User talk:Thebiguglyalien/Archive 5

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 5
The article Federalist No. 5 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 5 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 5/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BritneyErotica -- BritneyErotica (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catherine Samba-Panza
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catherine Samba-Panza 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) 16:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucretia Garfield
The article Lucretia Garfield you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lucretia Garfield for comments about the article, and Talk:Lucretia Garfield/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammielh -- Sammielh (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 6
The article Federalist No. 6 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 6 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 6/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 7
The article Federalist No. 7 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 7 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 7/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iron Man
The article Iron Man you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Iron Man for comments about the article, and Talk:Iron Man/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Pruitt–Igoe
Hello, Thebiguglyalien. I'm quite pleased to see that my prophecy has been fulfilled. I'm soliciting feedback on Pruitt–Igoe, an article about an ill-fated public housing project in St. Louis, in preparation for FAC, and given your prior work on American history I thought you might be interested. I'd welcome any comments at Peer review/Pruitt–Igoe/archive1. rblv (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maria Stromberger
The article Maria Stromberger 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:Maria Stromberger and Talk:Maria Stromberger/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maria Stromberger
The article Maria Stromberger you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maria Stromberger for comments about the article, and Talk:Maria Stromberger/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png

Your GA nomination of Anaximenes of Miletus
The article Anaximenes of Miletus 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:Anaximenes of Miletus and Talk:Anaximenes of Miletus/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anaximenes of Miletus
The article Anaximenes of Miletus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anaximenes of Miletus for comments about the article, and Talk:Anaximenes of Miletus/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rose Cleveland
The article Rose Cleveland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rose Cleveland for comments about the article, and Talk:Rose Cleveland/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are:, , and. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Checking in
It's been a while since you last edited. Because the departure was so sudden, I wanted to check in and see if you were well. Please feel free to use the email function to respond. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've also been thinking about you TBUA! Hope you're doing well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still alive, if that's what you're asking, just burned out. I don't consider myself "retired", but I very much needed to step away for a while. I've become rather jaded with the project and its culture. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not alone in these feelings. For what it is worth, your presence on the project has been a very positive one, marked by a commitment to improving not only free access to information but also your abilities as an editor. If you find yourself unwilling to carry on with editing, you will be in good company. You will also be leaving Wikipedia in a better state than you found it. You should be proud. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just glad to hear you're alive! Hope the joy comes back. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also glad to hear you're ok. Sorry to hear the project culture is getting you down, you're certainly not alone in your frustrations with it. (I related a lot to quite a few of your letters from the editors) Echoing Pbritti that your contributions to the project have been excellent and have done so much to improve the state of the encyclopedia. I hope you find calm and relaxation in your wikibreak. All the best to you pal. <3 --Grnrchst (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien: So sorry to hear about the burnout, but really glad to hear you're taking time and space for yourself. I hope maybe I'll see you back again in future -- best wishes for the new year in 2024. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jane Irwin Harrison
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jane Irwin Harrison 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 RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jane Irwin Harrison
The article Jane Irwin Harrison you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jane Irwin Harrison for comments about the article, and Talk:Jane Irwin Harrison/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:YEARS
Hello @Thebiguglyalien: - I read an essay on inclusion criteria for WP:YEARS when reviewing the same on the 2023 & 2024. I noticed there were some links to a few community discussions relating to ownership of the page by a few users which you started. I am concerned that this issue has arisen again on 2024, in part against the sudden influx of non-regular editors around the new year. I have tried to push-back against this, but have had limited success. I would be grateful if you could take a look at the situation.

You may also be interested to know that the user topic banned in the community discussions has returned as a sockpuppet. I have started a SPI and would be grateful for any suggestions from you. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , I wish I had an answer. The best I've got is just to make sure that subjects are given appropriate weight and to challenge it if any editor tries to impose an arbitrary restriction like number of deaths or "international notability". On Wikipedia all that matters is how it's covered in reliable sources. Personally, I've written off current events articles (including 2023 and 2024) as lost causes: they usually end up as regurgitations of whatever editors happened to find interesting in the news. Instead, I've gone back to years where the information has "settled" a little bit and tried to give them a more encyclopedic overview, like at 2001 and 2002. And good catch on the socking, assuming it turns up positive. The line of argumentation is definitely similar to what got Jim Michael tbanned. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 07:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cesária Évora
The article Cesária Évora 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:Cesária Évora and Talk:Cesária Évora/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cesária Évora
The article Cesária Évora you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cesária Évora for comments about the article, and Talk:Cesária Évora/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Practicalities
About this comment on merging articles: I have, for many years, encouraged editors to weed the linkfarm. It's not unusual for one editor to remove some External links at dozens of articles, and then get reverted at one or two. And my advice is: Move on. Specifically, in the time it takes to even start a discussion, the original editor could clean out links in another 10 articles. Even if they "win" the discussion, the opportunity cost (10 missed articles) was higher than the "win" at a single article could possibly be.

I suggest that this might be relevant for merging stubs. If someone objects, then just move on. Keep the event in your list and add a Main template. It's very likely that you can accomplish more good by merging up undisputed articles than by talking about the occasional disputed one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * , that's a good point, and I generally agree that one merged article is better than a bunch of stubs. It's just that the whole process feels a little self-defeating. Regardless of where the short or non-notable content ends up, it still needs to either be cleaned up or deleted, and there doesn't seem to be much will to do either. Then we're just left with a long list of random events, many of which probably don't need to be on Wikipedia at all. This is all compounded by the fact that the same editors are going to keep churning out more primary sourced content because they can. Merging is good for quickly reducing the number of permastubs, but the underlying problems still go unaddressed, which is discouraging when you're actually in the middle of doing the merges. Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but I'm hoping for a more definitive resolution to these issues, which is why I initially proposed an RfC. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sensible merging shouldn't result in a list of truly random events. It might result in a list of events that is WP:IMPERFECT (which we officially accept) and that make some editors think WP:WEDONTNEEDIT (which is generally invalid thinking), but that's better than what we've got now.  Also, if we do enough of it, then people will get used to it, and they'll sometimes spam the new flood(s) into Floods in California, and the new fatal fire(s) into Fatal fires in Egypt, and then they'll stop creating (quite) so many separate articles.  It may be a long row to hoe, but it's possible to reach that end point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bring this up again, because it looks like a couple editors are hounding my edits to revert every single merge, stonewalling any sort of organization of these topics and creating duplicate content between the lists and the individual WP:NOTNEWS articles. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contributions, we're talking about two reverting editors and five articles, right?  And four of the five involve events that happened during the last three months.  That can make it a little difficult to guesstimate their long-term significance (tomorrow's news could announce a new law inspired by that incident), but it also means that you might have a bit of difficulty with the possibility of someone being emotionally involved.
 * Do you have any idea why these two editors objected? (For example, does the merged page contain much less information?)  If not, then I'd suggest that you dust off Twinkle and tag only the oldest, Mizhi County middle school stabbing, for merging, and watch to see what happens.
 * I was successful with this approach at Christian diet programs, and my List of fires in Egypt (which didn't try to merge away, merely to collect them all and make an easy landing space as an alternative) seems undisputed so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , no, about 18 or so of my edits were undone going back to October, causing duplication of everything in List of mass stabbing incidents (2020–present). I reverted one myself because notability was demonstrated, but all of the others were reverted purely because "no consensus". All of the information was preserved, the only difference was the page it was on. Is there anything I should keep in mind with a merge tag if the target already has all of the same info word for word? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Your Table
I just saw your statement at the arbitration page and your table. This Table includes, for example, two participants of almost all these discussions who always voted "Pal". Do you imply they have been engaged in an illegal coordination? I do not think so. This table just reflects two trivial facts:
 * 1) In highly polarized subject areas (and especially military conflicts) people usually tend to support one specific side. This is just human nature. Consider any other areas, let's say Russia-Ukraine. I was never able to convince anyone of anything. Hence, it is not surprising that vast majority of people in your table always vote "Isr" or "Pal". That does not mean any illegal coordination.
 * 2) Some contributors edit mostly in the ARBPIA area (and therefore participate in many such RfCs and discussions), but others do not. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @My very best wishes I don't think it's surprising but we do have to work with what is publicly available when we write statements at ArbCom. Given the motions at issue, it's a useful table and I'm glad @Thebiguglyalien created it and put a fairly neutral statement at ArbCom about it. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not saying this table is useless. It shows who is most active in this subject area and what biases they might have. But it is not a proof of any wrongdoing. Importantly, such discussions are not a vote. They are closed by admins based on the strength or arguments, no matter if the argument could be interpreted as "Isr" or "Pal". In fact, classifying contributors as "Isr" or "Pal" may be seen as a confrontational approach. My very best wishes (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, impressive work. I'm curious, did you do this all manually?
 * Your data seems to indicate heavily polarized views, suggesting that editors have a strong desire to voice their opinions on the topic. This isn't necessarily indicative of a battleground mentality, which concerns the nature of arguments made, rather than the frequency of voting. It's quite possible that people are voting in many discussions but engaging in civilized debate and using well-founded policy-based arguments.
 * For the sake of fairness, I suggest amending your statement to clarify that your data indicates similar patterns of involvement from editors on both sides of the debate. Marokwitz (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Federalist Papers
Hiya TBUA, glad to see you're back. I'd like to apologise for your failed GANs - I grabbed Zeno of Elea before she timed out, but missed the others. You've got two open GANs in your papers series, and I'd like to review both of them to be honest, but I'm aware that you've been away for a while and out of mainspace editing. Are you OK with me reviewing them now, or do you want to leave them? (we're likely going to have a backlog drive in the coming months, so they'll certainly get picked up by the end of it)  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , yes, I'm less active than I was previously, but my full wikibreak is over. I left my GANs up because I do intend to respond to them as they're reviewed. The Federalist Papers ones especially tend to be very easy, and I hope to nominate more this month. Also, I never thanked you for your involvement with Zeno of Elea, so thank you! Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Thor (Marvel Comics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CBR and Heroes Reborn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you be offended if I split back out a few of the mass stabbing articles you merged into those decade lists?
I think, generally, you were right about the lack of continued coverage in most of these incidents, however in for a few of them I do believe there is future significant coverage that constitutes lasting notability (though it wasn't present in the articles in question at the time). I would add the later coverage back if I split them out again. This isn't an immediate thing though PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , if there are secondary sources that justify an independent article, then by all means! Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Consensus please
I agree with the post above, you are deleting lots of hard work and just blindly merging articles without even gaining consensus, I'm reverting some of your edits. Please have a little respect and take anything to Afd that you don't think should exist on the site before making such drastic changes. Inexpiable (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of your Afd nominations I agree with, like this one: October 2023 Hartlepool stabbings. I agree that particular article should be deleted. However, I find it absurd that you chose to nominate the Hartlepool article (the weakest and least notable case) for Afd without merging, yet you chose to just blindly merge the far more detailed and well-written articles that are much more arguably notable. Although some of the merges you made I may agree with shouldn't be articles, I still think you should nominate each one for Afd before just blindly deleting them please. Regards. Inexpiable (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , merging does not "delete" an article, it moves it to where it can be better maintained. I believe that this is a valid edit, and "no consensus" isn't a very good basis to challenge it. When an article is short and all of the sources are primary sources, it's better to have it somewhere else per WP:NOPAGE rather than keep it as its own article, and my reading of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NEVENTS is that it's poor practice to create an article purely using primary sources in the first place. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this generally, however I think in some cases it's not too hard for a check for later coverage to be done and your merging is sometimes a bit hasty. For example the stabbing in Crépol, France is a massive, massive deal with ramifications for the French far right, and while the English article did a very very bad job of evidencing this (and should be renamed "Death of Thomas Perotto" in line with the french article - see this, recent, English article. I sympathize with your goals but I think a bit more research could be done. NOPAGE is for the topic of an article, not necessarily the current state of an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , fair enough. I've restored that particular article and added some further reading links that demonstrate notability, including the one you found. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * also btw, if you find articles relating to mass/attempted mass murder or similar incidents that you think are probably notable but in an unsatisfactory state and are mostly written in the immediate aftermath, feel free to send them my way, i like writing and improving these kinds of articles PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien: I have reverted all your merges not already reverted. You cannot go like this. Please read WP:MERGE for a description of the merging process, including esp. merge discussion. Your newly created article List of mass stabbing incidents (2020–present) also runs afoul of WP:ARTICLESIZE, and despite its title is not a list-type article at all.
 * Once you have sorted out ARTICLESIZE, you are welcome to propose the merges on respective talk pages, so that editors who work on these articles have an opportunity to weigh in. Cheers, — kashmīrī  TALK  23:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Advice?
Hey, thanks for reaching out to me regarding my attempt to rewrite and GA/FA Ida Saxton McKinley. As I was doing a check of the article, I saw the section "Murder of George Saxton" included which addresses that topic but I don't think has much relevance to McKinley's life. I'm contemplating creating a separate page for the Saxton family and dropping that section there, but I'm on the fence on whether the article would be able to stand on its own two legs. From the research I've done so far, her ancestors seem semi-notable but I haven't found a whole lot to create a decent article. I'm reluctant to remove the section, so I'm seeking a second opinion and your history of working on First Ladies is one of reason why I'm seeking your opinion. Thanks! ❤History Theorist❤  22:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , generally when I find less-than-relevant sections like this, I incorporate everything that's relevant into the main biography where it goes chronologically (improving the sourcing if necessary), and then I remove the rest. It looks like she was fairly involved in the affair and it had an effect on her life, so a little coverage in her biography would probably make sense. I'd hold off on creating an article for the family unless you can find solid sourcing for the family as a whole. On the other hand, George Saxton or Murder of George Saxton might be a viable article. A quick search turned up Canton's Greatest Tragedy (1899) and a chapter in Murder in Stark County, Ohio (2020), and such an article could then be padded out with info from McKinley biographies and contemporary newspapers (note that a search also turns up A Woman Scorned: The Murder of George Saxton by John Stark Bellamy, but that's self published and not a reliable source). Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay. I will probably end up removing that section later but still retain a passing mention of the murder. The only way Ida McKinley was involved according to the article (the sources may disagree but I've yet to reach that point in my research) is that she was really sad. I would still like to retain that information, so I might end up spinning off the section per your advice. Thanks a lot! ❤History  Theorist❤  23:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
The article Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya for comments about the article, and Talk:Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Questions about the table
If there were a script that would make one of these tables for any given set of discussions, that would be a very cool and useful tool. I'm not at all surprised by the results -- including that it seems the majority of participants did not participate in the majority of RFCs -- i.e., different editors are deciding these discussions, it's not always the same "block".

I had a bunch of questions, feel free to ignore or answer whichever ones you want:

What do you think about making the table sortable?

Adding horizontal and vertical totals?

For whatever method was used to categorize "Isr" and "Pal" (I assume that maps to "support"/"oppose", "keep"/"delete", etc. as applicable?), is it possible to categorize the outcomes of the 15 discussions as either "Isr" or "Pal" or neither/other/no consensus/whatever? I see some green bars and some blue bars, and I want to know if the outcomes--the consensus--is either a green bar or a blue bar or patchwork or what.

Also "match rate" would be interesting. Someone might vote one color all the time, but it tells a whole different story if their match rate is 0% or 100% or 50%.

It's a cool table, thanks for putting it together. Levivich (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Really it's just a table of associations based on who !voted the same. Certain editors always voted as a group, so they're "Group A". Other editors always voted as a group, always reaching the opposite conclusion of Group A, and that's "Group B". I then labeled the groups Pal and Isr because I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that's not what it is. For the most part it was just who voted support or keep and who voted oppose or delete, but on the non-poll discussions I had to actually read through them to see who agreed with whom. I'm probably going to blank the sandbox now that the motion has been passed, but I believe that evaluating discussion patterns like this is a viable method to identify possible WP:CPUSHers. The moral of the story is I'll find anything to occupy my time if it's an excuse to avoid real life responsibilities for a little while.  Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zeno of Elea
The article Zeno of Elea 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:Zeno of Elea and Talk:Zeno of Elea/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of L'OrfeoGreco -- L'OrfeoGreco (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zeno of Elea
The article Zeno of Elea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zeno of Elea for comments about the article, and Talk:Zeno of Elea/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of L'OrfeoGreco -- L'OrfeoGreco (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up on walled garden discussion
I didn't want to derail that thread more, so I'm posting my response here. I think project-level rejection/ignorance of NOTNEWS, PRIMARY, and SUSTAINED is a hugely under-acknowledged issue, and the only way to really tackle it is for more editors familiar with PAGs to get involved in niche deletion discussions etc. I've had the DELSORTs for sportspeople, academics, academic journals, and nobility watchlisted for a while now, but I wish there was some sort of yapperbot-like service that could alert us to a random selection of active discussions that only have one or two DELSORT tags. That way we wouldn't have to watch a whole category we're otherwise disinterested in but could still provide an outsider perspective at the AfDs very few people normally see. JoelleJay (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's probably my single biggest pet peeve on Wikipedia. I've found that whenever I start or join a deletion discussion and !vote to delete on the basis of those P&G, people double down and ignore them even when I quote them directly. Of the AfDs I've created or !voted on, I have a seemingly never-ending list of examples where policy was ignored in favor of subjective personal opinion. Current events has its own cohort of editors just as roads and sports do, and they get just as touchy when you try to clean up the messes they make. I've tried to tackle the issue at the Village Pump among other approaches, which saw some interest but very little to show for it. I honestly don't know what to do at this point to improve the lack of accountability on sourcing. There are already a few methods of sorting AfDs and I'm sure there's a way to set up such a yapperbot, but even then we still have the issue of more competent editors watching it and taking interest in these niche AfDs. And don't even get me started on WP:ITN. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I too have a long list of "bad closes", which I've put in a bookmarks folder. I also have bookmarks folders for good closes in various subjects as well as AfDs where the closing admin makes a good statement on the P&Gs discussed. Perhaps I'll start participating in CE AfDs, although probably only for pages where enough time has passed that the lack of sustained coverage can be used to bolster PRIMARY concerns. JoelleJay (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One of these days I'll take a bad close to deletion review, but honestly I just don't want to deal with the drama or with the editors who don't understand how sourcing works. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah DRV honestly isn't any better than AfD in a lot of cases. The "regulars" there are pretty uniformly on the side of keeping everything and so their !votes typically overweight the ILIKEIT AfD arguments and ignore the expectation that closers discount !votes that go against PAGs. This was a real problem back before the NSPORT RfC, where one cohort of DRV participants routinely argued "meets NFOOTY" was valid despite NSPORT always requiring GNG be met. I think more editors watchlisting DELSORTS for problem areas is the only real way to change things since apparently numerical majority overrides argument quality... JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that either of you asked me what I think, but couldn't help but notice that of the examples of bad closes above, the 3 no-consensus were 2021 and 2022 events (nom'd in 2023), 1 was a road so that's a project-cabal issue, and all the rest were, in my opinion, just nom'd too soon: 2023 events nom'd in 2023, in some cases within days of the event. That's too soon to determine SUSTAINED (and thus whether it's NOTNEWS), and all the sources about current events will be primary; by definition, it takes some time for secondary sources to be written (need multiple primary sources to be created first). So, I wouldn't say those are examples of the community ignoring the policies, just examples of why it's hard to delete current events -- without secondary sourcing, and without the passage of time, it's hard to judge SUSTAINED, so editors make their best guess, and invariably they're going to guess that a big tragedy will get sustained coverage (even if they end up being incorrect a lot, that's how the votes will go). I bet with a sample of AFDs where 1+ year passed, you'd see fewer keeps and more no-consensus, and then 3+ years or 5+ years, you'd see a lot more "deletes." Levivich (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Levivich, part of why I'm hesitant to jump into CE AfDs is precisely because I wouldn't know how long is long enough for SUSTAINED to be assumed for notable topics. But another issue is that I don't know whether there are some unstated criteria for CE that the more "curationist" among us use in that area, so I wouldn't want to jump in and piss people off applying the standards I use in AfDs on other topics to events. So it's possible the sourcing is obviously deficient to Thebiguglyalien but not to us. I know I find it aggravating when people unfamiliar with sports coverage show up in athlete AfDs offering what is clearly (to me) routine transactional news (and then I have to go through the exhausting motions of explaining that "routine" applies to sportspeople, no I promise you it's not just for events, look at the text of NOTNEWS (and even ROUTINE!) ffs, here are a dozen AfDs where admin noms or closers affirm transactional coverage is routine...). I've certainly run into that at athlete BIO1E AfDs where the 1E is very recent, which tend to attract a broader crowd than other athlete bios. For example at Maddy Cusack where it was so obvious that all the "significant" coverage of her death was primary and all the background was purely derivative of a couple press releases, and yet I guess it's sexist to discount such coverage since it's so much more than any other women's football player receives... And don't get me started on the non-independent and trivial profiles that pass for GNG on other women's bios if they're mentioned at WiR... On the original topic, I think one of the other good ways of contributing to AfDs in unfamiliar areas is to regularly comb through DRV. It definitely would have helped if more people who understand LOCALCON and know that NJOURNALS is neither a valid guideline nor a predictor/application of GNG had weighed in here... That area is especially frustrating because the journals crowd refuses to actually formally re-propose their criteria as an official guideline (it failed in the past) and has explicitly threatened sanctions on anyone "outside" who tries to do so since it would be "POINTY". So instead we get the status quo of regulars misrepresenting the essay as if it was a real guideline or as if its criteria aligned with GNG (no, getting an auto-generated impact score and field ranking from being listed in a "selective" index§ the journal applied to join is not IRS SIGCOV!), pointing to the decade they've been doing that at AfD as evidence it has widespread consensus, and claiming it's "just like citing HEY or TNT". And check out the talk page for what happens if you try to edit the essay itself to emphasize meeting GNG is required... § The essay states that having ever been listed on SCOPUS or WoS is enough for a journal to have its own page, regardless of whether there is any sourcing for any content beyond its own webpage. Where else is "not being a literal scam or obvious crap at some point in history" an acceptable criterion for SNG notability? And that's assuming those indices actually do filter out predatory and shitty journals... I'm not bitter at all and these things never keep me up at night! JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have strong thoughts about this sort of thing. In your examples I see canvassing, tendentious editing, and pointy misuse of notability guidelines. Sanctions are long overdue for some of these gatekeepers. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

1RR violation
Please revert this edit immediately as it is a violation of the 1RR rule imposed on the Red Sea crisis article. At this moment, I am in the process of adding more references including this article titled, “US-Iran proxy war rages back to life in Iraq”, which satisfies your issue. Either way, please revert immediately. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I did not see the 1RR notice. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah no problem. Thanks for reverting! Also, I did have a question regarding your concern. (Noting, I just added an article by the Council on Foreign Relations titled, “U.S.-Iran Proxy War Intensifies, Sudan Conflict Rages On, Sundance Film Festival Marks Forty Years, and More”, so your concern about it not being titled exactly is no longer an issue).
 * Your concern was that the NYT article, titled “U.S. and Iran Wage a Proxy War” doesn’t actually say US-Iran proxy war? May I ask why you think that those words don’t mean it is a proxy war? I will note, the article has since been re-titled “U.S. and Iran Battle Through Proxies, Warily Avoiding Each Other”, however, the original title still shows up as the “page tab title”. I’m curious about why you think it doesn’t actually mean it is a proxy war? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does mean it's a proxy war, and I would have no issue with using it to source "the conflict is a proxy war" or something to that effect in the body. My concern was that it doesn't support that being the actual name of the conflict. It would be like using this source to rewrite the lead to Blue whale to say It's true, but it's not the name unless other sources say it is.  Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nona Gaprindashvili
The article Nona Gaprindashvili you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nona Gaprindashvili for comments about the article, and Talk:Nona Gaprindashvili/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edith Roosevelt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christ Episcopal Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thor Volume 2 Issue 11.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Thor Volume 2 Issue 11.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Question on copying within Wikipedia
Hey, on my draft of Ida Saxton McKinley, I'm working on the historic assessment as it is an easy section to write. Is it alright if I copy the description of the study that Siena College performs on the First Ladies? I've poked around multiple FL articles and they seem to have the exact same description. I might end up modifying it later, but is it alright for me to use the description? I'm a bit nervous as this is my first attempt at a GA and I want to avoid as much trouble as I can. ❤History Theorist❤  04:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Since 1982 Siena College Research Institute has periodically conducted surveys asking historians to assess American first ladies according to a cumulative score on the independent criteria of their background, value to the country, intelligence, courage, accomplishments, integrity, leadership, being their own women, public image, and value to the president.

, it shouldn't be an issue. Copying within Wikipedia goes into detail, but really all you have to worry about is writing "Copied content from  ; see that page's history for attribution" or something similar in the edit summary. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response! I had some idea that attempting a GA would be a lot of work but the first attempt is always a bit nerve-wracking, and I'm paranoid that my writing either includes too much details, too little details, or is too boring. Oh well. Your GAs have been great inspiration! ❤History  Theorist❤  04:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've found that GA is actually the best place to figure that sort of thing out. Having an objective editor going over your work and listing further suggestions for improvement is invaluable. The real killer is the wait time. I nominated Anna Harrison almost five months ago and I'm still waiting. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 05:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 24
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 24 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) 20:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 23
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 23 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) 20:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 1
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 1 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) 20:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 25
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 25 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) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Lou Henry Hoover
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Samia Suluhu Hassan
The article Samia Suluhu Hassan 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:Samia Suluhu Hassan and Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi TBUA. Hope everything is going well. We haven't seen you around here in a week and a half or so. I don't mind leaving the review on hold for a little longer. It would help to know if that's something you want. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I went ahead and failed the review. Hope to see you again soon, and best of luck with a future re-nomination. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Autocracy
The article Autocracy 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:Autocracy and Talk:Autocracy/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ljleppan -- Ljleppan (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Samia Suluhu Hassan
The article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan 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 Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Autocracy
The article Autocracy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Autocracy 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 Ljleppan -- Ljleppan (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)