User talk:Thebiguglyalien/Archive 3

TFL notification
Hi, Thebiguglyalien. I'm just posting to let you know that Timeline of the Warren G. Harding presidency – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 5. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of the United States (1776–1789)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of the United States (1776–1789) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead improvement
Just noticed the userbox. Please take a look at Lipstick. Its lead is pretty terrible. BorgQueen (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Good find! I just started taking up leads seriously today, and this is exactly the sort of article that I'm looking to improve. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Do you think you can improve the lead of Automatic writing? It isn't the worst ever but certainly could use some expansion. However the subject matter isn't everyone's cup of tea, I suppose. BorgQueen (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll take a look at it. It's a little trickier when there's less content in the body, but I agree that the lead here could be better than it is relative to the length of the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Found another one: Horned deity. BorgQueen (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well done. The lead of Automatic writing is much more comprehensive now. BorgQueen (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Please take a look at Kyrgyz people. BorgQueen (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. These suggestions are much more interesting than most of the articles in the lead maintenance category, which typically have so little content that writing a lead almost feels pointless. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Great to hear that you enjoyed working on them. I'll let you know if I come across more like those. BorgQueen (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year! I think the lead of Lip augmentation could use some expansion. The cosmetics-related articles aren't getting much love on Wikipedia it seems. BorgQueen (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Please take a look at Seiza. BorgQueen (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead of Mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas could use some expansion, if you're willing. BorgQueen (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Found another one: Whale worship. BorgQueen (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is another... Hostage diplomacy. BorgQueen (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Guess what, here's another: Congressional staff. BorgQueen (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This one is right up my alley, but it looks like it's really underdeveloped, making it kind of difficult to adequately summarize. I added a few sentences, but I think the article just needs to be properly written first. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How about Cargo cult? BorgQueen (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Found another: Helene Deutsch. You seem fairly busy though (and that's good). BorgQueen (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You may find my essay helpful: How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * A bit late, but thanks for your work on improving these lead :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Reforming FAC
Hi. You wrote (elsewhere) "Unfortunately, she was a woman, not a battleship, a highway, or a tropical storm, so the usual reviewers have ignored the entry and it's set to be failed due to lack of reviews. Ignoring for now the fact that FAC is one of the many areas of Wikipedia that needs reform, does anyone have advice on how to proceed?"

I agree this is a problem, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. Personally, I don't think I'm qualified enough to write FA-quality prose and don't have the time and dedication to improve an article to that standard, or do much reviewing there. There doesn't seem to be much teamwork, I think I'd be much more amenable to it if reviews were more like "There are a couple of prose tweaks and formats; I've gone ahead and done them, but feel free to undo any if you disagree". As there are literally millions of articles that need improvement even to an acceptable quality, I don't think this a major issue. I'd rather improve the encyclopedia in a uniform manner than have a bunch of great articles and a swathe of poor ones, with the possible exception that a high-traffic and important article does merit improvement to FA by a team. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

11th Millennium BC review #2
It has been a while since we talked. I have been making millennium's 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 in the draft space and so far most of them have some notes, but that is not what I was going to ask you about. I fixed up all if not most of the suggestions the GA reviewer told me to. After when I was done with it, I was thinking about putting the 11th millennium BC page in Good Article nominations again, but I decided that it would be better for someone to peer review it for me before I submit it. You can take your time.

Here is the link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_millennium_BC FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The main issue is just that the article doesn't have much information. If you look at 10th millennium BC or 9th millennium BC, for example, they're both about twice as long. The 11th millennium article only covers a little bit, and it seems hyperfocused on the Mediterranean. Just as one example, the end of the Ice Age seems like a pretty big detail, but it's barely even mentioned. If I were reviewing this article, I think my comments would be very similar to the previous review. It doesn't have to be comprehensive to pass GA, but it does need to cover every major aspect to some degree. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding! I do agree that there is still so much that needs to be covered for this to be considered a GA article, so I will be adding even more information to it in the future. Btw, do you think that the article should be considered a C-Class yet? I already put it as one, but that is just my opinion. FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd call it a C-class as well. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Writing the lead in Happiness
Pinging User:BorgQueen because of.

The lead in this article is really short and unsatisfactory, and I think that everyone that read this article would know that. The problem is... for two decades, no one on Wikipedia knows how to make it better. I think we can borrow some idea from Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/happiness):


 * Happiness, in psychology, a state of emotional well-being that a person experiences either in a narrow sense, when good things happen in a specific moment, or more broadly, as a positive evaluation of one’s life and accomplishments overall—that is, subjective well-being. Happiness can be distinguished both from negative emotions (such as sadness, fear, and anger) and also from other positive emotions (such as affection, excitement, and interest). This emotion often co-occurs with a specific facial expression: the smile.

and ChatGPT (prompt: "Write for me the lead of the Happiness article on Wikipedia. Be objective, encyclopedic and DO NOT BE VAGUE. Vagueness does not help. Be concrete and concise."):


 * Happiness is a subjective state of well-being characterized by positive emotions, contentment, and overall life satisfaction. It encompasses a range of positive feelings, including joy, fulfillment, and a sense of purpose. While the concept of happiness is deeply rooted in human nature, its definition and understanding vary across cultures, disciplines, and philosophical perspectives. Research in psychology, sociology, and neuroscience has sought to unravel the factors that contribute to happiness, including individual traits, social relationships, life circumstances, and personal choices. Despite its elusive nature, the pursuit of happiness has been a fundamental aspect of human existence, driving individuals and societies to seek optimal conditions and strategies to enhance well-being.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * A lead should be a summary of the article's contents, not a generic essay-like paragraph. I really wouldn't recommend using ChatGPT to write a lead, not only because it's not a summary of the article, but because of the potential plagiarism issues that haven't been sorted out and because it has a distinct voice that anyone who's played with the tool can recognize pretty quickly. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that your advice is right. I should improve the article before writing the lead to get a better understanding of the topic. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Margaret Taylor
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Margaret Taylor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Margaret Taylor
The article Margaret Taylor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Margaret Taylor for comments about the article, and Talk:Margaret Taylor/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Abigail Fillmore
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the kind words over at my DYK nomination. It also gave me a good laugh because the rarity bit you mentioned is unfortunately too true... Cheers.  Tkbrett  (✉) 19:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Frances Cleveland/archive2
I've reviewed this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Sarita Colonia
—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Martha Washington
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Martha Washington you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Letitia Christian Tyler
The article Letitia Christian Tyler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Letitia Christian Tyler for comments about the article, and Talk:Letitia Christian Tyler/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Julia Gardiner Tyler
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Julia Gardiner Tyler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alanna the Brave -- Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sarita Colonia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sarita Colonia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sarita Colonia
The article Sarita Colonia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sarita Colonia for comments about the article, and Talk:Sarita Colonia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Deleting other users comments
Why did you delete my comment in the discussion without any explanation when you commented? Cinephile4ever 15:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It's called an WP:EDITCONFLICT, and it happens sometimes on talk pages. It's one of the reasons why it's a good idea to just comment on a talk discussion once and then leave instead of leaving several comments in a row. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great Cinephile4ever 16:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Successful FAC
Congrats on getting Frances Cleveland to FA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Violence userbox
Hello. I want to thank you for making this MfD nomination. It should have been done a long time ago, IMHO. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 15:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions at WP:ITN (cont.)

 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive352

Did the discussion about administrative action at ITN ever produce anything or get continued anywhere? Because someone just mentioned the United States at ITN/C and the results are entirely predictable. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Quote from the thread: "... both US politics and gun control already are designated as contentious topics..."
 * There were several options listed in the thread, but I think, for what you seem to be looking for, you might try either posting a request at Arbitration/Requests, or start a request for community sanction at WP:AN, per General_sanctions.
 * I think, since those 2 (and many other) contentious topics already exist, asking at Arbcom, is probably the better first step. And then, if they do decide to avoid a decision and kick the can back to the community, you can go that route if necessary. But, I do think this should be a simple motion for arbcom to approve for WP:ITN on some extisting topics at the very least.
 * And the thing is, I would presume that nearly everything listed under General_sanctions can show up at WP:ITN. Which, I think, is not true of most pages/processes in Wikipedia. So maybe Arcom could just say in a motion that all topic-based general sanctions (CTs) apply at ITN. I don't know if they would, but it's a thought.
 * But if they really want it focused to just a few of the more incendiary current event topics. I'm guessing you probably would know those better than me, since I'm not involved at ITN. So I guess just go through the list and see what seems to you to be the best (worst) selections.
 * Obviously, be prepared to add diffs/evidence of the ongoing disruptions.
 * I hope this helps. - jc37 21:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @: I could have sworn that once upon a time many years ago that you were a regular contributor to ITN. Perhaps it was MFD that I was thinking of. I remember seeing you there at least. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WaltCip - Hi. Not to my recollection. There are a few other usernames that start with jc, perhaps it was one of those you might have seen, I dunno. Other than the big main page layout RfCs in the past, I don't recall contributing to much of any of the sub-main page proocesses. XfD, on the other hand, I tend to be fairly active with. CFD in particular. I hope this helps. - jc37 10:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliza McCardle Johnson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eliza McCardle 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliza McCardle Johnson
The article Eliza McCardle 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:Eliza McCardle Johnson and Talk:Eliza McCardle Johnson/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliza McCardle Johnson
The article Eliza McCardle Johnson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eliza McCardle Johnson for comments about the article, and Talk:Eliza McCardle Johnson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emily Donelson
The article Emily Donelson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Emily Donelson for comments about the article, and Talk:Emily Donelson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammielh -- Sammielh (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clara Stauffer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clara Stauffer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clara Stauffer
The article Clara Stauffer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clara Stauffer for comments about the article, and Talk:Clara Stauffer/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

10k!
Happened to click your userpage and saw you just passed the 10,000 edit milestone! I don't know if a congratulations or kudos is in order, so how about both. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I hadn't even noticed that I was hitting 10k until I got a notification for it. I guess I had assumed it was another month or two away. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Barbara Bush
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Barbara Bush you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

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


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

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Frances Cleveland scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/August 18, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Frances Cleveland
I think we can do a better lead image. Which of the first four images on https://npg.si.edu/search/collections?edan_q=Frances%20Cleveland do you like best? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 03:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd be okay with pretty much any good portrait; I just left the one that I found there. Of those four, my personal favorite is the fourth one, taken by Charles Milton Bell, though I don't love the background. The third one isn't bad either, but there's another photo from that set in the article. I probably wouldn't use the first one (the puffy shirt is distracting and doesn't seem to reflect her usual attire in photos) or the second one (I'd rather not use a side profile as the lead image). Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 05:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite done, but how's it look so far? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 21:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks good! Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And, a little more cleanup and a levels adjustment later, I think we're largely done. Might make minor tweaks if someone points something out. To Featured pictures, I think! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 02:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And, just for the record: clearly going to pass. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 02:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sarah Yorke Jackson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sarah Yorke Jackson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MyCatIsAChonk -- MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sarah Yorke Jackson
The article Sarah Yorke Jackson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sarah Yorke Jackson for comments about the article, and Talk:Sarah Yorke Jackson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MyCatIsAChonk -- MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal on controversial topics
Hi TBUA, coming here after your recent comment. If you would like to discuss further, happy to share more views here - if not, I will leave you in peace. Personally I think you are both right and wrong. The part I disagree with most is what is best for Wikipedia. A few years ago I wrote WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. No source, scholar, or wikipedia editor has a “perfectly neutral” view, only because of how darned complicated the topic is. But given the nature of this wonderful website, we have the ability to get closer to this ideal than any other source in the world. Removing every editor who has a deep interest in the topic would make this impossible.

Pre-conceived views are something we have to accept in this topic area if we want to make a success of it. In my experience, most editors in the area are acting in “good faith”, i.e. they genuinely believe what they are writing, and often their positions are justified by different reputable sources. If you want to understand who is “more POV”, you need to look a little closer than a rough assessment of who votes in what general direction – you need to assess things like who always does this vs. who has the integrity to vote differently when the sources say otherwise, who is willing to actively constructively collaborate with those who hold opposing views vs. those who have no record of doing so, and most importantly, who is willing to use sources reflecting a variety of views.

I appreciate your concern for our project here, and hope this view is of interest to you if nothing else. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that write up is admirable, and something worth striving for. I do believe that most editors are participating in good faith, but that's the issue of WP:TIGER at its core. This topic area more than any other has experienced editors that participate in the debate as much as they describe it. I stand by the classic litmus test: after reading an article, can you tell what the primary author thinks about the subject? If you can, then it's almost certainly an NPOV violation. That's going to happen to everyone now and then, and that's fine. It's fixable. The issue becomes intractable when this happens in the majority of an editor's contributions to the topic, especially when it's to present a decidedly negative view of the topic, and especially when the topic is an issue of nationality or ethnicity.
 * To take the example at hand, I gather that most editors were able to quickly determine what your position is on Zionism, race and genetics simply by reading the article. That generally shouldn't happen. And from there, we get into the issue of the battleground behavior, where many of the keep !votes are people who regularly push an anti-Israeli POV and many of the delete !votes are people who regularly push an anti-Palestinian POV. What in isolation might be a reasonable !vote becomes a question of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CPUSH when compared with the editor's track record of always seeking a conclusion favorable to their POV. Based on what you're saying, I think we agree on this latter point to some extent.
 * If it feels at all like I was singling you out, it was because your contributions were the only ones laid out at the AE discussion, and because I consider DYKs with a potential POV to be a significant escalation over articles with a potential POV. I'm not willing to name names before similar evidence is collected for any given individual (and I do not envy anyone that tries to present such evidence), but I don't think you're the worst offender in that AE discussion, let alone the broader topic area. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 13:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi TBUA, thanks for your thoughtful comment. FWIW I didn’t feel singled out at all – I thought your post was very well balanced.
 * I don’t think your litmus test is correctly nuanced, though. Let’s imagine we have a perfect article on climate change, correctly representing scholarly weight. After reading that “perfect” article, I should be able to judge that the primary author believes that climate change is real and that it is primarily a man-made phenomenon. According to your litmus test, that would make the article an NPOV violation. But of course it wouldn’t be, because it would be representing scholarly weight correctly.
 * The issue with this in many of the areas in the Israel-Palestine arena is that most observers simply don’t have the depth of understanding to make that judgement on a particular sub-topic without making the effort to read widely (which very few will have time to do). We “know” without doing any additional reading that mainstream consensus is that climate change is real and vaccines don’t cause autism, but the same can’t be said for whether race and genetics are really significant within Zionism, or whether Israel’s mixed cities really aren’t mixed. These are areas that need looking in to first.
 * Another way to put this is the fallacy of argument to moderation or false balance. Just because two “sides” often disagree, it certainly does not mean they are arguing over the “real” center ground.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ilona Tóth
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ilona Tóth you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ilona Tóth
The article Ilona Tóth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ilona Tóth for comments about the article, and Talk:Ilona Tóth/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alt-right pipeline
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alt-right pipeline you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MyCatIsAChonk -- MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alt-right pipeline
The article Alt-right pipeline you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alt-right pipeline for comments about the article, and Talk:Alt-right pipeline/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MyCatIsAChonk -- MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2001
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2001 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Freedom4U -- Freedom4U (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Thebiguglyalien. Thank you for your work on Adriane Lopes. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I 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.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   01:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Thebiguglyalien. Thank you for your work on Tsheko Tsheko. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I 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.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

GA nomination for Military dictatorship
Hello! I'm. As part of the August 2023 GAN Backlog Drive, I will be reviewing the article Military dictatorship, which you nominated in February. If you have any questions or requests, please let me know on the review page. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Military dictatorship
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Military dictatorship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pbritti -- Pbritti (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Holocaust wasn't just killing, it was murder
"Killed" is a much more general word. The Nazis themselves did not deny they were killing people, but denied it was murder. "Murdered" is the more precise term, and since it is the consensus of reliable sources in the relevant fields (history, international law, genocide studies, etc) that the Holocaust was murder, it is more correct and therefore it is entirely appropriate to change "killed" to "murdered." This is why the article once called "Killing of George Floyd" was changed to Murder of George Floyd once the murderer was convicted. What would be advocacy, and thus not allowed, would be to change "murdered in the Holocaust" to "killed in the Holocaust," changing the more precise to the less precise term preferred for political purposes by fringe extremists denying the consensus of reliable sources. UrielAcosta (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Harrison McKee
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mary Harrison McKee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Priscilla Cooper Tyler
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Priscilla Cooper Tyler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 2
The article Federalist No. 2 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 2 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 2
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 2
The article Federalist No. 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 2 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anna Harrison
The article Anna Harrison you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Anna Harrison for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louisa Adams
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Louisa Adams you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 5
The article Federalist No. 5 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:Federalist No. 5 and Talk:Federalist No. 5/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BritneyErotica -- BritneyErotica (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 3
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 3 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 4
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 4 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 3
The article Federalist No. 3 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:Federalist No. 3 and Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 3
The article Federalist No. 3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 3 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 4
The article Federalist No. 4 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:Federalist No. 4 and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 4
The article Federalist No. 4 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 4 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)