User talk:TJMSmith/Archive 4

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

DYK for Hevrin Khalaf
valereee (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I put her on my talk today: Hevrin Khalaf - protest pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved message from your userpage
HI TJMSmith! Thank you for the encouragement on the Trans Lifeline page! It put a smile on my face. =) I think we share a lot of similar goals on Wikipedia. It's great to know there are like-minded folks on here. =) Also, apologies for the edit here; I didn't know how to find your talk page. Anyway, keep rockin' and see ya around. Warmly, Caterpillar84
 * Hello! Thanks for your valuable LGBTQ+ related contributions; I've enjoyed reading your articles. Keep it up! TJMSmith (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! And I will. Sincerely,--Caterpillar84 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Shelby Starner
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Shelby Starner has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with your GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Constance Kies
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Constance Kies has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Sara Braun
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary L. Gray has been accepted
 Mary L. Gray, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! TJMSmith (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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=Mary_L._Gray help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Transformative Studies Institute
Thanks for taking a look at the merge of Transformative Studies Institute into John Asimakopoulos! I did have one part that I'm considering reverting, and that I wanted to check in with you on: WP:MOSBOLD suggests bolding the first occurrence of a term that redirects to a subsection of an article, particularly when it is a substantial part of the article. So it seems to me that bolding the first occurrence of "Transformative Studies Institute" in the subsection is indicated. What do you think?

Anyway, I do appreciate you taking a look through. I found it hard to cut down the sea of words in the old article to a short NPOV description. A 2nd set of eyes is good. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I've never seen MOS:BOLDREDIRECT before nor have I come across many articles that seem to use it. You're more familiar with the contents of the TSI article than I am, so I'm fine what you think is best in this case. TJMSmith (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hunter Biden
This article is under page sanctions, per wp:DS as explained on the article talk page. You did not get consensus on talk before you reinserted content of yours I recently deleted as being UNDUE *and* poorly sourced. It's still UNDUE and you did not get talk page consensus in violation of DS. Please undo your reinsertion and provide your rationale on talk as to why you believe this detail is noteworthy encyclopedic content for this biography.  SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. I put the sources on the talk page. Not sure I agree with your assertion that it is undue. TJMSmith (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thing is, there's just about nothing notable about Hunter Biden except that he was used by conspiracy theorists to tell tall tales, right?  If it were Billy Graham, we might thing every such detail was noteworthy.  SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Goucher College
Just a heads up, Goucher College just made good article status. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Great job! If you're interested, you can now nominate the article for WP:DYK; it's eligible for 7 days after attaining GA status. TJMSmith (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constance Kies
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constance Kies 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Katherine Johnson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Katherine 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Raymond W. Bliss
If you got time, could you look over this article I created. He was a Surgeon General that opened the Army's first radioactive isotope laboratory. I am upgrading for GAN. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Kee Mar College
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Kee Mar College has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

You'll notice I have marked two sentences for clarification. This ends the 19th Century section: "The college seal was a reproduction of an intaglio found in Pompeii. The original intaglio has been in the British Museum, belonged to the king of Saxony, and was in the position of principal Margaret Barry."
 * Should this read: The college seal was a reproduction in the possession of principal Margaret Barry of an intaglio found in Pompeii. The original intaglio in the British museum had belonged to the king of Saxony. (?)

In the Academics section: "A large collection of similar reproductions of drawings, namely by Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael were in position by the college." It's not crystal clear in the sentence that precedes this, but Im guessing the students studied the art to understand the techniques used or perhaps copied them? In any case, I assume "position" in this case should read "possession".

Once these are clarified, the tags should be removed.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Katherine Johnson
The article Katherine Johnson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Katherine Johnson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassandra Manuelito-Kerkvliet
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Cassandra Manuelito-Kerkvliet has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Mindie Burgoyne
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Mindie Burgoyne has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

You'll see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Mindie_Burgoyne a GOCE editor had some concerns about the subject's notability which have been addressed. They removed some text from the article which is either trivial or reads like a travel guide/advertisement. This text and its citations have been preserved on the article's Talk Page.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roberto Stella


A tag has been placed on Roberto Stella requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. — kashmīrī  TALK  11:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constance Kies
The article Constance Kies you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constance Kies for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! TJMSmith (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Rafael Rodríguez Mercado
TJMSmith, when I agreed with your addition of the 3 "American-" categories for the Puerto Rican neuro-surgeon named above, it was based --as I stated immediately after reverting my own edit here and which revert provisonally returned the article to the version of your preference-- it was based on the fact that an equivalent "Puerto Rican neurosurgeons" category hadn't been created yet. It was a provisional measure and had noting to do with the subject of citizenship, an argument of yours for your basis to add the 3 "Americans-" category to that Puerto Rican doctor. My reversal was intended as a temporary solution until that time when the category "Puerto Rican neurosurgeons" (and a few other similar medical subspecialties missing their own PR categories) was created. However, today I see that soon after my reversal to the version of your preference, you started categorizing as Americans additional Puerto Ricans here, here, here, and here (among others) but which, unlike the missing "Puerto Rican neuro-surgeons" category, were occupations which already did have their own Puerto Rico-specific categories.

It is misleading to categorize Puerto Ricans as Americans. Why are you having difficulty understanding that Puerto Rico is a separate entity from the United States? By simple reasoning, Puerto Ricans are also a separate entity from Americans. What's so difficult to undertsnad about that? Is Puerto Rico part of the US? It isn't. And Puerto Ricans may be American citizens, as you argued (they are also Puerto Rican citizens, btw), but that attribute in and of itself doesn't automatically imply they are Americans; they maybe American citizens but they aren't Americans. Americans are those people born in the USA, that is, in one of the 50 States, the D.C., or the Palmyra Atoll. I have undone your changes. Since the WP:BURDEN of proof is on you, the editor adding the "Americans" information, you are not allowed to reverse these edits until you have shown that your edits are indeed the ones that should prevail. I will try to make no assumptions here, and will continue to assume good faith, but your seeking out for other Puerto Rican occupations (musicians, artists, etc.) to also make apply analogous changes to, when those occupations were already categorized under their corresponding Puerto Rican categories, was an action that went beyound that of the Puerto Ricans in the narrow area of Puerto Rican neurosurgeons that we discussed. I thought that was perfectly clear to you back then. Did you fail to notice that? Mercy11 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I think we may be talking past each other. I didn't remove the Puerto Rican categories, I added them as a subcategory to their respective U.S. parent cat. I understand that Puerto Rico is its own entity and that it is also an Unincorporated territories of the United States. For this reason, there are Puerto Rican categories which distinguish individuals from other Americans. How can you say someone from a U.S. Territory is an American citizen but not American? That seems blatantly false and contrary to the law. Even people from American Samoa, who are not U.S. citizens by birth, are U.S. nationals. Puerto Ricans (and people from other territories like Guam and USVI) are just as American as any citizen from a U.S. State. Being Puerto Rican and American are not mutually exclusive terms. Many Puerto Rican categories were already subcategorized in the parent (umbrella) American ones (see here: ). Do you think it is misleading to subcategorize Puerto Rican categories in U.S. categories? It still has Puerto Ricans as a separate entity that is also included with the rest of Americans. TJMSmith (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Being an American and being an American citizen are two different things. As an example: being a Nobel Prize winner makes you a winner (of the NP), it doesn't make you a Nobel Prize; similarly, being an American citizen makes you a citizen of America, it doesn't make you an American. It's a fairly straight-forward concept. They two attributes are two different things. This perhaps explains, to a point, why there are 2 WP articles for each of the two distinct concepts. As an example, a person born in Puerto Rico but to an American father and an American mother (to make the parents blatantly clear, let's say they are both of the tall, blue-eyed, fair skin, and straight, blonde hair types) clearly is an American, Not a Puerto Rican. Being American does imply possessing American citizenship, but possessing American citizenship doesn't automatically imply being American. Every day in the US, you hear US mainland-born Americans ask someone (who is clearly not American, based on their accent, the bodega where they buy their groceries, the TV stations they listen to, their language and, in general, their habits, customs and traditions), where are you from? If they are Puerto Ricans, they will say "I am from Puerto Rico", and if they are Panamanians, they will say "I am from Panama", even if the first was born in PR, and the second one was naturalized in the US. No one in would expect either one of such two people to say "I am from here, the United States". For example, Albert Einstein was German, then he became an American citizen. He didn't become American, he became an American citizen. You become American by being born in the US (which also makes you a US citizen), whereas you become a US citizen by either being born in the United States or being naturalized into the US. The law can't make you American, it can only make you an American citizen.


 * Yes, of course, it is misleading to subcategorize Puerto Rican categories under U.S. categories. This has been discussed several times throughout WP. You can see one example the alludes to that here. Being a US national and a US citizen aren't the same thing either. Just like the believe that having American citizenship makes you an American (which it doesn't, it only makes you an American citizen), nationality and citizenship aren't the same thing either and many people use the two interchangeably when they aren't supposed to. A lot of students in US schools are taught Puerto Ricans are US citizens and that, therefore, they are Americans. Some learn it and others don't, as it's always the case with teaching and learning. But no, that is not true; the 3.2 million people in Puerto Rico are Puerto Ricans and American citizens, but they aren't Americans, they are Puerto Ricans. This all stems from the fact that PR belongs to America but isn't part of America. Can you say that you wallet is TJMSmith? No, you wallet belongs to you, but isn't part of you. On the other hand, your arm is you because it not only belongs to you but because it is a part of you. I hope we don't have to come back to this subject again. Mercy11 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:19th-century American women physicians


A tag has been placed on Category:19th-century American women physicians 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! 14:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Leah Lowenstein at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marie Smallface Marule
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marie Smallface Marule 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 Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Constance Kies
--valereee (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marie Smallface Marule
The article Marie Smallface Marule you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marie Smallface Marule for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Please consider listing this accomplishment at The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada.
 * Also, if you have problems with Close paraphrasing in the future, you can request copy-editing help at WP:GOCER. Just be sure to tell them that you have concerns about close paraphrasing, so they know to look for that.
 * Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I look forward to working with you in the future :) Stay safe and healthy! TJMSmith (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bretman Rock has been accepted
 Bretman Rock, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Bretman_Rock 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! Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

White House Economic Task Force
I had created White House Economic Task Force, which I believe is the same as the Opening Our Country Council. Perhaps I should have waited until the name was official. Should I just redirect White House Economic Task Force? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't see that! If they are the same, can you merge/redirect them? TJMSmith (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Can you tell if Opening Our Country Council is the official name of the task force? I can't tell if that's the official name or just sources saying how Trump describes the group... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This source says "'This is beyond economic,' he told reporters. 'I call it the ‘opening our country taskforce’ or ‘opening our country council’ so we don’t get it confused with Mike’s [Pence] taskforce, which has done so great.'" I don't feel strongly here. If we think Opening Our Country Council is the better article name, I can redirect mine. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. That was one of the articles I read. I haven't seen the name on a .gov site so perhaps the official name is not yet released. Your call. I guess we will all know for sure by next week :) TJMSmith (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ok, sounds good. Usually I'd rush to ensure we don't have two pages about the same topic but in this case I think we can just wait until sources confirm the name or editors decide to redirect one or the other sooner than later. Let's just keep an eye out, again, I don't feel strongly either way. Stay safe and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I gave editors a heads up here. They might have thoughts on best title / merging, etc, but mostly I just want to put this task force on editors' radar since the group is expected to be formally announced this week. Have a good weekend --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you please check it again
Hi, first of all than you for the amazing job you did with the page of Carlo Masi, I am envious of your skills :-) as I added some more information could you please check it again and delete everything you think shouldn't be there? especially I am concerned with the source for "the cover for Adam Gay Film & Video Directory Magazine." as it is amazon.com. I read that I shouldn't be using as a sources shop web sites but that is an annual almanacco of gay porn actors and I couldn't find any better source so I thought that as long as the source would show the cover it would do. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you so much for nominating Margit Feldman's article for In the News. It was a labor of love after I heard about her during the Gov. of NJ's press conference. It was also an emotional experience writing that article. I didn't even include the terrifying details of her experience in the article. Regardless, thank YOU. Stay healthy, stay safe, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Missvain (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 
 * Thank you! I had a hard time writing an article on another survivor, Hilda Eisen, a while back. Who knew editing could be so emotional! I appreciate your WIR efforts! All the best in these tough times. TJMSmith (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shelby Starner
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shelby Starner 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bradford Shellhammer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bradford Shellhammer 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bradford Shellhammer
The article Bradford Shellhammer you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bradford Shellhammer 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Leah Lowenstein
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shelby Starner
The article Shelby Starner 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:Shelby Starner for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Adriana Lita for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adriana Lita 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/Adriana Lita 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. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk  18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Carlo Masi
hi, I believe it was you to add the Unreliable sources tag to Carlo Masi page but I was overloaded with information, often in contrast with each other, about the sources I used. Could you please help me to understand which sources you judge as unreliable so that I can search for better ones, or may be just delete them as there is a overabundance of sources(most of the statements have 2 or 3 sources). thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)