User talk:Z1720/Archive 4

Draft:Sergei_Ipatov
Dear Z1720‬. You wrote: “Please cite your sources using footnotes. There should be a reference at the end of every paragraph, minimum, since this is a WP:BLP.” Though there were about 40 footnotes and 6 external links (allowed by Scope creep), I transferred the external links to footnotes. Now there are no external links. Some references to the published biography were duplicated to a few places, and now there are references in all paragraphs, and also at the end of these paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Si14360 (talk • contribs) 19:28, July 30, 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for doing that in your draft. Please resubmit the draft to articles for creation when the article is ready to be published on Wikipedia and an editor will assess the new draft. I will say, however, that the citations you used to show that Ipatov is an author is not a reliable source because they are publishing his works, and therefore those cites are benefiting from having his articles on there. You need reliable, secondary, independent sources in your article. Let me know if you have any questions. Also, when you are posting on a talk page, please add four tildes like so: ~ . This will allow you to sign and date your message. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sergei_Ipatov
Dear Z1720. Thank you for your answer. Sorry, I do not understand what citations must be replaced and what citations must be new. Can you give examples what citations are wrong? I think that citations in other Wikipedia pages are similar to those in the draft. I do not understand what I need to change before resubmission.Si14360 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, citations like reference 10, 11, and 12 from this version should be removed. Wiki data (ref 8) should also be removed as Wikimedia citations are not allowed. I also see that most of the citations are to Ipatov and his work. While primary sources are allowed, an article needs to pass WP:GNG by showing coverage of that person in reliable, independent secondary sources. Anything Ipatov himself has published is not secondary. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sergei_Ipatov
Dear Z1720‬. Thank you for your comments. I deleted the former references 10, 12-14, 16 for lists of publications (only two references were left). Scope creep suggested to remove the references 12-16, you suggested to remove references 10, 11, and 12 (different references). Former ref 8 (to Wiki data) was removed. As Scope creep suggested, I deleted the sentence about Wikipedia pages in other languages, and former references 19-22 we used to populate other sentences. Most sentences in early life and career now have references. May it is not needed to put a citation to every similar sentence? For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Boss there are no citations in career. I hope that editing of the sections, other than achievements, are close to the end. As I understand, your main remarks are to the section about achievements were there are citations of Ipatov’s publications. Is it possible not to exclude this section, at least most of the text? I suppose that achievements are much more important and interesting for inclusion in Wikipedia than the list of institutions were a person worked. For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Walter_Elst, the main attention is paid to his discoveries, not to his career. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Stern, information about scientific results of Alan Stern is much greater than the information about his career. I suppose that small information about scientific results for some scientists may be only caused by that their biographers did not write about them. As to me, I prefer to read biographies with detailed achievements, but not those short biographies that sometimes can be found in wikipedia. May be the awards, the inclusion of the biography in dictionaries and encyclopedias, the published papers in Web of Science and Scopus journals can be considered as independent secondary sources In the first draft of the Ipatov’s bio there were no references to his papers (only text about his achievements), but then there were remarks that all text must be supported by citations. So the citations of Ipatov’s papers have been added. Such citations can be deleted, but probably it will not make the text better. In order to add secondary references to Ipatov’s achievements, the following sentence have been added just now to the beginning of the section “Main scientific interests and achievements”: Information about Ipatov’s main scientific interests and achievements is presented on [8, 9]. Information for you (not for the draft): These websites include similar Russian text about achievements, but without references to Ipatov’s papers. It is possible to add links to the papers which cited Ipatov’s papers, but I do not think that it is good. Si14360 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles need to have citations from reliable sources. Most sources used in an article should be secondary sources. If the only source talking about something is a primary source, then that information is usually not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Please find sources that are independent of Ipatov that talk about his research, and cite those instead. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for John Matthews (Upper Canada politician)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Thanks . It's amazing how Wikicup points can motivate a person, eh? ;) Z1720 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL! I was assuming that you were getting through so many in a spirit of comradely selflessness! Any hoo, they are much appreciated - there have only been five occasions in the past seven years when more that 30 FACs have been promoted in a month, and one of those was last month. It is good-quality serial reviewers like you who make this happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We can pretend that it's selflessness, can't we? Just don't tell anyone... (In seriousness, I am surprised at how quickly I am getting through most of these reviews. I don't think my standards have gone down, but lots of these articles just don't need much improvement, imo.) Z1720 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I'm happy to be Nelsonian about it. Yeah, we are getting a rush of decent quality nominations, and we really should be pushing them through the system faster. But can't grumble, we seem to be in good shape overall. You got any more nominations in the pipeline once your riot is done? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Might nominate John Rolph (politician) but I want to check with Nikkimaria first if a source would be high-quality. The nom will fail if it isn't and I don't want to waste FAC reviewer time with a failed nom. I'm also working a lot in URFA/2020 and FAR, and after Wikicup is done I'm going to fix up some older FAs (and some FA noms might spring from that research if I can spinout articles). Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. You are nearly at the point where you can ask to nominate a second FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll ask in Types Riot's FAC once my sourcing question is sorted out. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for James Hervey Price
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Types Riot is now a FA!
Let me be the first one to congratulate you for your work on Types Riot, which got promoted a Featured article! Great work. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Creigh Deeds
Dear User Z1720,

I wanted to follow up on my proposed edit to Creigh Deeds' page. Your response noted that this edit was too detailed about his career and that it would require constant updating of his accomplishments. I completely understand how you arrived at this conclusion. However, Creigh Deeds' page already has a list of bills he proposed (not necessarily passed) under the section State Senate. These bills come from 2008 or earlier, do not follow any cohesive theme, and are not clearly of great significance. If this list has existed on his page for many years, isn't some sort of update or supplement in order?

My submission, titled State Senate Accomplishments, lists bills related to mental health reform championed and passed by Creigh Deeds. It is clear from secondary source reporting that mental health reform has been a priority of Senator Deeds' career. For this reason, my post was intended to be a "summary of notable accomplishments" (which, as you noted, is the purpose of a wikipedia page) rather than a comprehensive list of legislative accomplishments that would need to be updated.

I hope you will consider taking action to update Creigh Deeds' page. By any plain view it is clearly out of date. I look forward to reading your thoughts on this matter.

Sincerely, David7925 David7925 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia pages should not have simple lists pertaining to a person without context, as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7. A list of bills that he has proposed should be removed, and instead the article should only contain the most important legislative work he has conducted, and this information should be summarized. In my opinion, the list that has existed on the page for many years should be removed. I won't be conducting further edits to the article at the moment, as I have other projects and articles that I am working on. Feel free to post another edit request on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Megan Phelps-Roper
The article Megan Phelps-Roper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Megan Phelps-Roper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Four Award

 * That's amazing! Congratulations -- The SandDoctor  Talk 00:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Paint It Black nominated for FAC
Hello Z1720! Paint It Black has now been nominated at FAC. If you have the time, would you be willing to take a look at it? -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer that new editors review FACs first so that new perspectives can be given. However, if the article is in danger of being archived without comments, please message me again and I will take a look at it. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thak you - and the many who helped - today for William Lyon Mackenzie, introduced: "Journalist. Politician. Rebellion Leader. William Lyon Mackenzie held many roles and got into a lot of trouble. He tried to reform the Upper Canada political system (what is now known as Ontario, Canada) and became Toronto's first mayor. He led the Upper Canada Rebellion, went a little crazy, and fled to the United States when government forces defeated the rebels. He organised an invasion of Upper Canada with American volunteers but was arrested by the American government and pardoned by President Van Buren. Upon his return to Canada, he became a politician and ranted against government proposals." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Megan Phelps-Roper
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice PR
Hi Z1720, I was wondering if you may be able to take a look at Peer review/Tumbling Dice/archive4 and offer any feedback? I'd love to take "Tumbling Dice" to FA soon. If not, no worries. Thank you for your time. -- The SandDoctor Talk 02:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that others have already started commenting in the PR, so I will let them finish their comments before I review it. Please ping me when it's my turn. After a quick scan of the article, I noticed that the ISBNs in the References section need to be standardized, and you might be challenged on the Amazon citations so find a new source or be ready to defend them as high-quality. I look forward to doing a deep read in the coming days or weeks, and please review other PRs in Template:FAC peer review sidebar and WP:FAC Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! ISBNs I think are standardized now. The Amazon idea was given to me by FAs 1989 (Taylor Swift album) and Blank Space. -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Mercer Johnson
The article John Mercer Johnson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Mercer Johnson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas David Morrison
The article Thomas David Morrison you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas David Morrison for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic
Hello, Z1720! I am very sorry to disturb you as I'm sure you're very busy. I have seen your comments are numerous FACs and been impressed with your work. I have opened up a peer review for My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic before hopefully nominating it for FAC. If you don't mind me asking, would you be able to leave comments here? If not, I completely understand. Thanks either way and have a great week! Pamzeis (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes I will look at this. If I don't comment there in a week, it means I forgot and you can ping me as a reminder. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention
Hi Z1720, since you've been interested in some similar articles I've nominated at FAC, I thought I'd just mention that I've nominated another, Anthony Kohlmann, which unfortunately is near to being closed for lack of input. If you care to leave any comments, they'd be appreciated as always.  Ergo Sum  21:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , I will try to get to the FAC, but I cannot guarantee anything as there's an election in my country which caused me to fall behind on Wiki-work. If looking for more reviewers, I suggest that you review other FACs: many editors review articles on an unofficial quid-pro-quo, or are more likely to review articles from people who regularly review other works and help reduce the backlog. Also, less FACs means bored/interested editors are more likely to review your work over others. An FAC requires at least 5 reviews before promotion, so any help with reviewing FACs is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken. I've been slacking on FAC reviews lately because work has also picked up here. I'll be sure to dedicate some more time for it.  Ergo Sum  00:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

BE
Apologies, I did not mean to cause you offence by my comment, I am still a little raw over the way that FAR was conducted. WCM email 18:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered with your comment, I just wanted the record to be clear about my reasons for delist. I also have concerns about that FAR with how long it was open, the breakdown in collaboration amongst editors (including my own), and the combative culture that I don't see in other FARs. I am conducting lots of self-reflection on my behaviour and how I contributed to that negative experience. I hope you will continue reviewing FARs; I am working on other ones at the moment and would appreciate your comments. I am also part of WP:URFA/2020, a project to review and repair featured articles, or to nominate them for FAR if they are too far from the criteria. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, if I'm honest I welcomed most of your input but have to respectfully disagree with some of what you wish to prune. As regards FAR, I am not in a good place right now, I found the whole FAR from the outset to be a negative and demotivating experience.  In the past I've found it an intense but productive and constructive process.  I just dunno, I'm feeling really demotivated right now. WCM email 19:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
I received a kudo from you for which I am completely clueless as to what. It has to be a Minnesota article, but which? I read your offer and would request that if you have a moment to go over the Mankato article at the top of my sandbox. I want the POV right because it is not a good subject and the MHS appears to have a POV issue. Do you know how to challenge a Wiki source for reliability or neutrality? The Minnesota Historical Society should be blackballed. They displayed Little Crows skull for scalp for 60 years as a war trophy for the State. They defended the hanging monument in Mankato almost until its removal. Now they have changed and as a publisher are promoting a revised history that absolutely fails to address the war crimes committed by Little Crows warriors. In military history the Minnesota hostilities of 1862 are now unique. The loser has gotten "how they are referred to" and the name of the hostilities changed. MHS now only calls the "Sioux"- "Dakota" and the "Sioux Uprising" is not the "US Dakota War". The re-branding of the hostilities is completely amazing for its historical inaccuracy as the US had the State of Minnesota act as its surrogate. It was a Minnesota Civil War with Minnesota troops vs. the Santee Sioux. ThanksMcb133aco (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)mcb133accoMcb133aco (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I moved your message from my user page to this talk page. I thanked you for your edits to History of Minnesota. The article is going through an assessment of if it is still a featured article. I hope you will continue to improve upon it so that it doesn't have to go through a review. If there are concerns about a source used on Wikipedia, please read WP:RS and post the concerns about the source on the article's talk page. As for your article in the sandbox, I suggest splitting the information into paragraphs to make it easier to read and ensure that everything, especially quotations, are cited. Also, ensure that the article reflects what sources say about the topic, instead of analysing the information. For example, the "Afterwards" section seems to be your thoughts on the subject, instead of what the sources say about the topic. If these are fixed up, this draft might be ready to post in the article space. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Types Riot scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. 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) 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I left some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2021 about this scheduling last week. Z1720 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer review (MacLehose Trail)
Hi Z1720,

Thanks for your comment on the peer review section of MacLehose Trail which I expanded back in July. I originally planned to move the article straight to GAN since I didn't receive any comments but it must have slipped my mind. If you were going to leave comments feel free, if not I'll remove the peer review tag tomorrow. Thanks again!

IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

UNMC PR
Thanks for looking after the PR. Some personal issues have been plaguing me for several months, so I have not shifted out of my WikiGnome mode. The Amanda Show had a super-heroine character named "The Procrastinator" whose motto was "I'll take care of it! EVENTUALLY!!" Amanda has been my inspiration ever since. Thanks, truly, for reminding me. – S. Rich (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I love that show! Don't worry about UNMC, I just wanted to ensure that inactive PRs are removed from the list so that editors are encouraged to review the more active ones. If you are looking to procrastinate, I highly recommend WP:FAC or WP:URFA/2020; this is where I'm currently going to procrastinate from my own wiki-projects. Let me know if you need anything. Z1720 (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer review on Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons
Hi, I saw your username while checking on updates on the peer review I have going on. I'm trying to get some suggestions and constructive critics on article Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons, but there's no respond on the peer review. So I'd like to invite you to check on it if you have time. I would be so thankful. Regards. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am a little behind on my wiki-tasks at the moment. However, I hope to return to reviewing articles soon. If I don't comment in two weeks, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Your advice
Hi. Please take a look at Draft:Bridgit (company). It is a proprely stated WP:COI contribution about a Canadian software company. The article was declined at the AfC as promotional. The reviewer also highlighted that some sources can be hidden advertising. I did some cleanup following these comments, but I don't see how the coverage at such sources as The Globe and Mail by staff writers can be treated as advertorials. Since you are a Canadian Wikipedia editor, I kindly ask you to check this article and provide your expert advice on how to improve the it. Regards, Peter. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

regarding the edit request for Matt Lovell (nutritionist)
Hello Z1720, thanks for the quick response. Apologies for being unclear.As the article I drafted has the presumption of COI and FCOI I have heavily edited the submission down and just wanted someone to confirm I had done enough, and requested an editor to review the whole article.QPMZWO (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. You should submit the text through WP:AFC, where an editor will review the text. Since the article doesn't exist yet, the request edit template should not be used yet. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Re Matt Lovell (nutritionist)
Thanks for the helpful pointer, much appreciatedQPMZWO (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Billy (Black Christmas) section rewrites
Hello Z1720, Taking your advice in regards to the personality section on your peer review of Billy (Black Christmas), I did a revamping of that section which I will rename Characteristics. let me know if there is anything that can be improved upon.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! 2
Thanks. I do not know if it is GA status, but feel free to ping me if nominating if you want a copyedit. If you ever need help with an article for a DYK special event, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I may take you up on either of those offers. I think it's GA not because it's super long (it clearly isn't), but based upon my searching at least it is pretty much completely comprehensive. It definitely does need a ce or two, however... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm working on Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, if you're interested in helping out. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

John A.
You've mass deleted some stuff and added some stuff too...I haven't had the time to look at them but please give me a brief explanation of what you are doing. I'm not criticizing you by the way. I knew the article had too much irrelevant information anyways.

P.S. just a warning that Wehwalt may revert your edits.

2nd P.S. I'm looking for Canadian editors' input on this RFC, mind taking a look?  Ak-eater06  (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave an explanation of what I am doing on the talk page at Talk:John A. Macdonald. I welcome any editor reverting my changes, as I trust that they will discuss the issue on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. As for the RfC, this looks like a dangerous content argument that I do not want to get involved in, and is so insignificant that I'm wondering why both groups can't just WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the article as-is. John Diefenbaker was on my URFA/2020 review list, but I will hold off until this argument is over. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked through your edits and they are in good-faith. I don't want to revert them, but some might. Also, thanks for your opinion on the Diefenbaker RFC. I do think it's a waste of everyone's time too. I didn't want to do it, but Wehwalt forced me to. Happy holidays.  Ak-eater06  (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give advice, and you can take it or leave it: No one can force you to do anything on Wikipedia, so if you don't want to be involved then walk away and work on a different article. Remove the article from your watchlist and don't respond to pings. Wehwalt's name has also been mentioned twice in this short thread: I think you have a conflict with them and I suggest that you work on articles that Wehwalt is not involved in. There are over 6 million articles on Wikipedia, so there must be an article somewhere that interests you that Wehwalt has not worked on. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and adding great information is more important than arguing over the inclusion of dates. If you ever need another opinion, feel free to message me here. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

C.D. Howe
I think you may be taking away too much detail. I've put some back and trimmed it, but feel free to trim it more. I'm also grateful for your comments above.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I posted on Talk:C. D. Howe to explain my actions and edit philosophy: I think that will be the best place to discuss the article so that other editors can see the conversation. I look forward to your response there! Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Pharcellus Church
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

FAC
Hi, can you support on Featured article candidates/Frozen II/archive3. Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, be very careful about how you send out these messages: FAC is very strict about editors not canvassing for support, so instead of asking "Can you support?" it is better to ask "Can you review?" If you are looking for reviewers, I suggest that you review other FACs to help with the backlog (especially in FACs of articles that are similar to yours), and post on Wikiprojects. I will review this if I find time, but I cannot give any guarentees. Z1720 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Z1720, and thanks for taking an interest in Women in Red. As you have already created a number of well presented biographies of Canadian dancers and choreographers, both male and female, and have helped to promote Megan Phelps-Roper to GA, it occurred to me that you might like to become a member of Women in Red yourself. Experienced editors like you are not only able to contribute to our efforts to reduce the gender gap but can inspire and assist less proficient participants. I'm posting below our priorities for January which also contains a button for registering as a new member. Happy editing and all the best for 2022!--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

COVID booster
The COVID booster knocked me on my butt for three days; at least (I hope) that means the body mounted a strong defense. Feel better soon! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My second dose destroyed me, it's the only time I have felt boiling hot and freezing cold at the same time. Fortuantely, it protected me from Omicron when my friends were all positive earlier this month. I'm feeling OK now after getting the booster yesterday, just not at 100% so I can't focus on copyediting. Z1720 (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Our huge plans for Christmas were all cancelled when dear hubby’s sister’s family came down with COVID … so I edited all day instead :) Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I hate to tell you this Sandy, but I think you're a Wikipediholic ;) Z1720 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Could be, but what else does one do on a cold winter day when Christmas is cancelled and you can no longer snow ski (per the tree that fell on me :) ?? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Your changes on Terry Fox
I ask you to reconsider the large number of edits you are making to this featured article. While some of them are fine, I do not agree overall that you are improving the article. Please consider making suggestions on the talkpage if you want to delete material that you consider “excessive” as others do/did not agree.Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you disagree with any changes I make to the article, please mention the changes on the talk page and I am happy to discuss it there (and feel free to ping me). I am reviewing this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, and I'm hoping to bring this article back to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are currently deleting material and phraseology that was in the article when it was brought to FA, so no, you are not bringing it back to FA standard. I am sure that you don’t mean to do this, but your approach seems very heavy handed and insulting to people who put in the hard work to bring an article to FA. Who are you to decide that an article does not meet FA standards? Isn’t that the job of the FAR? Isn’t the first step for FAR to review the article on the talkpage and make suggestions in a collaborative way? Not to substitute your opinion of what is “excess” etc for those who wrote the article and the other editors who did the FA assessment long ago?
 * Per BRD I will revert the edits I disagree with, and I ask you to go to the talkpage for you to make a case for why they are improvements. Thanks. Slp1 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am sorry that my edits have upset you. I totally agree with you to revert my edits if you feel they are unhelpful; I am happy to open a discussion on the talk page whenever my edits are reverted, and I am making these edits under WP:BEBOLD, the first part of BRD, and will comply with the discuss part of that explanatory supplement. I will also note that FA standards have increased in the 10+ years since this article was promoted and I can only interpret the criteria as I have seen in FACs and FARs running today. I encourage you to take over improvements to this article to help bring it back to FA standards, and I look forward to discussing other ways that this article can be improved on that talk page. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology. I realize that you are trying to help.
 * I have been around for way more than 10 years, and in my opinion the FA standards have declined considerably so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this! Very early FAs were indeed problematic but this FA was promoted at a time when the standards were as high as they have ever been.
 * If I might suggest it, avoiding the use of the phrase “bring it back to FA standards” will go a long way to help make this process smooth. Maybe say “make sure that it still meets FA standards”. Your current phraseology assumes that the article does not meet FA standards, and that it is something that the process of FAR decides  by getting the opinions of multiple editors. It is also pretty insulting to those of us who have worked hard over the years to keep the articles up to that standard!


 * Another suggestion… compare the current text to the one at promotion.  If a piece of text/info  was there at that time, (and is now not out of date etc) there needs to be a really good reason to delete it, as multiple editors reviewed it at that time and agreed with its inclusion.  Obviously the same cannot be said for the bloat that sometimes get added after the FA process!. Slp1 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments: I apoligise again for the way my edits were conducted and interpreted. I have taken your suggestion to heart and tried modifying my phrasing in my message at Talk:Terry Fox: it's hard for me to predict how my comments might be perceived and I appreciate feedback on how to improve these messages. I also think WP:URFA/2020 has jaded my opinion of featured articles promoted during this time: many articles have not been maintained since their promotion and require lots of improvements to bring them back to FA standards. I have been met with many barrages of "So fix it!" when I point out concerns on talk pages and FARs, so if I think the article is in good enough condition I will try to make the improvements myself to avoid the FAR. Hopefully, I will be able to improve the phrasing in my comments while continuing my review of these articles. As for comparing text to the one at promotion: I will do so when I am conducting my review. For some minor edits (phrasing, basic punctuation, etc.) I will try to be bold, but for major deletions I will post my concerns on the talk page in the future to ask opinions on why it was included. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you for your response and I appreciate all your suggestions at Terry Fox. I am sorry that you have been having so many weird and difficult responses to your efforts to make WP better! I appreciate it must be very difficult to navigate the various situations you are facing.
 * I am currently focussing my efforts on the École Polytechnique massacre article, but I will get back to Terry Fox and addressing your concerns as soon as I can.Slp1 (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses. I hope you will do me a favour: WP:URFA/2020 is tracking which FAs are still being maintained and updated. I would appreciate it that, when you are finished fixing up Ecole Polytechnique massacre, that you mark it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020, and also mark other articles that you are maintaining that still meet the FA criteria. This will greatly speed up our work and make it more likely that you will be pinged when a reviewer wants to make changes. Let me know if you have any questions, or post on WT:URFA/2020. Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I have finished with Ecole Polytechnique massacre and will mark up that page as you ask.Slp1 (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think something went wrong with your assessment tool
I reverted your assessment but I added the tags back in. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

FAC comments during GA reviews
Hi. Thanks for the explanation. My thoughts, for your consideration:

I understand you are coming at this from a good place (and in fact giving yourself more work to do as a result). My concern is that you are complicating the GAN process for editors. I note that you advise nominators to let you know if they want FAC feedback during the GAN, however if you are to continue doing that then I suggest it would be better to separate comments; this could maybe take the form of "GAN" or "FAC" at the start of every bullet?

My concern overall is that a GA nomination is based on the GA criteria. As such, the feedback should clearly show where the article needs work to meet the GA criteria. If you choose to weave in feedback for FA criteria, that should be sepearate so that it in no way does that extra feedback prevent promotion when GA criteria are met. Kind regards Mark83 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expressing your concerns. This is my second time doing this, (and the first time was for an experienced FA writer whose article needed very little work to bring to FA). I had a similar idea to what you suggested above and I am going to separate the comments by placing (FA) before comments that are for the pre-FA review. I am working on the next set of comments right now: I hope you'll give feedback on what you see and let me know if I need to make my instructions or format more clear. Any and all feedback is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Smile :)
 Hello Z1720, Pamzeis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

My Belarusy
Thanks for doing the notifications! Just a note: as I am wearying of doing the bookkeeping for other editors, I am working towards encouraging them to do it themselves rather than doing it for them. In particular, it's troubling how often I read through FAR and have to ping the original nominator to please update the status, so we don't all have to go have a look. It is expected that the nominator will shepherd their own nom, and I'm finding I'm carrying too much of that burden. So I plan to stop doing that :) Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was willing to do it because it was this editor's first FAR, and I encouraged them to bring it forward. If it was their second or third one, I would insist that they do it themselves. Hopefully they will review other articles! Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, I agree ... but was just explaining myself :) Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Job!

 * BINGO- thanks for carrying on, Z! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Mobileye
Hi Z1720. My name is Gideon, I work at Mobileye. I'm reaching out to you because I would like to collaborate on improving the company's article, and saw that you are both an active editor on the page and that you were willing to put a great amount of time and effort to respond to a request that was put up on the Talk page last year. I'm taking a new approach and just put up a new request there now, and would love to hear your thoughts, if you're willing. Thanks! Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I spend less time these days responding to edit requests, but I encourage you to keep using the edit request system to suggest changes to the Mobileye article. I also encourage you to read through some featured articles like Legend Entertainment or which will give you a sense on how Wikipedia's best articles are written and formatted. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Z1720, thanks so much for your response. I appreciate it, and will take a look at articles like Legend Entertainment. As for questions- for now, my edit request was more of a question/discussion point, as I'm hoping to engage others and collaborate towards a final draft, as opposed to simply requesting small changes. If something specific does come up, I will reach out to you for help. If you do decide to get involved, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks again for your insight, Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I wish request edits was more of a discussion, the reality is that most editors do not want to discuss COI edits because they want to work on their own articles. It will probably be faster if you write the exact wording you want to appear in the article and ensure that your changes conform to WP:WIKIVOICE, specifically that the text is not trying to promote the company, emphasize unimportant facts or remove unfavorable material. Please also ensure that your draft includes reliable, secondary sources (Wikipedia has a list of reliable and unreliable sources at WP:RS/P). Longer requests usually take longer to complete because editors are less interested in checking those edits, so please be patient and consider making smaller requests (or splitting up the request) if you are able to. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Re taking longer- that makes sense and I'll do my best :) Thanks again. Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Z1720, I hope you are well. My previous edit request was discussed and implemented (thanks for closing it!) and I'm now hoping to gain some clarity regarding the controversy section of the Mobileye article. One editor has already stated his opinion, but I'm not sure his answer addressed the points I brought up. If you have the time, I'd really appreciate you taking a look at Talk:Mobileye. Looking forward to your input! Thank you, Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Evrovidenie/GA1
Z1720, there was a response to your latest GA review comment, but they didn't ping you, so you wouldn't have seen it. Thought I'd let you know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

September 17 TFA
Hi Z1720. I see that you have pre-nominated NASA Astronaut Group 2 for the September 17 TFA. I was wondering if you would be open to considering allowing me to pre-nominate September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market instead? The reason I ask is that this article is about events that took place on this specific date, while it seems to me like NASA Astronaut Group 2 is perhaps less clearly tied to September 17 and could potentially run on any day. Of course feel free to let me know if you disagree, there's no pressure at all. JBchrch  talk  01:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm fine with that. Feel free to replace the nom. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! JBchrch   talk  01:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Enzo Enzo
Please review it. Faster than Thunder (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi
Hi mate, my sincere apology no responding to your comments here. Due to no accessibility of internet at that moment I was not able to address points raised. As of now I will hold this article for a while. Meantime, would you like to leave your suggestions here. Thank you.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hubble Space Telescope
Hi Z1, Before I stopped actively editing on my account (I wasn't logged in yet, because I was in public) due to my new job, can you spot other problems in this article? I'm sure this article is very much in worse shape and a lot of the texts are uncited, but some editor wants to be specific, so I kind of went on to you instead, and so I can maybe sent it into FAR next week at least. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:D50:AF70:E49E:FD5D (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Depths of Wikipedia
Thanks for promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Depths of Wikipedia! I saw that you wikilinked the other articles mentioned in the hook – any chance you'd be willing to undo that? They're linked from Depths of Wikipedia anyway, and if they're also linked from the hook itself I anticipate that many viewers will click on one of those other articles rather than the article that's actually on DYK. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I cannot guarantee that another editor will not add them back in, so I recommend watchlisting the Prep template. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Carol Van Strum
Thank you Z172O for offering the alternative hooks. As I am just starting as a Wikipedia editor, this is my first page creation, and I had no idea what DYK was or how to submit for it before Michael Turnbull wrote me, I would say that the alternative hooks ALT 2b and ALT2d read well to me but I would leave it to those more experienced in the ways of DYK to choose the one most likely to grab a reader's attention. I had put 'barn' in not just because it is where the documents are but also because it sounded catchier to me than an expected word such as 'library'. Thanks for your help and consideration. Please let me know if there is anything I should do. Balance person (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment here. I see that the hook has been promoted, so continue to follow along the DYK process by going to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. If there's a problem with the hook (like someone changes the wording that makes the hook inaccurate) then post your concerns on the DYK talk page at WT:DYK. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. I hope DYK has been a positive experience for you. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (nom)
I didn't really consider Buck Wild to be core cast, but we can change it to "none of the original core cast members" if you'd like, since buck wild was (thank god) not in Ice Age. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this. There might be some OR concerns with "none of the original cast" but I think the information about the recasting in the reception section will cover this. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The DYK Barnstar

 * that's funny, i was just here to do the same :) thank you, thank you, thank you for all your work at DYK's prep sets; I've seen you raising questions at DYKNA, too, you've clearly got a sharp eye and your work is quality. I really appreciate it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do it anyway, or find another to award. --evrik (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Decome
Should I go back and add an image to the nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Decome? --evrik (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * up to you. If an image is added, please make a note so that others know that my approval did not consider the image. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you consider approving the nomination again if I use an image from the article, decome? --evrik (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah just ping me and I'll take a look. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Cougar
Could you take a look at Cougar again, thanks. 2001:4455:699:AB00:C192:8362:8DB3:1CA7 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * recheck again. 2001:4455:620:F00:105B:86A6:E072:4642 (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

re: this edit
good call. very good call. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK promotion
I was curious if there is something wrong with Template:Did you know nominations/Daisy Wood Hildreth. It's currently the oldest biography nomination with no image, but promoters continually seem to skip over it. SL93 (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Adolphe Jacquies
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for James Edward Smith (politician)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Joshua George Beard
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

don dunstan
hello, Z1720! i had a question regarding this blurb for this article. i know that a full date is often mentioned in a blurb when it is relevant to the blurb's run date, and this blurb is scheduled to run on the 55th anniversary of dunstan's first inauguration as premier, as mentioned in your tfa nomination. however, i was not sure how best to insert it without going over the limit of 1025 characters. i am assuming that replacing "in 1967" with "on 1 June 1967" would be the best way to insert the date.to make space for the addition, how do you feel about either replacing "Although he lost the 1967 election" with "After resigning in 1968", or dropping the "in 1999" at the end? the article states that dunstan resigned due to losing a vote of confidence after the 1968 state election, as his party had lost two seats in the election (although technically he had won the election in order to keep the seat for norwood), so i think this rewording may be more accurate. (in addition, i think "1967" may have been meant to be "1968".) also, dunstan's year of death is mentioned in the lifespan at the start of the blurb, so no information would be lost by dropping "in 1999". dying (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any of these solutions works for me. I welcome any improvements to the blurb. I have the template on my watchlist so I will look at your edits and if I have concerns I will contact you. Thanks for doing this. Z1720 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * great, i ended up and leaving the end of the blurb intact.  thanks, Z1720!  dying (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for John Hutchison (Canadian politician)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Abishabis
— Maile (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Manning
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Warring Kennedy
— Maile (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for John Jacob Withrow
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Acoutsina
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Pierre Allemand
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Job Abbott
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"Removing copyright concerns"
Hi there, I'm alarmed by your recent edits at Yi Jeonggyu, like this one, which have edit descriptions like "removing copyright concerns", but involve no substantial changes. Replacing the word "about" with "approximately" does not make it any less of a copyvio issue - it just makes it harder for automated copyvio checkers to find the issues. Please don't do this! -- asilvering (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for post your concerns here. This article is currently in the DYK queue prep, and I made the changes to try to bring the article closer to compliance with WP:PLAG. If there are plagiarism concerns, please post on WT:DYK so they can be sorted before this article appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Those changes would not bring it closer to compliance though - changing a single word does not change something that was plagiarism into something that isn't. So if you had plagiarism concerns strong enough to want to tinker with individual words, there is a plagiarism concern! (that you noticed!) You'd have to rewrite the sentence/paragraph to avoid it in that case. -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for George Allsopp (Canadian merchant)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
So many thanks for your diligent work at DYK and FAR.

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC) 


 * Ditto that !!! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Preps
I'm going to be out for a few hours, but leave at least one prep for me? If it makes things easier for you – definitely happier to do both. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Theleekycauldron it's bedtime for me, so they are all yours if you want them. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Prep area 6
Hello. Can you confirm if prep area 6 for DYK is for July 22, since in my Green Goblin nom, I asked it to be featured on July 22? — SirDot (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Prep 6 is scheduled to update to the main page on July 22 at 0:00 UTC time. You can see all of the update times at WP:DYK/Q. Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — SirDot (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A.C. Monza FA candidate
Hey, how's it going? I see you've reviewed football-related articles for FA in recent years. A.C. Monza has been a candidate for over three weeks, and there are almost no comments. I would really appreciate it if you took some time to leave a comment (it doesn't necessarily have to be a full review) :) Nehme1499 21:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. I am not currently reviewing FACs (although I will probably be in August). To increase the likelihood that your article will be reviewed, my suggestion is to review as many other FACs as possible. This will reduce the number of FACs (as your review will help get it promoted) causing editors to be more likely to pick your FAC to review, it will build goodwill among the FAC community so others will want to review yours, and it causes editors to be confident that you understand the FA criteria and thus it will take less time to review your article. Many editors, including me, look at the FAC stats tool before deciding which articles to review, so having a good review-to-nomination ratio causes more editors to review your noms. Good luck and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Mather Byles Almon
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Hector d'Andigné de Grandfontaine
Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Laure Conan
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Angéline de Montbrun
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Z1729, on bringing attention to women and their works by making good use of DYK. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Caulfield Anderson
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

speed of light
Z1720, i had a question regarding this blurb for this article. would it be more appropriate to use the link "inertial reference frame" in the blurb, rather than "reference frame"? the article lead links to the more specific topic, though i was not sure if there was another reason for linking the more general topic in the blurb, such as a desire to avoid using overly technical terms on the main page. dying (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not a subject-matter expert on this so I am a bad person to ask. Maybe would have some better insights? Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's go with "inertial reference frame"; the material in that article is more directly pertinent. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . thanks, both of you!  dying (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Prep 7
Are we both working on it? --evrik (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't realise that you were working on it. I'll move the sculpture to Prep 1 and pause. (I am blocked from approving a lot of the hooks at the top of the approved list, so it's probably better if you set preps first.) Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We started almost simultaneously. I got an edit conflict. --evrik (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Coyote en Ayuno has been moved, I'll leave Prep 7 to you (and you are also welcome to do prep 1 :P) Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can do 1. Can you proof them for me? --evrik (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Other editors will also take a look who are better at fixing up preps (they are a lifesaver!) Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Horace Archambeault
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this and constant work for DYK! I have pics from vacation days to offer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph-Alfred Archambeault
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Dickson Archibald
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Armour
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Request on 18:18:17, 8 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Rosepolicarpio
I want to publish my article on Joaquin Alejandrino Natividad and it keeps getting declined/rejected. Please let me know exactly what lines I need to edit or what I need to correct.

Rosepolicarpio (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for creating articles on Wikipedia. I am going to avoid pointing out line-by-line where changes need to be made because that will take too much time for me. Instead, I highly encourage you to read WP:WIKIVOICE to get some understanding of the tone that Wikipedia articles need to be written in. Essentially, all opinionated statements that are presented as facts need to be reworded. For example, "Mamerto Natividad, Sr. a prominent lawyer and first martyr of Nueva Ecija" Wikipedia cannot state that this person was a prominent lawyer or that they were a martyr, as those are opinions and I doubt the Spanish authorities would consider him a martyr. Those types of statements need to be reworded. This is not the only example, so please look for opinionated statements throughout the whole article. I hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Aerodynamic Forms in Space
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Adminship
It seems to be open season at RfA at the moment, with lots (relatively speaking) of nominations going on, and you had a successful and encouraging ORCP recently, which correlates with my own spot-check of your activities. As you might be aware, I'm supportive of anyone with a good track record of content creation, an appropriate AfD record, and a genuine need for the tools (in your case, DYK) for adminship. Maybe now is the time to go for it? (Paging ). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I might be part of the problem here as I've had very high on my to do list finishing a vet for Z1720 but it hasn't quite gotten to the top (Femke who I'd been in contact with before popping back up didn't help matters). I will commit to getting it done no later than this weekend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah right. I've been checking out some other candidates too, but they're all "not now" (either from me or from them). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Email with vetting results have been sent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And from me too Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in. But ... y'all are picking off all my help at FAR!  I hope their contributions don't decrease ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Armstrong (Royal Navy officer)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Gabe Hirschowitz
Hi! I'm writing to ask about how to do footnotes correctly for my page on Gabe Hirschowitz because the page keeps getting rejected for not doing footnotes instead of inline citations yet in following the instructions on how to create footnotes I received the last time the page was rejected for this issue, I thought I had fixed the problem. Now, I am confused to learn that I apparently had not and that you consequently rejected the page. Could you please tell me what exactly I'm not doing and how you need me to do it? Phill.Provance (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited the draft and placed "citation needed" in the places that need a footnote with the citation. I hope this helps, and let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Z1720: Thank you so much! I think I've corrected it now. Does it look right? Phill.Provance (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay then....
Page untranscluded but up at Requests for adminship/Z1720 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
I noticed that you weren't autopatrolled when you set up your RfA. Hi Z1720, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AZ1720 added] the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed' and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned prolific creators of articles where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  02:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. I had looked into being autopatrolled a couple of weeks ago, but saw that it suggested that I had created 25 articles, which I haven't done yet. Thank you for entrusting me with this permission, and let me know if there are any concerns with my editing. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel Arnoldi
Vanamonde 00:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with your new tools!  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   19:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * +1, congrats! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good job Z! If you ever get tired of DYK or TFA, I wholeheartedly encourage you to help at NPP. We would be glad to have you! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Congratulations  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  20:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for your successful RfA! Fourth of this month, a net positive in the month. Thingofme (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I hope you are happy with your new tools. Don't forget about your new, clean mop. The mop will age and become more dirty over the years, but at least you know what to do. Go to Lowe's, get another for free, whatever. Sarrail (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your RfA
I've Maxim has closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with your new tools!

—usernamekiran (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Belated congrats. I missed the party, but nice to see a newly minted content admin :) Ceoil (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Same here, congratulations on adminship! 😁  Johnson 524  (Talk!) 01:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A baton for you!

 * @Femke: I like that idea a lot! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Clever idea. And congrats. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Correlation between hook length and viewcount on DYK
There isn't really a great way to collect data for this question – the best I could do is collect all of the viewcount data from July 2022, and measure it against the unadjusted hook length. Unsurprisingly, I found no correlation, linear or otherwise (m=-1.09 vph/char, R2=0.036). What would be a more insightful set of data is if we could measure the same hook fact in different wordings, through A/B testing. I'd be convinced that punchiness doesn't affect viewcount when I see that data turn up no correlation. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for compiling this data. I am keeping an eye on the discussion, and using it to inform my own practice and reviews at DYK. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

94th Academy Awards FLC
Hi there,

I was wondering if you could do a proofread of the 94th Academy Awards for featured list consideration. I would greatly appreciate the help.
 * -- Birdienest81 talk  19:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little busy at the moment, but I will add it to my to-do list and hopefully get to it in a few days. Z1720 (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

COIN
Hey, he's only blocked for 5 days, and that was only after an RPP because he wouldn't stop editing. He still needs to respond to the COI. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph-Alexandre Baile
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wallace
Hi, I saw today on WP Evolutionary Biology that you've nominated this for FAR. Shame, if you'd put a note there instead of on the article's talk page a few weeks back, it'd all have been sorted by now. But we are where we are. I've today sourced the text, removed a few bits that seemed inapposite, renamed a couple of sections and removed some lists which didn't seem necessary. It certainly looks a lot better. I don't know whether it's possible to avoid the whole FAR machinery now that the lever has been pulled - that'd certainly be nicer; I'm basically allergic to reviews, and don't intend to make a habit of rescuing other people's work at FAR. But it'd be a pity if this grand old article by Rusty Cashman bit the dust, and there are very few editors left who seem to have the time, skill, or inclination to do serious work on evolutionary biology. Anything you can do will be gratefully appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I did not respond to this sooner: real life has been busy. I am happy to see your edits to the article. I do not typically post messages on Wikiproject talk pages about FA concerns because there could be several articles that have concerns, and some projects do not like the large about of notices. However, FAR is very kind about keeping FARs open while improvements are ongoing. When your edits are complete, please post a note in the FAR and ping me, so that I or others can take a closer look. I am also happy to copyedit when information has been added. I'm really excited for this article to be fixed up, as it can re-run at WP:TFA and more editors can learn about this person.
 * As you know, WP:URFA/2020 is working to improve older FAs, of which Wallace was one of those on this list. WP:FARGIVEN is a template that lists articles that have received an FAR notice (step 1 on WP:FAR). I hope that you will review some of those older articles, or respond to some of the notices that have been placed at FARGIVEN. If you want, I can also prepare a list of suggested articles at URFA/2020 (articles similar to Wallace) that might interest you. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Please help: Libelous content on DCG page
Hi, thanks for your previous help on the page Digital Currency Group. I was hoping you could help out again. I’ve written an urgent proposal about the section Digital Currency Group at Talk:Digital Currency Group. I have a disclosed COI. Would you be able to take a look? Thanks much.CertifiedTurtle (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing draft Tony Mitton bio
Hello I've submitted a draft page on the children's author Tony Mitton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Tony_Mitton Comments welcome many thanks david Dz3 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

FAC?
Hi there, hope you are well! A few months back you were kind enough to review one of my FACs. If you had any spare time, I wondered if you fancied taking a look at this one, which could do with a few more sets of eyes......? Not to worry if not. All the best! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup awards


Congratulations on these awards! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Assistance for getting started with GAN reviewing
Hi, I'm planning to get started with GAN reviewing and I thought it might be a good idea for my first review to have a more experienced reviewer in the backseat to make sure I'm not heading in the wrong direction. I was thinking about getting started with a review of the article Julian Pierce since the topic is not difficult, it's not too long, and I have access to most of the sources. Would you mind reviewing my review as I go along or do you know someone else who might be kind enough to give me a hand? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to take a look at the review after you leave your initial comments. Feel free to respond here when you have finished your initial review and I will take a look. Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've finished my initial comments. Overall, the article seems to be in good shape except for a few details. I hope I didn't overlook any important parts. I've listed some ideas on what additional contents might be included but I'm not sure whether these additions are strictly speaking required for GA. Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a look at my review. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

List of accolades received by CODA (2021 film) source review
Hi there,

I was wondering if you could do a source review for List of accolades received by CODA (2021 film) regarding its featured list promotion.
 * -- Birdienest81 talk  21:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

TFA nominations
Hi there. If you would like After the Deluge (painting) and Will P. Brady to be considered for TFAs in February, you need to think about nominating them. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I removed Will P. Brady because it appeared as TFA in 2022. I went through many FAs and figured out some good noms for specific dates, but I want to give editors a chance to nominate their own articles first before I "take their spot". When is the latest that I should nominate articles so that TFA co-ords have time to consider them (so they are not moving around articles last minute, causing them extra work)? Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are doing a grand job of researching worthy candidates and helping us to add breadth. I am scheduling February and would like to have the final draft bedded down and partially loaded onto TFA by 10 January latest. I think that if people haven't nominated an article by the end of December, they probably aren't going to; or are going to do it so late that it won't be accepted anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll add noms from potential TFA noms early on. At the end of the month, I'll add nominations for topics that have not been nominated that month and whose suggested date is not taken. Typically, I try to nominate article whose suggested date is a multiple of five, because I like round numbers. If you are ever looking for a TFA on a specific topic, let me know and I'll look for some suggestions. Z1720 (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Issue One request
Hello Z1720. I recently posted at WikiProject Politics asking for help with a request of mine about Issue One. I see that you're an active editor there, so I'm hoping you can give me advice on where I should post next.

I have a conflict of interest as I work at Issue One, so my hope is that I can find an experienced editor to review what I've put together and then implement the changes if they seem like improvements. Any direction you can provide would really help! AR at Issue One (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi again and happy new year Z1720! Just checking in to see if you've had a chance to look at the request I posted on the WikiProject Politics page. The request was previously archived, so I just wanted to post the new link here. You can also find the edit request under "Request for updates to History" on the Issue One Talk page. Any help or feedback you can provide would be much appreciated. Thank you so much! AR at Issue One (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to real world time constraints, I spend less time these days on edit requests. This request is still in the queue so another editor will review it in due time. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, Z1720, thank you for your quick reply! If you have any suggestions for any other editors I should reach out to, please let me know. AR at Issue One (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

PR Review sidebar
Hi Z1720, thanks for adding the FAC peer review sidebar to the David Kelly PR. This is something I've not seen since my last foray into FAC (about three years ago), but it's clearly a good thing. Just on a point of etiquette, is this something I should add to PR's I open (for future FACs), or is it left to others to judge a PR needs more eyes and they add it? I'm happy to live with either, but just wanted to make sure I get it right. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out. The FAC PR sidebar is for any article at PR that is receiving comments for an eventual FAC run. Any editor can add articles to the sidebar, including the PR nominator. There's no minimum comment requirement or judge as to which articles are added; just like PR, it's an informal process and I just choose to dedicate time to maintaining it. I hope you'll review some of the articles in the sidebar to encourage others to nominate articles for FAC. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thanks for the info. I shall add it somewhere useful and use it when people aren't asking directly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2022 (UT

Happy New Year, Z1720!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Z1720, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

FASA
Did I set it up correctly Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)/archive1? Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , I usually add the stats for the benefit of !voters ... see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Mary Martha Sherwood/archive1 ... I also put them on the FASA page in the same format that Nikkimaria uses when she copies them to records, so she won't have to do the work ... see format at Featured_article_review/FASA/Records ... I can look in tomorrow ... at 15 pages (10 more to go) of horrible Spanish translated for GamerPro64, I am too tired to think at the moment ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5 and here.  I notify WT:FAC, WT:FAR, and the same WikiProjects as notified on the FAR.  I can get to those tomorrow or next if you are too busy ... I like doing those notifications as they help others see that good things can happen at FAR.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the stats. Will make an attempt at the notifications ... Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've notified the three projects that I'm aware to be reasonably active, as well at WT:FAR and WT:FAC. Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for your peer review on A Pickle for the Knowing Ones!

MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about Peer review/Kamikaze Hearts (film)/archive1
Hello! A couple weeks ago I created this peer review request. However, the article has since been moved, and is now named Kamikaze Hearts. Should the PR also be moved to reflect the new title? ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 17:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think when a page is moved, the peer reviews and GARs are not. When this is closed, feel free to message me and I will make sure it is properly stored on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Coincidence? I think not...
Today's featured article is Meet Kevin Johnson, which you nominated. Regarding this episode:


 * It was part of the show's 4th season
 * Specifically its 8th episode
 * It first aired 15 years ago today
 * With only 16 ordered scripts, this was Lost's shortest season
 * The current year is 2023
 * And the episode itself has a runtime of 42 minutes (like pretty much every other non-premier/finale episode)

Coincidence? 🤔 Kurtis (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Witchfinder General (film) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 19 May 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/May 19, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 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) 12:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The TFA nom for the Greek archeologist: it was caused by a discussion on the main editor's talk. I'm not a friend of "death-dates", but particularly not in this case as he lived under a different calendar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Question from Dcoffee6929 on General disclaimer (15:41, 22 April 2023)
Hello My question is: How often is Wikipedia updated? --Dcoffee6929 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi the text on Wikipedia is continuously updated by volunteers. As soon as a volunteer submits their edit to an article, it is updated on the website. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Question from Kathanil (09:48, 4 May 2023)
Hi Team,

I want to create new Wikipedia page, can anybody help me with the same? --Kathanil (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What is the topic that you want to create an article about? Ensure that an article on the topic does not already exist, and that it is notable enough by Wikipedia's standards (as indicated at WP:N and WP:GNG). Once you are ready to create the article, please go to articles for creation to create the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Z1720 Thanks, I really appreciate your answer. Kathanil (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review
Hi, Worked on your suggestions for this GA review, you may continue the review. Rim sim (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Mcpmusicman (18:05, 16 May 2023)
Hello, I am concerned that the posting for Nakba. There is reference to Professor Constantin Zureiq and his pamphlet of August 5, 1948. However, lacking is the most important few lines of the pamphlet. Zureiq said: "We must admit our mistakes and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot. If the Arabs would have participated they could have had a state just like Israel. It was the prompting of other Arabs that they fled and ended up in a stateless situation. Not Israel. --Mcpmusicman (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for asking about this. The Nakba article is a controversial topic of Wikipedia, so editors are more cautious about what is included. Wikipedia also tries to avoid too many quotes (due to copyright issues and clarity) and avoids presenting opinion statements as facts. Zureiq's statement seems to fall in this opinionated zone and I do not think it should be included. If you disagree with me, I suggest posting your argument on the article's talk page and asking for other editors' opinions. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do disagree because of the continued representing of Israel as the cause of the "Palestinian problem". Mcpmusicman (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is pro forma, I mentioned you in a filing but you aren't accused of any wrongdoing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abishabis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Abishabis 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abishabis
The article Abishabis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Abishabis for comments about the article, and Talk:Abishabis/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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination
Thanks for nominating South of Heaven for the main page. Appreciate the fact that work I did a few years back is noticed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Z1720

 * Hi Z1720. Thanks for your comments at WT:FAC.
 * I'm gonna go drop Bengal famine of 1943 into WP:PR. I look forward to interacting with you.
 * Do you actually copy edit, or just comment about what needs copy editing? You are of course very welcome to copy edit, if you wish.
 * Thank you for your time & trouble. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 00:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll copyedit if it's an obvious mistake (spelling, extra space, etc.) but if I am confused by something I will ask a question. I might be a couple days before I do a pass as I do not know what my schedule will be like. I suggest that you try to find redundancies in the article and remove extra information that is not needed. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Z1720, thanks! Unfortunately, I'm a bad person to ask to copy edit BF43. First, I'm too close to the text. I wrote more than 90% of it myself, although it has been altered here and there in the interim (sometimes significantly). I often don't see the problems. Second, it depresses me to edit it. Sorry. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 13:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Cheers &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 14:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

FAC/Abishabis
Hi Z1720, just popping by to apologize for my long silence at your FAC nom. I’m still alive and I haven’t forgotten you. We’re in the middle of a cross-country move, and I’ve been wrapped up in pre-move tasks, and now the move itself —- much more chaos than expected (though no doubt I mis-set my expectations). I should be settled with wifi in a few days and then you’re at the top of my wiki-todo list. If the nom is in danger of being archived, shoot me an email and I’ll find an hour to hide from my family in a closet and get this done. Thanks, and I hope you’re well! Ajpolino (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message! I don't think its in danger of being archived (there's 3 supports right now) but I will ping you if there's a concern. Have fun with the move and I hope everything goes well! Z1720 (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Popping by to say I've left a second round of comments. They should be easy to deal with, and then I'm happy to support the FAC. Thanks again for your patience. Ajpolino (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Peer review request - "Andhra Pradesh"
@Z1720, I would like to request your help for Wikipedia:Peer_review#Andhra_Pradesh. Thanks. Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

iwan roberts
Z1720, i had a quick question regarding this blurb for this article. was there a reason why leicester city was not mentioned in the blurb? i don't personally mind, but considering that all the other teams roberts played for appear to be mentioned in the blurb, i was worried that some main page readers familiar with roberts may consider it a deliberate slight. if it was only due to length considerations, i think we can add the team name if we replace "almost half as a player" with "almost half playing", "research into dementia" with "dementia research", and "has attributed" with "attributed". if it was simply an inadvertent oversight, that's also completely understandable.courtesy pinging fac nominators and. dying (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Holy starking1 on Hubbard Foods (01:03, 4 July 2023)
Hello How can I write article about someone who I’m not is on wikipedia ? --Holy starking1 (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking this question. If the person is notable, you can create an article for that person. Typically, a person is considered notable if three independent sources write a significant amount about them. Once you are ready, go to WP:AFC and follow their instructions for creating an article. Remember that your article has to cite those three sources, or else the article will not be accepted onto Wikipedia. Feel free to message me if you want me to take a look at an article and I can give some feedback on how to improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikiconference proposal
noticed this. Good luck! (I am also giving a talk there on FAC, hopefully). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was actually inspired by your proposal. Hopefully, they are both accepted. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Galaxy
Could you send that Article for fAR. Has a lot of issues, meanwhile there are no psychology topic on far yet this time. 49.149.96.255 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are a lot of articles that are suggested for FAR (see WP:FARGIVEN) and editors can only nominate one per week, so it would be a while until I can bring it to FAR. However, I encourage you to sign up for an account and nominate it to get the process started. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article
Hi, I found that you are involved with the "Today's featured article" selection. It can be seen that most of the first page articles are centered around dominant cultural aspects and perspectives of a potential English language editor. I was just curious to know, whether it is an established guideline or just a common practice. Because I know some historic articles like Darius the Great, which is also been selected as a "good article", and due to its mention in Greek sources as well, might be of point of interest to the audience from all across the world. Can you please guide me to a mutual understanding and direct me? Thanks a lot A281666666 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Today's featured article (TFA) is selected from articles that have been deemed featured articles by the community. These articles need to fulfil the featured article criteria and be reviewed by multiple editors to get that designation, in a process called FAC. Good articles are a step towards becoming a featured article, but an article cannot be selected for TFA unless it obtains featured article status. There's no rule that the first page (what most Wikipedia editors call the Main Page) should be centred on the English language editor; in fact, English Wikipedia tries to select articles from around the world and from places whose dominant language is not English, but this is hard because editors are volunteers and will write articles that they are interested in. Also, TFA is only one part of the process for selecting what goes on the Main Page, as every box (In the News, Did You Know, On This Day, etc.) has their own rules, sub-culture and rules for selecting what is on the Main Page.
 * If you want Darius the Great to be featured on the Main Page, I suggest improving the article with high-quality sources (mostly from academic sources published by universities), getting an FA mentor and nominating it to WP:FAC. Once it becomes a featured article, I am sure it will be selected to appear at TFA pretty quickly. Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with selecting October TFA reruns?
Zed, if you've got some spare time, would you be willing to pick a few (additional) reruns for October for TFA? If so, I'll tell you what I've got so far and give you some rough goals to aim for. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can do that. Anything specific you are looking for? Do you want generally under-represented categories or popular/vital articles? Z1720 (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In no order at all:


 * I don't have a strong preference. We're allowed to schedule two per week, but less than nine would be fine if you and I can't find two articles per week that meet whatever criteria you and I choose to set. (So, tell me about your criteria, I know you've been suggesting reruns for a while. I agree with you that anniversaries make good choices, but I prefer anniversaries that are multiples of 10 or 25 years, only because I've seen people complain otherwise.)
 * Offline from Wikipedia (on Google Sheets) I have made a list of articles with some sort of anniversary (birthday, founding, anniversary of battle, etc.) that have not run on TFA yet or are potential reruns from empty or almost-empty categories on WP:FANMP. I then nominate the article for the year where the anniversary is a multiple of 5 (for example, a biography's 105th birthday, the 45th anniversary of the event, etc.) I avoid nominating articles from the same category as an article nominated for the month at WP:TFAR or WP:TFARP. If the article is at WP:URFA/2020, I will also check to ensure that there are no glaring problems (and if there are, I will post a message on the talk page and start the FAR process). Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything I've said here so far isn't meant to be much more than personal musings and goals, but on this point, I know from discussions with the TFA coords that, for reruns, we're happier about multiples of 10 than 5 (and I think multiples of 25 are also fine but I'm not sure). - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The articles I mentioned at WT:TFA are good examples of what I'm looking for (quoting myself: The Smashing Pumpkins for late in the month). Maple syrup and Medieval cuisine for Canadian Thanksgiving and the various Columbus Day holidays Also, Medieval cuisine for October 1, to celebrate a month of harvest holidays. Except for Funerary art, these are all vital articles, and I think it can be argued that Funerary art really should be a level-5 vital article. Vital articles are best, but anything vital-ish is good too, because they're the kinds of articles most likely to have a long record of constructive feedback and edits. For the same reason, for reruns, I'd prefer to avoid most things that not many people have heard of (long-abandoned small towns, obscure academic theories). For first-runs, I'm happy to run anything that can get through FAC, assuming that we can maintain the proper proportions of articles in various broad categories (but I'm not looking for help with selecting the non-reruns.)
 * There are lots of articles at the bottom of WP:URFA/2020A that are vital, have been recently checked or gone through the FAR process, and require minimal/no work to get them ready for TFA. I'll put a list at the bottom of this message. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My main preference is finding interesting articles that are obvious "nods" to non-US, non-UK countries that have significant numbers of English Wikipedia readers, including all the large countries and most of the Anglophile countries. I'm not talking about a lot of articles; I'm just saying that people like for their cultures and holidays and activities to be acknowledged every once in a while. Australia Day, 26 January, is a good example of the kind of national holiday that I think should be acknowledged (once a decade, at least), and I've asked Ian Rose for a suggested article. It's a shame we've got nothing to run for the 100th anniversary of the formation of the Republic of Turkey on 29 October. (I would settle for a national animal or bird or flower ... we've got nothing that's rerunnable.), striking ... apparently that day is too controversial. I'll keep looking. - Dank (push to talk) 12:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I will do a check for this and see if I find anything for Turkey. I am Canadian, so I am most familiar with those holidays but maybe I will do a check of OTD one day when I am bored and make notes of major holidays around the world, and cross-reference with FAs. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I've checked the OTD archives, but only for October so far. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are my preferences, but I'll settle for anything that's well-written and of general interest, or even quirky. I don't care when it was promoted, as long as it hasn't run at TFA in the last five years and has never been a rerun.
 * I always prefer reruns for which at least one of the FAC nominators is still active, and I always ask if they're okay with rerunning the article now (or ever), or if they'd prefer to take another year to work on it.
 * WP:FASA is an award created a couple of years ago to honour editors who help "save" an article at FAR. Since many older FAs have editors who have left Wikipedia, this award lets others know who is maintaining the article now. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. Work with whoever you like to get the job done; I tend to prefer to work with editors and/or topics I'm familiar with. But: you're better at this than I am. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to write the blurbs if you want to, but I don't mind writing the blurbs for your selections.
 * I can help with writing blurbs, though usually the ones that I write are just reduced versions of the lede. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your call. User:Dying and others have certain standards, and I might do some copyediting of your blurbs. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's everything that comes to mind ... questions? - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh, forgot the most important thing ... I'm not in general looking to run, say, Australia Day on Australia Day ... those will rarely be FAs (and I'm not doing January yet anyway). I'm just looking for anything that would make an Australian say, "Oh, look, they're running something for the holiday", Australia Day" such as Canberra or Australia (or maybe even Koala). But, hopefully Ian will come up with something for that one. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Responses above. Will post a list of suggestions below later today or tomorrow. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. Btw, the four articles I mentioned to start with may or may not get fixed up in time for October. As I mentioned on the talk pages, two of those articles have more paragraphs that lack citations than I'm comfortable with. I know the editors are conscientious, and I haven't found much that looks problematic. But other people (perhaps you?) may find more work that needs to be done, and it might not get done. So I don't know for sure yet about these four articles; all I can say is that I'm optimistic, but we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One more thing: I'm thinking of a time limit of about a year for this project of acknowledging holidays from various countries (with maybe a few leftovers in 2025). I think all that's really needed is to make an effort, even if it's a not-entirely-successful effort. After that, I plan to go back to business as usual. Wehwalt and you in particular have had a lot of success with multiple monthly reruns, and if I can be as successful as that, I'll be happy. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Article suggestions for October (and why):
 * Ganesha for Oct 21: this day is Diwali, and according to the Wikipedia article Ganesha is one of the gods honoured on this day. This article would need to be checked.
 * I'm largely ignorant about Indian observances, but our article on Diwali says that (this year) it starts on November 9 (it was in October last year). - Dank (push to talk)
 * Velociraptor: Last dinosaur article at TFA was Diodorus scyto­brachion on June 13
 * Sure (with the understanding that "Sure" means "if there are no conflicting TFAR nominations", i.e. another dinosaur. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Solar System: Aug has two publications about space, and the last celestial body at TFA was Pavo (constellation) on July 23
 * Ditto. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Supernova: same as solar system
 * Planet: same as solar system
 * Green children of Woolpit: unusual topic, might fit with Hallowe'en theme.
 * Pass. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Smooth toadfish: Last fish-related article was A History of British Fishes on May 26, the last actual fish was electric eels on Nov 28, 2022.
 * Sure. - Dank (push to talk)


 * URFA/2020 can check any suggested articles and see if there are any concerns.
 * They know you better than they know me; feel free to make the call on whether to list any of these articles there. - Dank (push to talk)
 * As a Canadian, I'm not sure if I associate maple syrup with Thanksgiving, as that is something I would enjoy on pancakes or at sugar shacks in the winter. That article might be better for Canada Day (July 1). Medieval cuisine is a little too early for Thanksgiving, as the Medieval period concluded in the 15th century while the first Thanksgiving happened in the 16th. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection to moving Maple syrup to July 1 (or July 2, if Flag of Canada runs on July 1). For Medieval cuisine, I'm focusing on "cuisine" rather than "medieval". October is a month full of harvest festivals and holidays associated with eating and drinking (including various Columbus Day holidays; I believe most of these are also on October 9). Other than Medieval cuisine, what do we have that covers food and feasting in general, rather than specific foods? - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've generally done this, but you might want to try this (so that anyone thinking of listing, say, a dinosaur at TFAR or TFAP will know that some of the initial vetting work has already been done on another dinosaur): try listing Velociraptor, Solar System and Smooth toadfish at WP:TFAP as the first three October entries, but don't give them a date, just say "October", so that we don't reserve a day that we don't need to reserve. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hold off on the above because I don't want to discourage others from nominating articles they have written. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, that works. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved Medieval cuisine to Oct 1 or 2. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I see over on Ian's talk page that you're asking about running a bio on someone's death date (in a case where the death date doesn't have independent significance, which is the usual case). I'm personally skeptical that this is a good idea, but I need to get more experience with scheduling before I'm willing to venture an opinion. In general, if we want to schedule an anniversary but the desired day is already taken, I prefer scheduling the day before (for countries just to the west of the International Date Line) or the day after (for the Americas). - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(I generally drop the numbers from a Wikipedian's name when addressing them, but if I call you "Z", most Americans will misread that as "Zee" ... One solution would be to call you "Zed", but only if that works for you.), I'm finishing up WT:Today's featured article/October 2023 now ... we haven't had any dinosaur or astronomy requests, so are we still going with Velociraptor, Solar System and Smooth toadfish? - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha, just Z is fine. Americans can call me whatever they want. Velociraptor and Solar System are both "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020 so should be fine. I don't see any major problems with Smooth toadfish (though I wish the conservation section was more complete) but I think it's in good enough shape to run for TFA. If you have any doubts, post a message at WT:URFA/2020 and others can weigh in. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per above, if you'd like to help with writing blurbs, those go on the talk pages of the relevant FAC page, so: WT:Featured article candidates/Solar System/archive2, WT:Featured article candidates/Velociraptor, WT:Featured article candidates/Smooth toadfish/archive1. Each of these had a blurb, although older blurbs generally need some work. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking one (it's done now). - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

January TFA reruns
Starting a new section so we can discuss these as they come up ... no rush on these, of course. Ian Rose and I have been chatting about 1 January ... see User talk:Ian Rose. We're agreed that something Australia-worthy would be nice (to celebrate the founding of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901), but he doesn't have a specific suggestion for an article. I don't have a preference. Happy to talk about it any time you feel like it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are the articles that I was thinking of nominating in January 2024, both re-runs and first-time appearances:
 * The Masked Singer (American TV series): Jan 2, fifth anniversary of premiere
 * Socrates Nelson: Jan 11, 210th birthday
 * Zanzibar Revolution: Jan 12, 60th anniversary, TFA re-run
 * James Garrard: Jan 14, 275th birthday, TFA re-run.
 * W. Somerset Maugham: Jan 25, 150th birthday
 * Felice Beato: Jan 29, 115th deathday (no birthday listed), TFA re-run. I've noticed this article because there are lots of uncited passages.
 * It might be hard running Nelson and Garrard so close together because they are both American state politicians. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For reruns, 5th, 210th, 60th, 150th and 275th anniversaries are fine by me (I get that some of these aren't reruns; just saying). 115th, not so much. Otherwise, looks like a good list. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Just making sure I understand your WT:TFA post ... you're saying you have a chart off-wiki ... do you make selections from that and add them to TFAP as needed? - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I make selections off that chart, but I add them to TFAR. Any selections that I have at TFAP are from before I started my chart. I make selections based on article quality (if the quality is poor, I'll start the FAR process), if the date for the article is already claimed by someone at TFAP and if the article category has been suggested for another article that month at TFAP (if there's already a song, I won't nominate a second song). Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good, that all makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flight Pattern
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flight Pattern 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
@Z1720 Homo sapiens History (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is copyright?
 * Copyrights refers to the ownership rights that authors and artists have over their creative works. The works protected by copyright include audio, pictures, books on wikipedia. We should not add content to Wiki if we think that doing so may be the violation of copyright
 * What techniques can editors use when writing articles on Wikipedia to avoid copyright concerns?
 * Editors should use synonyms, They should change the form of words and grammatical structures, when writing articles on Wikipedia to avoid copyright issues.
 * Why you declined my unblock request? You think i don't understand copyrights. Ok


 * Thank you for answering these questions, but I suggest that you put these responses in a new unblock request. Another administrator will evaluate it. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Another administrator? New unblock request?
 * No thanks Homo sapiens History (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Z1720 waited for days and just one administrator rejected it. I don't think unblock requests work. Homo sapiens History (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Only one administrator looks at each unblock request, and sometimes it can take weeks or months for a request to be successful. Everyone here is a volunteer, and you have to wait until an admin is willing to look at your request. Since I already declined a request, I am not allowed to evaluate future requests. The best thing to do is to open a new request and wait until another administrator can take a look at it. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flight Pattern
The article Flight Pattern 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:Flight Pattern and Talk:Flight Pattern/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flight Pattern
The article Flight Pattern you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flight Pattern for comments about the article, and Talk:Flight Pattern/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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Second Cold War
Thought to reach out. I personally don't think it was right to force the removal of the tag. There are clear issues about US-centricity. I think this still warrants a proper review - the issues haven't been addressed nor on the talk page nor in the article itself. Few editors are involved, so it's impossible to speak from a broad consensus on this. I don't think it's constructive to just force your viewpoint on this. Forcing viewpoints in valid constructive conversations tends to demotivate contributors who act in good faith. UlyssorZebra (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason why I closed this discussion was because it was posted on closure requests. When I looked at the discussion, and looked at the information in the article myself, I saw that consensus from those who participated in the discussion was to remove the tag. This is not my opinion on whether it should be removed, but my evaluation of what the talk page discussion said. This doesn't stop editors like you from adding information to the article, and I think this is the best way to try to de-centre the article away from the US. Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. Can I appeal this closure request? I was never informed that this was pending. And as said, there are only 2-3 editors involved - too few to say that there would be a consensus without me. Next to this, the content of my concerns has so far not gotten a response. With the tag removed, the likelihood to even be able to discuss this matter seems even less. UlyssorZebra (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CLOSECHALLENGE has information on how to challenge a close. After re-reading the discussions, I am still fine with closing the discussion and my analysis that there was consensus to remove the tag, but I'm fine with hearing other editors' opinions. I also think that your concerns are valid, and you can fix these issues yourself by adding information to the article. If there is anything that should be removed, I would open up discussions on those topics separately and explain why you think it is too much information. At the end of the day, the globalisation tag doesn't really mean anything and it's better if the article is improved regardless of if the tag is there. Z1720 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Instaban?
Regarding the user who added blatant copyright violations, is the copyvio combined with the POV pushing and worthless references enough to ban outright? Or are we more lenient than that overall?

I'm asking because I suspect there might be quite a lot of "Ottoman nationalism" in action who are targeting 16th century battles. The Battle of Preveza was full of exaggerated claims based on completely unreliable self-published crap in Turkish. Peter Isotalo 16:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the user's talk page, it seems like multiple users have concerns over this user's editing. Opening a thread on WP:ANI might be a good idea, and I would probably support a block of some sort.
 * A suggestion on your edits: it might be a good idea to tone down the wording used. For example: "The sources you added to Battle of Preveza were clearly bogus." could be "I don't think the sources you added to Battle of Preveza are reliable". It will avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND accusations. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers. Thread started here. Peter Isotalo 07:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Help For unblock
Hello, I'm User Kiava. I'm attempting to contact you because I'm currently blocked, as you are aware. I'm unsure about the reasons behind the blocks imposed by these three administrators. It seems that they may have mistakenly blocked me. As you previously suggested, I am willing to adhere to the guidelines and keep my contributions simple on Wikipedia. However, the user whom the admin has blocked for me is not me. I want to clarify that I am only using one internet connection, which is my phone's internet, and both my phone and computer share the same IP address.I have always answered your questions with care, and I can confidently say that I have never told a lie in my entire life. Unfortunately, in this world, there are instances where people infringe upon the rights of others. I explicitly stated that my intention was not to initiate the creation of that particular page. My involvement was solely aimed at assisting the individual who sought my help. Moreover, you yourself pointed out that it was inappropriate to establish a page on this subject, and I promptly acknowledged your guidance. Regrettably, I was not afforded an opportunity to rectify the situation. Astonishingly, I wasn't even issued a warning throughout the entire five-year duration of my membership before being blocked.I have been blocked for the past two months, and I am uncertain whether I will be able to resume editing or not. The absence of a specified timeframe leaves me unable to reconcile with the notion that the management's decision to impose punishment is just. 174.193.205.91 (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You cannot message my talk page while logged in as an IP, as it is considered block evasion. Please read the advice I left in my decline of your request. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

AE
Hi Z1720, just wanted to let you know being maxed out on words, I just clarified some of my existing text at AE. I just wanted to give a heads up in case you feel that significantly alters what you felt you were replying to and changes the meaning of your existing text in any way. A little more info below intended as an actual reply, so if you're fine with me copying that over to AE with an extension (I really don't want to add more than the below), I can do that. Otherwise this can be just side-clarification here. I mostly just want to make sure it's clear what I've been dealing with, what the aspersions principle has been crafted/used to address, and what I'm actually asking for since there seem to be misunderstandings about that:

I'll just briefly mention that back when crafting the principle at ArbCom, it was so AE could tamp down aspersion behavior like what you just described. Dealing with cases at AE like I listed for Tamzin, gaming the principle has been a common problem with exactly what you mentioned about I do not see how Leyo is specifically targeting KoA in their 2023 comments. One where that really came out was this case, and I suggest giving Tryptofish's comment there a read on but without saying which editors by username, and then wikilawyering that it cannot be an aspersion because it supposedly wasn't directed at anyone in particular, is utterly dishonest. It's usually been long-term issues outlined at WP:RUNAWAY we often deal with this behavior that's relevant for this interaction too.

Right now, I'm basically trying to address how the older problem sniping resumed when Leyo showed up at the user talk I was at shortly after me on June 2, 2023 with the certain users comment, and then per the comments at the XRV for early August, followed me to Dominion (2018 film) where they never edited and the admin tool abuse occurred. It's the hounding/aspersions behavior from the GMO subject Leyo has been alerted about 3 times that resulted in the spillover over elsewhere I'm trying to address at AE, not the admin tool use that would be more involved by going to ArbCom. The XRV close here is only to show just how much the pursuit behavior escalated elsewhere. That's partly why I didn't get into the mischaracterizations Leyo made at the August XRV about my edits within the GMO/pesticide CT area too (and due to space). June 2023 was just the recent restart of issues in this topic rather than a one-off to be clear.

Given what happened to me, all I'm asking for is a clear preventative measure (even if it's just a caution/warning) while acknowledging the problems caused by the behavior ArbCom already had to call out as disruptive in this subject. I'm just looking for clear assurance Leyo will not be following me around or poisoning the well on talk pages after the multiple cautions I gave them obviously did not work and the bristling attitude at XRV. Thanks. KoA (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is evidence that Leyo continues the casting aspersions behaviour after this AE was filed, please post it and I can take a look. Leyo has already been warned about their block, INVOLVED has been declared, and the behaviour does not seem to be ongoing. My advice is to WP:DROPTHESTICK about this IBAN, continue editing within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and if Leyo starts reverting or commenting on your posts then bring it to ANI and explain why their behaviour is against Wikipedia policy. If Leyo is not bothering you right now, then an IBAN is not needed to stop the behaviour because the behaviour has stopped. Z1720 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Line between an unreffed and reffed section
Hi Z, hope you're well. I noticed you marked Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos as ineligible due to "unreferenced sections". I think this sort of gets in at a complex question about referencing -- nothing requires every part of an article be referenced, including the OTD criteria (which are fairly clear in fact that CN tags don't make articles categorically ineligible, implying something slightly below MINREF can still pass). Lord Buckingham I'd say was a little below MINREF before I pulled out the article, but I cited the challenged-or-likely-to-be-challenged material before taking it to OTD. I don't think articles that pass MINREF but aren't GA "end of each paragraph" should be OTD-ineligible (especially given OTD explicitly states articles don't need to be quality-assessable) -- do you think this should be a requirement, and if so what problem do you think it would solve? <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 07:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I took another look at the OTD rules, and agree with you that the OTD rules are vague about this. I have seen other editors move articles to ineligible for less (Laure Conan, for example, was moved to eligible because the "Selected Works" section was uncited; I have since fixed this). In the case of Richard Temple, I moved it to ineligible because the first paragraph of "Later life and death" and most of the "Family" section is uncited, as well as two other minor sections. My interpretation is that, since this is the Main Page, the citation for the bolded article needs to be at a higher level, though not as high as DYK or ITN. Perhaps this is a conversation for WT:OTD to get clarification on when an article should be moved to ineligible due to citations. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I ended up citing much of what was in dispute. I'd argue the Conan move was suboptimal (especially given how trivial those sections are to cite -- I am very SOFIXIT with potential OTD candidates). The practice of inline citing per-paragraph-minimum is a very recent move in Wikipedia history terms (in that V has almost always been interpreted throughout the project's history as permitting a much lower standard), and given the nature of OTD I think such a minimum would cause more problems than it solved; OTD overwhelmingly works with articles that have existed for a long time, frequently since very early in the project's history, while DYK and ITN definitionally work with new articles and can expect them to be held to current inline citation expectations. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 02:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to seek clarification on this at WT:OTD. Z1720 (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Gary Gygax
Just a courtesy note I've boldly NAC closed this since you have withdrawn the request and there are no other objections. If I botched any steps please correct me (although I have botched this up already by accidentally clicking to delist this using the GA tool, which I've corrected); thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  04:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Conversion to Christianity
I would like to request your input on this article since you were the one who suggested it to me. There is a problem with one reference working properly, but I have my gnome friend who is a whiz-bang expert on refs taking a look at the problem. When that is fixed I think this article is good to go - if you agree. You were right btw - shorter is definitely easier. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * All ready for review now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon a quick skim, I don't see any major problems with the article, although I am not an expert in writing about religious topics. Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aw c'mon! It's completely changed! Okay then. Thank you for the suggestion to redo this article, the article did need redoing badly, and it is now more encyclopedic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Amfpolymath (02:33, 7 September 2023)
Hello! I have never edited with Wikipedia before, so will have a few questions. I am a colleague of Glenn Dicterow, a prominent musician. His Wikipedia entry is fine, but I'd like to improve it with a little more impressive info. But one question to start. Dicterow is a violinist in his seventies with a long career, but the photo on his page shows him at age 16! How can I insert a different photo of him, as an adult? --Amfpolymath (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for signing up to Wikipedia. You can upload a more recent photo of him to Wikipedia if you would like, especially if you own the copyright to the photo (because, for example, you took the photo of him). Help:Pictures has information about this. However, please also read WP:COIE as you probably have a conflict of interest with this person because you are their colleague. If you want to edit their article futher, you should probably use the Edit Request Wizard. Let me know if you have other questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Will follow your advice! -- Amfpolymath Amfpolymath (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Grimaldi
There you go, I provided the source for you.  Cassianto Talk  20:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Lightening talk
Hi. I saw your proposal. As a newcomer to FA, I hope it gets accepted. RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I received word yesterday that it was accepted. I'm excited to present. Z1720 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from The username entered already in use please choose a different name (20:21, 26 September 2023)
are u a robot --The username entered already in use please choose a different name (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from The username entered already in use please choose a different name (20:21, 26 September 2023) (2)
do i have to have a mentor like is jt a choice --The username entered already in use please choose a different name (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, I'm not a robot, I am an editor on Wikipedia just like you. You don't have to have a mentor, but I am here if you have any questions about editing on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Lashyurn (21:28, 6 October 2023)
Hey! Please help me understand how I add a template to a chart, I can't figure it out! When I try adding it, it just adds the source and not the template. --Lashyurn (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I did not respond to this sooner. I'm not sure what is being done incorrectly. Can you put the coding you are trying to change in your sandbox, and I will take a look at it? If this is not possible, can you tell me which article you are trying to add this information to? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the article I am trying to change, I'm trying to add "Terminated" to the Hong Kong route as El Al completely removed Hong Kong from their schedules, but when I try to add the terminated template (via visual editing since I don't like editing via source), it just adds the coding of the template. Lashyurn (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the Visual Editor because there are bugs in the system, and that might have been what you encountered. I was able to get it to work by going into the code and, in the Hong Kong row, replacing the first align=center| with Terminated . Note that the | has to be included in the code that you replace. Please remember to provide a citation that says the route has been terminiated. Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it to work, thank you! I added a citation. Lashyurn (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry re Neilson article
Hi, I withdrew that nomination two weeks ago. Mentioned it on the nomination page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Johnbo234 (18:06, 20 October 2023)
hii my question is when i edited jamnagar city population then someone removed and ask for submit proof then how to upload proof on that and update information? --Johnbo234 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Where are you getting this population number? What is your source? You should cite the number that you are adding to the article with a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Industrial agriculture: Case opened
Hello ,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 8, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Abishabis
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 4 December 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/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. 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) 15:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

November thanks
Thank you for checking OTD. I proudly remember having sung in an oratorio premiere seven years ago OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw you busy in the Selected anniversaries where I feel like a newcomer. We are approaching a tercentenary, of the birth of Carl Friedrich Abel, about whom several specific things could be said: he was the last viol virtuoso, a prolific composer (mostly for the instrument and other chamber music), he installed together with Bach's youngest son, his friend, the first subscription concerts in London, and one of his symphonies was attributed to W. A. Mozart. Good to know. The least we could do is mentioning him under births, but I dream of presenting his beautiful portrait by a famous painter - look at that dog! Would you have a good idea for a blurb? A festival of celebration with a new award in his name happened already in his home town. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, OTD doesn't usually do blurbs for people who are born unless the birth was significant itself, and currently the pictures are only for blurbs. Is there a significant date in this person's biography that we can use instead? Some examples might be the specific date that it was discovered that his symphony was misattributed to Mozart, or the premiere of a significant work. OTD blurbs are currently biased towards warfare, political events, space, vehicle accidents and natural disasters, so any suggestions of music/art that we can include is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit strange, because music celebrates his day of birth, not day of discovery a symphony wasn't by Mozart. I remember 2020 when it was all Beethoven, just reduced by the pandemic. But understand for this one, - will have to turn to DYK, I guess. - I'll think about adding more music, promised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ps: funny that Bach worked in Köthen in 1720, and Abel's dad was cellist in his orchestra ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Next day of pics - today my topic is a soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Another day of pics, and did you see the thread about Britten's birthday on DYK? The nom is now approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the extra effort! - My story today is a DYK hook from 13 years ago OTD: about the great music at one of my churches. Mozart's Requiem to come on Sunday, coupled with Arvo Pärt's Da pacem Domine, - I guess you might come if it was a bit closer. Perhaps watch the video of our last production, our first on yt, ever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for standing to become arbitrator! My story today is Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his, - the composer, born OTD 110 years ago, didn't want it shorter (but the publisher), - more here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a reply to my cand question. I may discuss it after tomorrow's concert when we will sing the Mozart and listen to Pärt's urgent call for peace played by the strings, - I'm not in the mood before ;) - I mentioned Pärt for a reason, could have been Beethoven as well, in other words: I believe it's time for a fresh look, as we were told 10 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's legitimate that editors look at the role of infoboxes in articles again. ArbCom stepping into this topic area right now would probably drag out the process with little accomplished, and I think limiting responses in RfCs would be a better solution. I looked at the Mozart RfC before answering your question, I was not thrilled with some of the long responses with back and forth in the RfC, but I think overall the process worked and RfCs are the process to use in this topic area at this time. Z1720 (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I came to tell you that I added another Bach cantata to the anniversaries, - for some reason that I don't remember it was in the year (1723, 300 years ago) but not the day (26 Dec). - I think the Mozart RfC proves that editors are able to talk about infoboxes in a civil manner, which to do consistently would be completely enough to settle the disputes. Treating each other as warriors, however, is as certain not to settle it, and that happens when editors are compared to armies, and when a new editor who possibly knows nothing about any conflict (and abbreviations such as PR/FAC) and adds an infobox in good faith is reverted quoting no argument than its FA status. - I also think that CT infoboxes is way too general, because - as everybody reading Wikipedia can easily tell - infoboxes are almost everywhere, - they are contentious only in a small corner of subjects, in articles by a small group of editors. How that could successfully be styled as wars I have never understood. I met the dispute in 2012, for Samuel Barber (where I opposed for redundancy, but understood within a day that the redundancy serves readers with different needs). Brian Boulton added a compromise to Chopin as a RfC result in 2015. I thought that would settle it, dreamer that I am ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from C00lsl0th54 (23:04, 6 November 2023)
hello! I was wondering how to create a wiki --C00lsl0th54 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "create a wiki". Do you mean create an article, or to create a whole new database of articles on a topic that is separate from Wikipedia? Z1720 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from MasterDale (21:00, 8 November 2023)
I want to write about the Idols and small popular people in my country that have create a name by themselve by not well know need some pointers how to do that --MasterDale (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. Take a look at Help:Your first article, which has tips and tools on how to create an article. Ensure that any article you create is for a person that is notable, which on Wikipedia means that the topic has had three, independent, reliable secondary sources write about the topic in a major way (and not a passing mention). Lastly, ensure that if you are being paid to write about a person, or if you know that person in real life, that you read WP:COIE to ensure that you comply with Wikipdia's conflict of interest policies. Let me know if you have any specific questions! Z1720 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Operation Commando Hunt
I think you have not edited since I left and deleted two messages about a reappraisal of an article, then left another, on the coordinators' talk page. I wanted to be sure so I am posting this message. I note in the message on the coordinators page that there are two pages on A assessments which deal at least in part with reappraisals or reassessments. I am a new coordinator and thought I ought to be able to understand and proceed with the reassessment. I now think I am not likely to gain certainty on how to proceed without some further advice or instruction. That is the gist of my message there, which I invite you to read. I also note that the article is no longer A class, probably not GA and will need some citations at almost any level. So I agree the article needs reassessment. If no other coordinator responds in the near future, I will ping them in case they read earlier messages and think I am taking care of this. I should mention that I do not have the sources to use to fill in the citations or any other improvements which might appear necessary so I can't work to improve this article myself. Sorry for the confusion. Donner60 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this message. I left the message on the coordinator's page because the instructions on WP:MHR says "If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators." Is there a process to initiate an A-class review, similar to WP:GAR or WP:FAR? Happy to help get things clarified. I also haven't edited over the weekend because I was at WikiConference North America. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you enjoyed the conference. I now see that the matter has been progressed on the coordinator talk page. I left a thanks and message that I would comment after someone else initiated the review. I wrote that one of my three thoughts or threads was mostly (if not entirely) correct. Now I know which one. Thanks for your patience. When Ian Rose comments that he has never dealt with a reappraisal, we know they have been rather rate. It think this is worth pursuing and will be educational for all participants and anyone who takes notice. Donner60 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It was great to meet you in person
It was great to meet you at the conference and I hope we cross paths in person again. Just wanted to leave this pic I took from the waterfront in West Vancouver, to show it is definitely worth a visit! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was great meeting you too! I am glad that we were able to chat in person. Maybe we will hang out in Vancouver sometime :) Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"I have signed the Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy and will post a diff link to the confirmation when it is posted by the WMF."
Here you go. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Arctodus feedback
Hi! First of all, I just wanted to thank you for the comprehensive feedback you gave to the Arctodus article you gave last year. I finished completing your improvements, however while that was happening, I got some feedback about the length of sections potentially being too long. I've done some additional streamlining, reorganisation and rewrites. I know that you're quite busy, but if you'd be able to do take a look again to see how it's going, I'd greatly appreciate any kind of feedback. SuperTah (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your ACE answer
Hi Z1720. I'm looking forward to hopefully working with you next year in the event that you're elected. I read your answer to a question in which you recommend referring AE threads without conclusion to ArbCom, and I would just note that in December, ArbCom amended its procedures to provide that: Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. The above refers to a consensus of admin requesting opening a case. In addition to this, I would like a definitive remedy from ArbCome stating that if an aspect of an AE case closes without consensus, the closing admin must refer the issue to ArbCom. Arbitrators are so busy that it is difficult to be aware of situations happening around Wikipedia; my suggestion would make it mandatory to bring an unresolved issue from AE to ArbCom's attention. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about an intermediate step of encouraging administrators to do so without requiring them to do so? KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That leaves it up to admin discretion again, with some issues getting lost when an admin doesn't want to go through the hassle of opening a case (which is totally understandable, considering the required time that a case takes.) If this was left to admin discretion, then I would expect arbitrators to be actively monitoring AE closes and opening cases when they see a contentious or no consensus close (similar to what happened with the HPJ case, but that was triggered by an academic journal). This would add more work on arbitrators, which I am trying to avoid.


 * I would rather it be mandatory that admin report contentious closes to arbitrators so that, at the very least, arbitrators are made aware of significant disagreement amongst the admin core. We already have wheel warring triggering ArbCom cases, and we have a common courtesy of the blocking admin being contacted before an unblock can take place. I think adding this requirement, or at least strongly suggesting it, would make the AE process better (and less likely to become siloed from ArbCom). I don't think admin would object too much because AE is a creation of ArbCom and thus they have more authority to generate rules for this noticeboard. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Daylightshadow2008 (18:22, 27 November 2023)
Hello there How can I change my name on Wikipedia --Daylightshadow2008 (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Click on the following link for information on how to change your name: Changing username. Z1720 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WT:Featured article candidates/Supernova
Take your time ... I see you have one or two other things going on :) When you get a chance, feel free to edit or comment on the blurb at this link. - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I LOVE the selected picture. Science articles are far outside my specialty, so any suggestions are going to focus on prose. I'll take a look at it in the coming days. Z1720 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the blurb and don't have any concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi Z1720. :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Squiggeel (05:23, 30 November 2023)
hello! if it isn't too much trouble i need a bit of help adding userboxes to my user page, as they keep displaying as links. thank you kindly! --Squiggeel (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * i think i've figured it out, actually! thank you anyways! Squiggeel (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you figured it out. Let me know if you have other questions! Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

December music
Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD, and Jerome Kohl (mentioned in November) said something wise on Copland's talk, - yes, regarding a soft(er) stance towards infoboxes. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for Abishabis, introduced: "This article is about a Cree religious leader from the 19th century. Methodist missionaries and Hudson's Bay Company employees gave various accounts of his life and teachings, which have been analysed by modern-day researchers."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Back to arbitration: did you check out the history of the infobox of Callas? Compare Jessye Norman, Kathleen Ferrier and Jenny Lind. Did you check out the history of Copland? Compare Max Reger, Max Beckschäfer, Colin Mawby (from today's story), and Benjamin Britten (who died OTD). What's the difference? If what you see changes your answer to my question, feel free to change, and ping me. I would like to see a way to avoid in the future hundreds of editors commenting on Mozart RfCs, just to kind of restore the infobox he had. Happy new era ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ArbCom does not arbitrate on content issues, and whether an infobox should be in an article is a content issue. The use or not use of infoboxes will probably need to be discussed on an article-by-article basis since any rules on infobox use will be subjective. However, editors should limit their responses, avoid walls of text, and limit back-and-forth, extended replies. If an editor is not adhering to talk page etiquette or the additional rules established in this topic area from previous ARBCOM cases, even after they have been repeatedly asked to by others, an AE request should be filed as infoxoes have a contensious topic designation. If AE requests are not able to solve the concerns, a new ARBCOM case can be opened. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the education, but nothing new. I will not take a colleague to AE, after what I've seen, and I put up "grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith" as a note to self. - I read A pocket guide to Arbitration only after my encounter. - More after the election. I hope you enjoy my mostly musical stories and articles, - that's what I am here for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Today, I managed to get the pics to snow (on 28 Nov), and heard a lovely concert, after listening to a miracle of meditative dreaming on 6 December (or just click on music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ... and today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I had hoped to see the 300th anniversary of Bach's first Christmas cantata among the anniversaries for 26 December. Any chance? Perhaps instead of another battle, on a day that is still Christmas in some countries? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We might be able to swap it in. What's the article, and what you like the blurb to be? Z1720 (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to say differently, - there's only one item with a blurb for 1723 in 26 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OTD sets are prepared on their selected anniversaries page. For example, December 26's page is at Selected anniversaries/December 26. If a blurb is not on that page, it is unlikely to be considered for OTD. If there are any other suggestions for OTD blurbs, please put them on their Selected anniversary page.
 * For the article, I put it into the article and put Bach into the image slot (I don't think it's ever been used for OTD, and it's a pretty good image). Let me know if there are any other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - Pics up to 3 December (with my shadow in one of them), and a story about Beethoven in memory of his birth. When the arb who wrote the infoboxes case - in 2015! - I hoped these infobox wars were over, really. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder what readers will say that we will run this news late ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to your election! - I uploaded more pics, with Christmas trees and related artworks, and I have two women on the Main page (for a sad reason). Our Christmas singing (of my user's infobox music "singen, singen") was pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I boldly added Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1 to the Selection for 25 March. I noticed that Annunciation is marked ineligible, but it would be Feast of the Annunciation, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Feast of the Annunciation can be used instead, though I would like the paragraphs at the end of the "History" section to be referenced before it appeared on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. I saw only today that there are two articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Madteals (14:21, 4 December 2023)
How can I make my own article that doesn't say "Sandbox" and I can make it it's own name --Madteals (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi since you are a new editor, you will need to create a draft of the article and get it approved for it to appear on Wikipedia. Click on the following link: WP:AFC, then click on "Click here to start a new article". Follow the instructions and ensure that your article has at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources. When the article is ready, submit it to AFC and another editor will look at it to approve or give feedback. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

OTD helper
Hi! It was great to meet you at WCNA :) Based on what we had talked about, I worked on a tool to hopefully help with checking articles: https://otd-helper.toolforge.org

For making it easier to update the OTD pages themselves, I wanted to change the comment format for inelgible articles to be a list rather than table. Then we'd have a user script of some sort that makes it easier to re-arrange articles (maybe literal drag and drop?) and leave notes for ineligible ones. Curious if 1) this tool will help you out and if you'd like to see any other changes/features 2) if you have any thoughts regarding a user script for the second part! Legoktm (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making this I've used it to check the upcoming hooks and it gives a lot of useful information. Some other information I would like to see in the toolforge are:


 * Article rating (FA, GA, start, etc.)
 * What year the hook is for (to help with selection of articles)
 * Ineligible: what is the reason given for its ineligibility?
 * What country the article is from (this can possibly be done by capturing which Wikiprojects the article is attached to)
 * How many citation needed tags are in the article.


 * The drag and drop sounds good, or perhaps a selection box, so a user can checkmark the hooks, then confirm at the bottom of the page that these are the five hooks they want for the set, or if the hook should be moved to ineligible. It would also be great if, at the beginning of building the hooks, the tool can automatically move the previous hooks to the eligible category. My brain is swimming with ideas, so I'm excited to improve this process with you and make OTD easier! Z1720 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I've added in article rating, list of WikiProjects, and how many citation needed tags (and other inline ones) since those were straightforward, and I'm figuring out how to do the rest :) Legoktm (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Request to include Guy Lombardo ino the DYK Queue for use on New Years Day
Cia Z1720: If possible, kindly add the biography about Guy Lombardo to the DYK queue for review, ASAP using the hook which is related to NEW YEARS DAY as described below. Many thanks in advance for your help & HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)NHPL 160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)NHPL 160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Suman200722 (14:56, 8 December 2023)
Hey mentor how you doing i tryna put my promo Link in External Links but my edit got undone and deleted but y mine got deleted while many others are putting their link what should i do so I can also place my link there like other --Suman200722 (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow promotional links in their articles. If others are doing it, you should post a notice on the talk page or remove it if it is an obvious promotional link. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Salt & Candy Agency (10:53, 13 December 2023)
Hello. I'd like to know how I could change my username? I just realised it might be in violation of Wiki's username policy. --Salt &#38; Candy Agency (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Instructions on how to do this can beb found at WP:RENAME. Feel free to message me below if you have any additional questions. Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI
I left a message for the nominator of a review you just passed. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting
<div style="border:2px solid gold; box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.35); background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #FCFCFC 0%,#F5F5F5 100%); text-align:center; padding:24px; border-radius:7px; width:75%; line-height:2em;"> ❄️Happy holidays!❄️

Hi Z1720! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. It was great to meet you in Toronto! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk

&#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

GAR nominations
Please note that when nominating an article for GAR, you should always notify the WikiProjects on the talk page and any recently-active major editors, per the instructions at WP:GAR. I do not think you did that for the three articles you recently nominated there. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I have been using the GAR helper script to nominate articles and assumed that it completed all the steps for me, including notifying Wikiprojects. I will keep this in mind for future nominations. Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The GAR helper script notifies previous nominators/reviewers of the articles, albeit with tickboxes if you don't want to alert them for whatever reason; after you have pressed the "submit" button, it auto-formats the ArticleName ~ message for you to copy-paste onto relevant talk pages. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yonkers Peer review
I responded to you on the peer review with questions I do have. The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

ACE2023 congratulations
Hello Z1720, you have been elected to the arbitration committee! The results of the election are available here: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023. You will likely be contacted by the existing committee for onboarding. Best regards, — xaosflux  Talk 01:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Z1720! Good luck with all of those email messages! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 06:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2024:

Upon meeting the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and signing the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement, all incoming arbitrators will be subscribed to all Committee-managed email lists, assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office, and given access to the CheckUser and Oversight queues on the VRTS system.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2023:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
 * Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators, who have not elected to retain them, after 31 December 2023:
 * CheckUser: Enterprisey, Izno, SilkTork
 * Oversight: Enterprisey, Izno, SilkTork
 * Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
 * All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list, with the exception of Enterprisey, who has elected to be unsubscribed.
 * All outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the clerks-l mailing list, with the exception of Izno, who has elected to remain subscribed.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 04:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: