placed on Category:2017 Vermont elections requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mayoral elections in Chesapeake, Virginia


A tag has been placed on Category:Mayoral elections in Chesapeake, Virginia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mayoral elections in Rutland, Vermont


A tag has been placed on Category:Mayoral elections in Rutland, Vermont requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Samuel Nolan (law enforcement officer)
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Samuel Nolan (law enforcement officer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 California gubernatorial recall election, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages California's 17th district and California's 45th district.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mayoral elections in Springfield, Massachusetts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frontrunner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Herb Schumann
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Herb Schumann, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016 Democratic National Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memphis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Super Bowl XXIII halftime show
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Super Bowl XXIII halftime show, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Bill Richardson has been nominated for deletion
Category:Bill Richardson 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. User:Namiba 17:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Al Gore 2000 presidential campaign
 * added a link pointing to John Sweeney
 * Presidential transition of Jimmy Carter
 * added a link pointing to Jack Watson

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Barbour Bryan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Barbour Bryan 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Barbour Bryan
The article Thomas Barbour Bryan 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:Thomas Barbour Bryan for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Barbour Bryan
The article Thomas Barbour Bryan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Barbour Bryan 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2015 Knoxville mayoral election


The article 2015 Knoxville mayoral election has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NEVENT; doesn't appear to have received enduring or widespread coverage. Mayoral elections in medium-sized municipalities aren't presumptively notable, and this one doesn't appear to have been of any wider significance."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Dewey Defeats Truman
 * added a link pointing to Doug Jones
 * Presidential transition of Franklin D. Roosevelt
 * added a link pointing to Lame duck

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Your changes to endorsement list on 2021 New York City mayoral election
Could you please share where you are getting your information re: how to list endorsements? And also please share why you only "improved" the list for one candidate instead of making consistent changes in the rest of the article, if what you say is true. Thank you. Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Past practice and experience with other articles is where I am being informed. See 2018 California gubernatorial election as an example. They list ex-officio officeholders by virtue of the office once held. Also see List of Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. While that one does make a difference between former and current office holders (due to the list being long enough), they do not list former officeholders as "notable individuals", but rather list them by virtue of the office they previously held. I'm in the process of fixing other candidates now that I noticed it is a problem in other candidates' lists as well. SecretName101 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You may want to have a look at 2021 New York City borough president elections and other current elections in NY, as they conform to how the mayoral election listed endorsements before your changes. Imo, someone no longer holding a public office significantly changes the quality of their endorsement, so mixing them with current officials is poor form. Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Imo, someone no longer holding a public office significantly changes the quality of their endorsement,". Really If Obama and Biden both endorsed someone, why would we relegate Obama to "individual" but list Biden as "executive branch official"? Is Obama's endorsement really weakened by the fact he served his full two terms, and is therefore no longer in office? SecretName101 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this before. I think you're using extreme cases to prove your point. (And fwiw, I think it does make a HUGE difference whether Obama endorses someone while in office vs. while outside of office. You might be confusing office with celebrity, and celebrities go to the "Individuals" pile.) Regardless, I cleaned up the rest of the endorsements to match your suggested style, so thanks for bringing that to our attention, so that we can at least be consistent, no matter what my personal opinions on the matter are. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidencies of Grover Cleveland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Foster.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Presidential transition of Franklin D. Roosevelt
Hello! Your submission of Presidential transition of Franklin D. Roosevelt 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 as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Mueller (mayor)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Mueller (mayor) 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 Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Mueller (mayor)
The article James Mueller (mayor) 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:James Mueller (mayor) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Presidential transition of Richard Nixon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Presidential transition of Richard Nixon 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 JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pete Buttigieg
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pete Buttigieg 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 FredModulars -- FredModulars (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samuel W. Allerton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cable car.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Madison Nguyen, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy 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 Muboshgu -- Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

RE: Mayoral elections in Manchester, New Hampshire
Unless you did it by design, you may want to consider removing the previous election, previous year, next election, and next year, parameters from the infoboxes since it would link to the section literally right above or right below. I'm assuming these are just skeletons from page mergers. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy
The article Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy 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:Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Muboshgu -- Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pete Buttigieg
The article Pete Buttigieg 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:Pete Buttigieg for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FredModulars -- FredModulars (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Presidential transition of Franklin D. Roosevelt
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pete Buttigieg
The article Pete Buttigieg you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pete Buttigieg 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 Legobot, on behalf of FredModulars -- FredModulars (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg
Hello. You have not edited Pete Buttigieg for a month, and the GA nomination page seems to have gone under your nose. I pinged you six days ago, but you seem not to have got it or the three talk page messages from the bot. I stopped reviewing the article (I didn't have more sections, the rest seemed fine at first impression) and have failed the nomination. I feel you never got all the messages sent. I don't want you to have a failed nomination, but I had no choice and wasn't sure you would see this. This is just to advise you about the failed nomination. I hope this message finds you better than the bot. I wish you good luck if you hope to nominate it again. FredModulars (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frontrunner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Mueller (mayor)
This message is to ensure that you saw the follow-up comments for the GAN of James Mueller (mayor). If you are interested in continuing to work on the article, please leave a note in its GAN. If there is not a response in a couple of days I will go ahead and fail it, and it can be renominated once the concerns are addressed. Let me know if there are any questions, or if you would like to withdraw this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mayoral elections in South Bend, Indiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page At large.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy
The article Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy 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 Legobot, on behalf of Muboshgu -- Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Mueller (mayor)
The article James Mueller (mayor) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:James Mueller (mayor) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carter Harrison Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Presidential transition of Richard Nixon
The article Presidential transition of Richard Nixon 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:Presidential transition of Richard Nixon for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Seattle mayoral election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Young Democrats.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5
 Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 13:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for William McAndrew (educator)
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please check my fix to the lede, from
 * , who had nine months left before his contract as superintendent.
 * to
 * , who had nine months left before his contract as superintendent expired.


 * Other possibilities would be as similar to existing text:
 * At the time, McAndrew still had nine months left in his contract as superintendent.
 * or
 * McAndrew's contract as superintendent expired January 9, 1928, and was not renewed.
 * Shenme (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, in the quote by Counts, I have a great doubt regarding:
 * "... the cloud of aspersion you permit to remain upon you best teachers that ..."
 * Could check that that should be "your best teachers"? Shenme (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you so much. SecretName101 (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Presidential transition of Richard Nixon
The article Presidential transition of Richard Nixon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Presidential transition of Richard Nixon 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 JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Cook County Board of Review 1st district for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cook County Board of Review 1st district is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cook County Board of Review 1st district until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edge3 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrea Campbell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Walsh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Distance education in Chicago Public Schools in 1937
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2652 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. SecretName101 (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Michelle Wu. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.   Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

"derisive name calling"
Where did you get that from? Are you imagining things? I just used your name. Either explain, with evidence, or retract--wait, you can't do that: it's in an edit summary, which is really the wrong place to insult other editors. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

you called me Secret “Money”. Don’t play stupid about it now. SecretName101 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, I see that now--sorry, that was not on purpose. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * even though it felt on purpose, I am willing to believe you either did not mean to (or, if you did. That you may have come to regret it, and had acted impulsively in doing so). Thank you for your apology. SecretName101 (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I had no intention of butchering your name: I find that to be very childish. But as an admin I have some powers, and I think this might be a case of IAR: I'll scrap my unintentional but painful mistyping, and your edit summary which would draw attention to it. OK? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW I don't want to claim that you are getting paid or whatever by Wu--there's no way to prove that anyway--but I do believe you are not neutral on that article. COI doesn't mean getting paid--it simply means that some personal or other interest stands in the way of objective editing. I also never claimed that you had been whitewashing the article: your edits are really the opposite, an UNDUE presentation of positive things disguised as facts. These differences may seem hypothetical to you but they are not--one doesn't need to be sweeping things under the rug. The best-faith assumption that I can make here is not that you are setting out with some evil mind to make things disappear, but rather that you are editing the article with an overdose of positive zeal. And the Buttigieg article, which indeed ought to be a lot shorter, shows that you have a tendency to go overboard on the detail. Problem with Wu is that you use her campaign material to create that detail. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Barros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Felix Arroyo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2014 Oakland mayoral election vote count by round
Template:2014 Oakland mayoral election vote count by round has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Marty Walsh (politician)
 * added a link pointing to City Hall Plaza
 * Tito Jackson (politician)
 * added a link pointing to Franklin Park

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

== I don't know who you are, but I believe you are being paid to ruin my life. I have done so much good for so many. My businesses have grossed over 100 Million dollars. I have donated over $500,000.00 to charity. ==

I have no idea why you are trying to ruin my life. It was 1985. It was only an $8,000.00 car loan, Joe Biden came after me with The U.S. Department of Justice, after a bitter divorce trial. It is all you have added. I have done so much good for so many. Look me up on YouTube. Bill Stevenson / Jill Biden "The List". It is only 4.12 long. My 19 year old "gay" granddaughter cried when she read my Wiki Page. I am worth millions, and will spend that money to get you kicked off this site. You are a horrible person, with an agenda you "Biden Family Groupie . I feel sad for you. Please leave me alone . Bill Stevenson lll DelawareFacts (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you really are Bill Stevenson, but I had no agenda in publishing the article on Bill Stevenson. I published what verifiable facts I could find. If there are other notable stuff, such as business efforts you have been engaged in, that I might be able to find verifiable information on, I would be able to add coverage of such information to the article, so long as it is verifiable and balanced.


 * However, it is unacceptable for you to be threatening me in such a manner. Nothing I have written is factually wrong. It was all well within Wikipedia’s policies, so I am not sure how you’d get me kicked off of Wikipedia.


 * The article includes factual information, including positive aspects, such as Stevenson (apparently you) being in the state Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and the nightclub having been a leading nightclub.


 * I am also not interested in any conspiratorial allegations.


 * SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101...I am not a public figure. You are calling me a "Fraudster" in the first sentence. I have a life of 52 years in business in Delaware, and have employed over 2,100 people. I have written a very successful book. There is not one other "business person" you have covered. 1. Say it was an $8,000.00 car loan. You have all the facts wrong in regard to my brother. He did not own one share of stock in The Stone Balloon. I was the only owner. 2. I bought the land and the business on the same day...8 August 1971...just me, not with my brother. 3. I was born in 1948, how can you get that wrong. 3. I am going into Federal Court to have you removed from my Wikipedia. 4. I see the company your are "working for", I will contact them through my lawyers. 4. Like I said, you are a "Biden Family Groupie". 5 I was named One of the 50 Most Influential People in Delaware, Over the last 50 Years, by Delaware Today Magazine in March 2012, but that is positive, so you ignore. I plan to hire a senior editor at Wiki to add this positive information. Tell me one thing, Why me if you don't have an agenda. Trust me, I will spend whatever I have to spend to correct this wrong you have created. YOU in fact are a real FRAUDSTER, I am a Delaware Businessman and Inventor. Stay tuned. DelawareFacts (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. clpo13(talk) 17:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Richard Siebel
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Richard Siebel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

McAuliffe
I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that this fact-check doesn't warrant inclusion. It has coverage from the two largest fact-checkers in the US (PolitiFact and WaPo) and both of them have fact-checked it multiple times to the point (at least four times) that other reputable outlets like The Hill have picked up on it. Both of them have given it their maximum score--so there's no disputing it's patently false, and yet he keeps on repeating it. They even state he should know better. I watched the debate this year, and he repeated it again. I felt like it didn't add up and looked it up. Wikipedia is supposed to be about informing people, and when a politician says things that are demonstrable false and keeps on repeating it there should be a level of accountability, which multiple reputable sources have done so. This isn't a standard false statement or a one-off fact-check. There are at least four times that they're done a write-up. You'd have a point if this was a one-off, politicians say false things all the time, but not including something a politician that's falsely stating something that has this level of coverage is negligent. By your own admission not every fact-check warrants inclusion, which I agree with, but this is the most fact-checked thing he's said and one of the most fact-checked statements from a governor or past governor in recent memory. If any fact-check should be included, it would be this one. As I said, it's garnered mainstream coverage outside of the two big fact-checkers, and they're covering it multiple times giving how absurd the statement is. If this isn't included, then basically you're arguing Wikipedia should exclude all fact-checks, regardless if they've been fact-checked multiple times and received outside coverage. Because what fact-check would be included in a campaign section if not this one? I wouldn't be spending my Sunday writing this up if I didn't think it was important, nor would I have added additional sourcing to demonstrate its relevance. I strongly believe in balance, but I honestly don't see an objective point in keeping it out. I convinced another user for its inclusion User:PerpetuityGrat. I put a more neutral line into the article as a compromise and I hope you're willing to accept it. If you revert that version, I won't revert it back but I'll look at getting more feedback and continue this discussion. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Politicians get fact-checked all the time, often by multiple outlets. If we included every fact-checked false statement of Donald Trump, for instance, in his Wikipedia article, it'd be obscenely lengthy and off-topic. SecretName101 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi - given the concerns outlined at Threats being made to me about an article you created recently, I have revoked your autopatrolled user right. This will not affect your ability to edit in any way - it just means that articles you create will go into the WP:NPP queue for review in future. You can request reinstatement of this right at WP:PERM, but I'd ask that if and when you do so, you provide a link to the AN discussion to assist the reviewing admin. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  05:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite topic ban

 * Moved from my talk page. El_C 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Can they be lifted without an appeals, or is that the only route for an editor to ever have one lifted? That is not clear to me. SecretName101 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, what does mine entirely cover? For instance, are articles on ongoing elections off-hands to me as well? SecretName101 (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, an appeal is required for the sanction to be rescinded. Not sure how to answer your question about what it covers beyond what's noted in the template above: edits concerning living and recently deceased persons. I can't really answer that 'elections' hypothetical without knowing about the edits in question, but I would expect that it'd be challenging to contribute to pages about ongoing elections without running afoul of the sanction. El_C 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As the 'lone' fellow who supported keeping said-article. I hope your appeal will be successful. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

My indefinite topic ban

 * Moved from my talk page. El_C 21:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that it was not wise to directly move what was a negative-leaning article on a marginally-notable individual out of the draft space.

I recognize that would have been wiser to leave it as a draft in that state, or go through the articles-for-creation review process for feedback.

The article was negative-leaning not by intent or vendetta, but by virtue of what information I found.

As for mentioning his fraud convictions in the lead of that article, I wrongly thought it was practice to mention past convictions in a lead section (or even lead sentence), as articles like Rod Blagojevich, Chuck Turner, B. Joseph Tully, James A. Kelly Jr., Dennis Hastert, Buddy Cianci,, and many many others do. But I can see how this might not be best-practice to do for all articles, or most.

I do not write with intentional bias. For instance, when creating articles on Pete Buttigieg, my feelings towards him can best be described as mixed, if not negative. Yet I was the primary author of the “good articles” Pete Buttigieg, Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg, 2011 South Bend mayoral election, and 2015 South Bend mayoral election, all of which pertain to the man. I also am not a big fan of Marty Walsh, yet recently elevated his article from a crappy “start class” article to a balanced “b-class” article.

I made a slip-up with that article. I would appreciate it if my topic ban could be revised to a limited-period ban; rather than an indefinite one. I did not intend to cause any harm, and have learned to be wiser about articles such as that. SecretName101 (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've got to suggest that anyone unable to distinguish between articles concerning senior political figures found guilty of public corruption or similar offences while in office, and one on a non-public figure of highly-disputable 'notability' receiving suspended sentences over relatively minor financial charges approaching forty years ago should in no way be permitted to permit biographies of living persons. More so after giving such an unconvincing account of why the biography in question was created in the first place. And as I noted over at WP:AN, I think there are legitimate grounds to question SecretName101's other editing habits. In my opinion, any revision of the topic ban would be inappropriate without prior scrutiny of SecretName101's broader contribution history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * SecretName101, I rarely if ever impose non-indef TBANs anymore since I found that too often users would just wait out the sanction. Unfortunately, your realizations have come after the sanction, but as mentioned, before which I found your explanations to have been subpar. The best path to getting the sanction successfully appealed would be to edit productively in other areas for, say, 6 months, doing so unproblematically, both overall and wrt to the adhering to the sanction.
 * And no shortage of interesting work to do there. For example, last week I finished Mike Duncan's The Storm Before the Storm: The Beginning of the End of the Roman Republic and now I'm halfway through Matthew Kneale's Rome: A History in Seven Sackings (both really good). Which made me notice the extent of some of the gaps we have in Roman history (Republic, Empire, Papacy, etc.). Or, a few months ago, I authored a bunch of pages on preeminent Israeli poets, most of whom long deceased. Just two examples that non-randomly come to mind.
 * So that would be a way of beginning to regain the community's trust again. Above, AndyTheGrump says that any revision of the topic ban would be inappropriate without prior scrutiny of [your] broader contribution history and he's not wrong. But I don't know that I'd be able to spare the time do so myself. Therefore, at this time, I prefer leaving an appeal to others: to the community (at WP:AN) or to a quorum of uninvolved admins (at WP:AE) or to the Committee itself (at WP:ARCA). Hope that makes sense. El_C 21:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "anyone unable to distinguish....should in no way be permitted to permit biographies of living persons" I have a learning difference. To me, it sound like you are saying that anyone who has occasional deficit should never be allowed to make any slip-up on this project, no matter the positive contributions they have made. Thanks for that. SecretName101 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SecretName101, I did not read that as related in any way to persons who are neurodivergent. And while I can't speak for AndyTheGrump, I'd wager that, like me, he would not consider that being an impediment to living up to the core tenets of the BLP policy (because that would be dumb). El_C 21:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You read it wrong then. The instance that everyone should be able to immediately recognize the same patterns and make the same connections without failure is an incredibly nuerotypical-centric mindset, that outright minimized the experiences and challenges of neurodivergent individuals. I make most connections that others do, but can fail on occasion. To assume that I am somehow incompetent because of that, as they outright implied, disgusts and dehumanizes me. SecretName101 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SecretName10, I don't see where AndyTheGrump assumed you're somehow incompetent because of that. To me it just looks like you spliced that passage without addressing what it actually said (i.e. distinguishing what). Though, granted, permitted to permit biographies of living persons is a bit of a nonsense sentence, so it flowed poorly for me. El_C 08:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I intended to write 'permitted to edit'. As for the rest of this conversation, I'll first state that I object strongly to implications that I have an 'incredibly nuerotypical-centric mindset', for multiple reasons. Beyond that, I judged SecretName101's fitness to edit on the evidence available. Evidence that suggests that SecretName101 is entirely capable of understanding the intricacies of Wikipedia policy most of the time, and of making entirely cogent arguments based around it. I don't actually believe that SecretName101 is incapable of distinguishing between the articles listed above and the Stevenson biography. I believe that SecretName101 is fully capable of telling the difference, but chose not to. In practice, however, it makes little odds. Mess up like that, for whatever reasons, and you need to convince people you won't do it again. And you can't do that by accusing someone (about whom you know nothing) of 'dehumanizing' you because they judged you by the same standards as they would judge anyone else, on the evidence available at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, while it is not your intent, you insistence that a chose to fail to make that connection debases me, and prescribes nefarious intent to my actions. Which is what I have been trying to (truthfully) deny this whole time. I have not at all been denying that I messed up, but have been trying to refute others' who have been constantly trying to imply that I acted nefariously in creating that article. Which is why I am so frustrated about this. From what I understood, nobody earlier had been asking me to admit I had messed up period (which I would have willingly admitted). I understood them to instead be asking me to admit to some nefarious intentions that I never had. SecretName101 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And you indeed have admitted you were prying in an effort to get me to (falsely) admit to some sort of nefarious intentions. SecretName101 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ping as well. SecretName101 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't 'admitted' to anything other than to looking into your broader editing habits. Which is an entirely appropriate thing to do under such circumstances. You yourself seem to think it is relevant, since you have suggested above that it should be taken into consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You most certainly admitted to that. "To avoid any doubt, I will state outright that I am accusing you of ill-intent in your creation of the Stevenson biography" SecretName101 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You accused me of "prying in an effort to get me to (falsely) admit to some sort of nefarious intentions". Nope, that isn't an admission to prying. It is an outright statement that I believed your actions in regard to the Stevenson article were motivated by ill-intent, in response to your post, immediately above mine, where you suggested that it "feels like" you were being accused of such ill-intent. A position I still hold, when taking into consideration your obvious capabilities editing elsewhere. I simply don't consider it credible that someone with your broad experience on Wikipedia should be so utterly unaware of the basic tenets of core policy as to think the Stevenson bio even remotely appropriate. And if it is really true that someone can be as deeply involved in the project as you have been, and not get to understand what WP:BLP is all about, the project is deeply flawed, in the most fundamental ways. I've been a critic of Wikipedia's lack of care with regard to content concerning living persons for some time, but I never thought it was quite that bad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The Stevenson article is now a redirect & (If I'm correct), SN101's page creation ban is lifted. Best to move on. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What 'page creation ban'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time, I did not think I was violating BLP. 1) From what I thought when I created it it was neutral in point-of-view (meaning there was no intentional effort made to skew the information one way of the other). I wrote only what I found verifiable information of on the subject. The fact it was negative was due to the information available on the subject largely having many negative stories. It was not due to any intentional effort to publish only the negatively skewed things. 2) It was verifiable. I used one source I regret, but that was not even for the content that was objected to. All the negative content about his violations of the law were well-sourced to reliable news publications. 3) there was zero original research. SecretName101 (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sources, beyond those published immediately after the event, discussed Stevenson's convictions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There was one, for instance, which I cited for the fact he blamed politics for his convictions. That was a pretty recent source. SecretName101 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Inside Edition piece? By my count, there are 805 words in the article, only 33 of which relate to the convictions. If that is the best evidence you have regarding "information available on the subject largely having many negative stories", I don't think you are going to convince anyone that you were looking for 'neutrality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

My evidence is the plethora of regional coverage of his convictions during a search of "newspapers.com". To ignore a chapter of someone's life entirely is whitewashing. SecretName101 (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I already have well admitted I was mistaken in publishing an article where that would appear overly-emphasized. What more do you want? I didn't mean any harm by it, so what else could possibly want from me. What are you trying to prove here? Are you so godly that you cannot allow others to have made a human mistake? SecretName101 (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * What do I want? Honesty would be a good start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been nothing but honest. You fail to believe me. It is a real jerk move to insist I "be honest" when that is all I have been. SecretName101 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If you don't like what I have to say, I suggest you stop asking me to respond. I've made my opinion perfectly clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Appeal
I feel you failed to give me a fair look/ judgement. It’s ironic you claim; I lack a focus on the “big picture”, when you mentioned just two (2) articles I edited and surmised them to represent the totality of the edits that I made this past month.

You are saying that I should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia BLP, in part, because you don’t think I did not name “enough” improvements to Austin’s article. I do not think I was ever under any obligation to make any and every possible improvement to Austin’s article. I simply made the improvements I saw needed after a cursory glance at the article. added his mayoral run, his tenure as county auditor, and looked to verify what existing unverified information I noticed. To look at a pretty full glass there (what I did were indeed improvements ) and surmise the glass is nearly empty is ludicrous. I wasn’t planning to spend much time on his article at the moment, nor  was  I ever obligated to have. The threshold to edit Wikipedia is not perfect all-comprehensive edits on every page you revise, so why should I be gatekept for not making “enough” of an improvement to that particular article?

And, with the 1969 Detroit election article, I used a journal article among other sources. With newspaper archives, I found information by searching pretty extensively using various search terms/ queries, limiting searches to different timeframes, etc. I did not simply look for the top search results and call it a day as you so dismissively implied I had.

And it feels ridiculous that you are calling such alarm to my use of newspapers. Since when are reputable newspapers to be frowned upon as sources?

Also, I too note wire services when applicable, so not sure why you are acting like I have been failing to do that. If you had taken a better glance at the reference section for the 1969 article, you would have noticed a great number of wire sources noted. Most of the citations, in fact, were wire sources, and that was noted in each applicable citation. Odd you made a point of saying that is proper practice, without taking note that I indeed had followed said practice. Contrarily, you made it seem that I fail to that.

I created more than 700 main space articles over more than a decade. Yet you feel fit to act as though I am a complete loose cannon due to a single article with a regrettable error in judgment.

SecretName101 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I know it's a blow to you, but your recent work since your topic ban (basically in November) is the basis for your appeal, not your entire body of work, and least of all the number of articles you've created. Everyone has different ways of working, and mine is so unusual (for example the breadth of my interests as reflected in my article creations and improvements, my tendency to make one big edit, and my use of foreign-language sources) that I tried to note in my statement that there was a big contrast in approach, and aspects of mine that might well annoy some. But having run into your editing recently shortly before you appealed based on "rather high quality" of some recent creations and "greatly enhanc[ing] a number of articles" on no longer living people, I felt I should respond because I disagreed that those edits suggested you had identified your problem that led to the topic ban and would not repeat it if your appeal succeeds and you go back to working on BLPs. It's not your use of newspapers.com that's a problem, and yes, I noted that you also had a NYT source, and I saw the JSTOR source, and of course I understand that many newspaper archive stories are from wire services (more in fact than are labeled as such on the pages). It's that you're not stepping back to consider the big picture, looking for other sources (and missing information, and sources for unsourced statements); whether this is recent or not, you're writing based on what spot news sources say, and overwhelmingly those preserved at that particular site, too (many major newspapers, including the NYT, are not archived at newspapers.com, or for that matter at google news' "newspapers" archive, and it often pays to search directly on the sites of a city's major paper(s)). I wouldn't care, but reflecting just what spot news archives turn up, and not even chasing down missing biographical details or looking for an article about the person's whole career, is problematic for BLPs—you're skewing what you write about toward sensationalism as well as making it more likely you'll fall afoul of BLP1EVENT or COATRACK. That's what appears to have happened with the article that got you into trouble. Not that you use newspapers.com per se, or even that you use it so much, but that your nose is too close to it. I'm afraid that from where I stand, it's a significant problem for your appeal of a topic ban on writing about living people that your article on the 1969 election does show more effort than your improvement of the Austin article; "I simply made the improvements I saw needed after a cursory glance" doesn't speak well to the care you'll take with BLPs, and that's what you're appealing about. No, you are not under an obligation. (And I'm glad you did some work on the Austin article, which was pretty derisory, and grateful for the newspapers.com refs.) But neither are other editors under an obligation to make sure your work is balanced, more than anybody else's work. You only gave one example of your recent work in your appeal, of a new creation that wasn't a biography; if the Austin article improvement was not representative of the caliber of your work over the last month, I suggest you make an addendum there and list examples of your biographical work that demonstrate you creating a well rounded, sensitive, and well referenced account of a person's life and work. You put forward the appeal; I opined based on what I happened to have seen of your work. (You may or may not also want to link to this at the appeal; I don't plan to edit there again, so I won't be noting this response/clarification.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My appeal is not centered on my edits being absolutely superb beyond fault. I take pride in some of what I've been able to do with such limited parameters. It saddens me that I am now apparently being negatively faulted for having used language that reflected that pride.


 * My appeal is centered largely on the fact that I, in good faith, have continued contributing positively the project. I was told that doing so would be the best means to demonstrate that I meant no harm, and do not pose a problem.


 * I now feel like I will forever be jumping through others' hoops here, only to be told in the end that I needed to jump even higher. I am doubting that anything I will do is good enough for y'all, which puts me in the position of feeling absolutely pushed out of a project I dedicated so much time and positive work to. It feels like I have been lied to when I was told all these years Wikipedia is both welcoming and doesn't jump to presume bad faith. Because I have been experiencing contrary treatment.


 * As you noticed about the 1969 article, I do not solely rely on newspapers.com archives when creating articles. It's not a problem with me that the NYT is not in the archives, I have a subscription to the NYT time machine so I can access their archives.


 * You should take into account that I am very limited in pretty much not being able to touch living subjects. Many topics that would be of any reasonable interest to me, even those not directly on BLP, are impossible to write a near-comprehensive article on without encroaching on living subjects. In fact, there are aspects I have had to avoid adding to certain articles because they strongly invoke living people (for example, details of one subject's campaign against a still-living figure).


 * During my topic ban some of the work I did included….
 * Editing Thomas Menino, I have been working on overhauling the organization/formatting of that article and adding missing key aspects of his career and mayoral tenure
 * Jane Byrne, been in the process of adding missing aspects of her mayoral tenure
 * Starting fixing Ella Flagg Young (which was in great need of love) using a variety of sources, including books, encyclopedias, news archives, journal articles. Had to return a book I was in the process of using to the library, so I’ve put it on pause until I can check that book out again.’
 * Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, spun off and expanded content to create a new article
 * Been working on a number of drafts about educators. One that was published was Benjamin Willis (educator). Also, while not perfect, was able to get Ted Kimbrough to publishable condition.
 * Worked to further flesh-out William McAndrew (educator)
 * Briefly resumed making some polishing to improve Joe Kernan (politician) (working to improve sourcing, reformatting the organization of some sections, and adding some missing content). Some edits I should make for it to be more comprehensive I cannot, they pertain to living subjects. That's put me off from any further edits.


 * I’d also urge you to look at some of the BLP work I had been doing pre topic-ban
 * Right before my topic ban, I had been in the process of improving Marty Walsh, which I massively expanded and improved. The article was in awful shape when I found it.
 * Past BLP and BLP-related articles I did heavy work on include the “good articles” Pete Buttigieg, Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg, 2011 South Bend mayoral election, 2015 South Bend mayoral election, and 2019 South Bend mayoral election.
 * Other past BLP and BLP-related articles I did heavy work on included Presidential transition of George W. Bush, Presidential transition of Bill Clinton, Presidential transition of Jimmy Carter Impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, Dick Simpson (politician), Super Bowl LIV halftime show (and many other halftime show articles), Mikhail Gorbachev 1996 presidential campaign. Another is Robert Shaw (Illinois politician) (he is now dead, but was not when I created his article).

SecretName101 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Put the info on the work since the topic ban at the appeal, on AN! Or at least a link back here. It's not me you need to convince. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But how can I do that? I already wrote my statement. I’m not allowed to write in the discussion section, am I? Would you mind linking back here for me in the discussion section. I don’t want to violate a procedure or anything SecretName101 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the rules that precludes you adding something to the end of your statement (though some would say that I am not the best person to give advice on bureaucratic procedures). has added several comments and responses in his section, plus he undoubtedly knows how this stuff is usually done, so I'm pinging him. Note, though, that I'm suggesting adding something at the end of your statement, not modifying what you previously put there that the admins have started responding to. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right, multiple comments may be added to one's own section, like I did. In fact, it's rare for there to be only one from the appellant. If it is a reply to someone, a ping is customary. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header caps the word limit for this appeal format to [...] not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator (bold in the original), but so long as it stays below 1,000 I usually don't mind. El_C 12:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Benjamin Willis (educator) has been accepted
 Benjamin Willis (educator), 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.

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=Benjamin_Willis_(educator) 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!  DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lee Miglin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rahm Emanuel series
Template:Rahm Emanuel series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Stanton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Michael Cassius McDonald
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Michael Cassius McDonald, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cook County Administration Building, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caisson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Cassius McDonald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faro.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William McAndrew (educator)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William McAndrew (educator) 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 Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William McAndrew (educator)
The article William McAndrew (educator) 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:William McAndrew (educator) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Update
Hello, and thank you for working on William McAndrew. You have definitely made an improvement. Please take a look at my review regarding rewriting the lead section and performing copyedits. I’m fairly certain that given those two things are addressed, we can move to closing the review and passing the article. I understand if you have other commitments or need more time. I can even provide help copyediting if you so require. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message in the review. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the review, can you re-read the lead section and consider revising it for readability per my suggestions given your splitting? A fresh lead rewrite is often necessary at this point. Please pay special attention to the last paragraph of the lead, as it contains far too much detail for a lead section. Please be mindful of granularity. We want to summarize the main parts of the article and avoid the minutiae in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re a champ, and you’re doing good work, but please don’t add more content unless you are removing content at the same time. There’s far too much detail and not enough generality.  While it is certainly fine to explore the detail in daughter articles, the primary biography should focus on generalities.  I realize that you’ve attempted to address this problem by splitting material out into new articles, and I thank you for that effort, but it needs to continue to generalize.  For example, it would be helpful if you could remove any extraneous detail from the trial section and continue to summarize and generalize. Further, any trivia and tangential forays should be moved to the daughter articles or deleted.  I know this is difficult for you, but a helpful way to think about this is to pretend you’re a reader who knows nothing about the subject.  How would you summarize best for them, and only touch upon the most important points? Just something to keep in mind.  Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources say McAndrew took an extended trip to Europe. Was this a significant event in his life?  Was it a sabbatical? Does the biography mention it?  Should it be in the personal life section? Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you saw my last ping on the review page, but in case you didn’t, I wanted to reiterate a few things. I am very interested in wrapping up the GA review.  The only thing preventing me from doing so right now, is a series of final copyedits.  I think it’s wise if you end the lead section with a summary note about his legacy, such as his accomplishments and influence, rather than sticking them inside the lead section towards the top.  It would also help if you had a separate legacy section, but that isn’t required.  Finally, I’m hoping that you do a final copyedit with a focus on constructing a coherent narrative beyond X occurred on Y date.  That doesn’t make for engaging or interesting prose. Instead of focusing on dates, focus on significant events and illustrating why they are important rather than when they occurred.  There are many ways to engage the reader without having to read about a specific date in each sentence.  One way to do this, is to focus on the date only once per paragraph or several paragraphs so the reader knows when such an event occurred.  But writing a biography with a focus on mentioning a day, month, and year in each sentence can be excessive. Sometimes, you only need to mention the month, other times you only need to mention the year.  It is unlikely that the reader needs an exact day for everything in the biography, and if they do, you can always add it to a footnote.  This is a stylistic concern, of course, but it helps to have fresh eyes and re-read the article while pretending you don’t know anything about it.  When you do that, you can see how one can tighten up the prose, construct a flowing narrative about McAndrew’s life, and avoid trivial tangents and meandering forays into the weeds.  At this point, it helps to consider removing and deleting what doesn’t belong and what doesn’t keep the narrative flowing. Thanks for your work, and I’m looking forward to your final copyedits so we can close this out. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Overcat
I really appreciate the work you're doing with categories on election articles. One thing, though -- I've been adding pages like 2020 Alaska elections to Category:Alaska elections by year. I noticed you reverted this per overcat but I think that's misguided -- it makes more sense to have all of these pages in one category, so you can navigate easily between election year pages. After all, that is the purpose of categories. If you'd like to make a subcategory simply for the election year pages, that would work too (and maintain these as set categories), but I do think having all of them in a category together is useful. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Educational Review
This journal is called Educational Review, not The Educational Review. It is unclear why it was moved to a new title. Please see the discussion I opened on Talk:The Educational Review. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories
Hello, SecretName101,

Please don't take action on categories that are part of a CfD discussion, such as this one, before the discussion is closed. It is disruptive to empty out categories that are in the process of being evaluated and discussed in a deletion discussion so please put any recategorization on the back burner until the CfD is closed. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I had moved one or two pages only because I was already fixing their errant lack of a key for organization. SecretName101 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 1974 Illinois ballot measures
Hello, SecretName101,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Arthistorian1977, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged 1974 Illinois ballot measures for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion] but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I had tagged it for speedy deletion a littlea go mayself. Accidentally blanked it afterwards. It was errantly created. SecretName101 (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:West Virginia Treasuer elections


A tag has been placed on Category:West Virginia Treasuer elections indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk  18:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Illinois elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William McAndrew (educator)
The article William McAndrew (educator) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William McAndrew (educator) 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 Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States presidential nominating convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Diego.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boris Yeltsin 1996 presidential campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Party of Russia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Julian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Asking El C to revisit my topic ban
, I hope you are well. It has been over five months since you put in place a topic ban on my account. I would like to appeal to you now to revisit the topic ban.

I would like to first apologize for any and all pain or damage poor judgement on my part brought on Wikipedia. I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a level of caution that needs to be measured. That a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture is best to either go unpublished in the article space, of at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. That when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution. ___________

Months ago, I believe, you told me something along the lines of the best way to demonstrate that I contribute to the project with good faith was being that I proceed to make positive edits where I can.

Some of the work I have done over the past several months includes the following:

In related edits, I improved Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, and spun-off/expanded Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson and Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson.

In related edits, I improved William McAndrew (educator), expanded 1927 Chicago mayoral election, created William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign and Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, and made minor improvements to other related articles.

I enhanced and created a number of other articles related to educators.

I improved Thomas Menino, and created the spun-off article Mayoralty of Thomas Menino.

I have made less major improvements to the articles of a number of long-deceased judges and politicians.

I made improvements to other articles.

I published new articles such as Michael Cassius McDonald, Benjamin Willis (educator), Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system.

In other edits, I undertook an ambitious change to the categorization of articles and categories related to United States constitutional officers and United States constitutional officer elections. I also made similar improvements for other United States election sub-categorization. I also created many redirects for election races described in sub-sections of larger articles. I also improved the category keys on many election articles. These involved thousands of edits.

I made other categorization-related edits as well.

I began work on drafts such as Draft:Impeachment inquiries in the United States.

___________ I hope you will give consideration to this. If there are any questions or requests you have for me to help you in reaching a decision, feel free to ask me.

Best regards, and hope to hear from you soon.

SecretName101 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Doing good, SecretName101, thanks for asking. Sorry, I don't know if I'll have time to look over your appeal along with a re-review your case (which I do not have a firm recollection of atm). So it's probably best if you were to otherwise appeal in a forum of your choosing (see WP:UNBAN for your options), which I may or may not opine on. Thanks. El_C 22:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted a similar appeal on the Administrators' noticeboard. SecretName101 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Julian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Joseph P. Hannon
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joseph P. Hannon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:James F. Redmond
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:James F. Redmond, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Wisconsin Center District
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wisconsin Center District, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Edwin G. Cooley
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Edwin G. Cooley, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

RE: New SCOTUS nomination articles
Greetings: I see that you have created an article for Supreme Court nominations of John Rutledge. I have been thinking recently about the various, more recent nominations that do not have articles and for which which substantive articles could be written, justices O'Connor & Ginsburg, for example. You clearly love to create articles, and so I wish to ask you to consider creating articles for the SDO & RBG nominations (and any other 20th century nominations for which a substantive article could be written). Thanks for considering my suggestion. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am currently awaiting a topic ban being lifted which prevents me from editing on living people. Since one of those justices is alive, while the other was put forth by a still-living president, I cannot at the moment do either of them. But there are indeed a few Supreme Court nominations I would be interested in helping to create articles on if my ban gets lifted. SecretName101 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William McAndrew (disambiguation)


The article William McAndrew (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Richard Siebel


Hello, SecretName101. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Richard Siebel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1976 Illinois gubernatorial election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Walker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:1897 New York City mayoral election
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1897 New York City mayoral election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:James F. Redmond


Hello, SecretName101. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "James F. Redmond".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Betty Ford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson 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 Kwkintegrator -- Kwkintegrator (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson
The article Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson 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:Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kwkintegrator -- Kwkintegrator (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Betty Ford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Lewis Selye
 * added a link pointing to Independent Republican
 * Samuel J. Randall
 * added a link pointing to Leonard Myers

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jacob Loeb
Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jacob Loeb, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:1897 New York City mayoral election


Hello, SecretName101. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "1897 New York City mayoral election".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, SecretName101

Thank you for creating John Rutledge Supreme Court nominations.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tenure of Office Act (1867) into Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. P.S. Good luck with the GAN! DanCherek (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I had accidentally forgotten to delete a verbatim segment that only meant to use it as a reference to extract references and facts. SecretName101 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James F. Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tenure of Office Act.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)