The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ErnestKrause! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yuzuru Hanyu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Yuzuru Hanyu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yuzuru Hanyu 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am unsure about the size of the article, too. However, I received very positive feedback from many people about the personal best, national best and absolute best score sections, especially the detailed lists to technical elements and program components, because they are not available as such tables anywhere else. I don't know, if they satisfy the quality standards of Wikipedia or already count as "original research", but they have good resonance among readers. Henni147 (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this time it looks like other editors are accepting the newly added information as useful, and the edits from Yolo4A4Lo have all been appropriate. Other editors such as Sunny and Arjay are also making help edits along the way which is a good sign. Let me know if there are any particular sections which you would like me to look at again. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your feedback. If the page manages to get 'featured list' status, I think about creating a similar page for the career achievements of Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir, so that we have one good sample page for single skating and ice dance. In case of Virtue/Moir the big advantage is that they have already retired from competitive skating, so the page won't need that many updates. Is that a good idea? Henni147 (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About your GA nom of the BTS page
You probably haven't seen the ping Lirim.Z sent you, but we'd like you to withdraw your nomination of the page. It won't pass. There's still a lot of work/cleanup to be done on it before it's at the point that it can be nominated for GA. I told her you probably weren't aware of that when you nominated it but it really isn't a good idea at this point in time. Please see her msg to you on the BTS talk page as soon as you come back online! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From Template:Infobox song#cover: "Add an image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song." Could you please exemplify another article about a song that is using the performer's picture in the infobox? (CC)Tbhotch™17:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your recent edits made on the BTS page, I'm wondering what exactly is the "ce" edit about? Btspurplegalaxy
Singles releases are put into quote marks by convention. For example, the other instances for the BTS single "Butter" were already in quotes throughout that same paragraph in the BTS article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing
Hi, it appears that you are not a new user, but I noticed that you don't use the citation templates while adding sources to articles. While using citation templates is not required but it's perhaps one of the best practices while editing Wikipedia. Please take a look at WP:CITEQR. You can copy-and-paste the required template directly and fill in the parameters. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ErnestKrause: I was going to comment the same thing but I see Ashley beat me to it. I just replaced the ref you added in the Butter article; in the future, it would be better for you to use {{cite web}} just like I did. It actually looks like it's more work to do it the way you're doing it now. With the template you can just copy-paste and go from there. - Ïvana (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Formatted edits are preferable. There have been so many reverts on that page that there are some advantages to wait a day or two before formatting and archiving refs on newly added material. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: I remember that you nominated the biography page of Yuzuru Hanyu for good article status back in spring and contributed a lot to the review process, including the creation of a new subpage that covers Hanyu's Olympic seasons. This summer we reworked that subpage in collaboration with Yolo4A4Lo and Apqaria, so that it's no longer a bare fragment of the bios page, but stands on its own with new sections about his Olympic programs and information about the upcoming 2021–22 season.
The page probably needs further polishment, especially the lead section, and I'd be interested in your opinion about it. It would be really great to bring this subpage to GA status (or better) until the Beijing Olympics. Best wishes Henni147 (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147: Thank you Henni for mentioning me here. Since there hasn't been any articles on a skater's Olympics seasons before, I took the initiative to ask for a peer-review on the article here before nominating it as GA. Of course, it would be so welcome if ErnestKrause is willing to contribute in the review too. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo: First of all: Thank you very much for your latest additions to the article. The lead looks much better now! I was thinking about a peer review request too, but I have no experience with it and wanted to know your opinion first. So thank you very much for sending the request ;) Henni147 (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147:@Yolo4A4Lo: Earlier this evening, I did add in some copy edits. You can modify or change back anything that feel you can improve. Optionally, it might be nice to add an image of Yuzuru doing a triple Axel into the article, since there is so much talk in the article that he plans to attempt the quad Axel at the Olympics. Let me know if more is needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Thank you very much for your changes! I will take a look at them. Regarding the triple Axel image: The picture in the "Parisienne Walkways" section shows his landing on a 3A (that info can be added to the caption or alt-text). I couldn't find a picture or video on Commons that shows the forward take-off, which is the characteristic part of the jump. The only other image of an Axel jump that we currently have in the archives is this mid-air shot in his "Notte Stellata" performance at the 2018 Winter Olympics exhibition gala. Henni147 (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is really a good image and it would be nice to put on the page in a slightly larger size. Its sufficiently good as an image that I could suggest also placing into the Yuzuru main page with a good caption if you can find a good place for it. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answer on Talk page for the Culture impact and legacy of BTS page. Nice going on the transfer of material from the BTS Career section on the BTS main page. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hong Kong into Democratic development in Hong Kong. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your mention in the article edit history is correct and confirmed. The material was adapted from the Hong Kong article to provide historical context on the Democracy article following WP:CWW. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article BTS you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ippantekina -- Ippantekina (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Schazjmd(talk)17:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article BTS you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:BTS 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 Ippantekina -- Ippantekina (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to stop by. Previously, I had already done the print out for the Fearless article, the read through for it, and the mark-ups before another editor picked up the GAR which was then completed for you. Since I have already put in the time on that first article, I thought to offer to do one of your new nominations in return for your then doing the GAN biography for James Madison, who has not been nominated on Wikipedia in over a decade. If that sounds ok, then I can start one of your new GANs if the above is ok with you. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Audrey Hepburn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am pessimistic about getting Wicked to FA level. The musical is so popular that the article attracts a lot of fancruft. For starters, the plot section is much too long, and the Orchestration section is not encyclopedic -- it describes a standard pit orchestra with a level of detail that I think clearly violates both WP:NOT and WP:BALASP. The Commercial Reception section is filled with silly trivia. The Behind the Emerald Curtain section describes something, but I'm not sure what -- is it a backstage tour? Is it free? What the heck is being described, other than unencyclopedic trivia about make-up pots? The dreaded In Popular Culture section contains lots of unreferenced, uh, "information". I am satisfied to leave it at GA (I would not have promoted it to GA class for the above reasons). If you do a peer review or go to FAC, please let me know, and I'll try to give you a more detailed review after you take a swing at fixing the above, but I don't plan to do substantial work that I think would be necessary to get it to FA. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: I'm am going to agree with much of what you have stated here. I think I can make a fifty-fifty offer, namely, if you can somehow make your list of items listed above to me into two evenly divided action lists for needed edits, then I will try to do one of the lists of items if you do the other fifty percent. Regarding some of the extraneous material you've already mentioned above, then I will be archiving the Emerald Curtain tour as being off-topic to the main theme of the article as soon as I sign this note. What do you think of the fifty-fifty offer? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Emerald Curtain Tour is probably on topic, it (just like everything else in this article) needs to be described sensibly and concisely. As I noted above, I am not inclined to work on this article at this time, but if you delete the Orchestration section, I'd be willing to watch the article for a week to try to help make that stick. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: I've adapted that edit as being on-topic for the discussion of Marketing. It is restored. The Orchestration section is now deleted, if you could check during the week for any edit challenges. If you have any ideas to shorten either of the Plot section acts, then this might be a good time to do it, if there are any obvious places to shorten. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Madison you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Audrey Hepburn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Audrey Hepburn 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 Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article James Madison you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Madison 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 Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stevie Ray Vaughan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Stevie Ray Vaughan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stevie Ray Vaughan 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 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edit at MILHIST, you edited your own comments in contravention of WP:REDACT. Talk pages, unlike articles, don't need to be perfect and should not be changed by you or anyone with rare exception. If you mis-spoke you can strike your comments. The larger problem is that your entire post seems to violate WP:NOTAFORUM. MILHIST is a WikiProject and the talk page is there for you to ask questions or inform a wider audience. It's not there as a water cooler for you to tell people what you're working on. If you want to discuss your edits to a particular article, post on that article's talk page and then merely inform others about the discussion if you seek input. Chris Troutman (talk)14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help submit a new article on Collaboration with Russia During Russo-Ukranian War
I believe timely publication can help nudge countries and companies away from collaborationism behaviour, hence the sense of urgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I0ving (talk • contribs) 08:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Order of Battle is now updated and I have linked it to the current version of their page. It looks like Dutch Wikipedia has been doing more updates on the Order of Battle than the English Wikipedia page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May 2022
For academic-level books on BTS, I recommend Kim Youngdae's The Review BTS and Jee Lee's BTS Art Revolution. These are the two best academic-level books on them. Btspurplegalaxy🗩🖉14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btspurplegalaxy Both of those are good citations. Do you have a leading quote to use from The Review BTS book, and one leading quote from the Art revolution book for the Wikipedia BTS article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article All Along the Watchtower you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article All Along the Watchtower you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:All Along the Watchtower 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 Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian invasion of Ukraine
Hi ErnestKrause, I just wanted to express my disappointment at your revert here. Reverting "in support of" another editor is a poor edit justification during a content dispute. Even if you think I'm wrong, and even if a plurality of editors at the RfC end up agreeing with you, overturning a "WP:BRD revert" with another revert doesn't uphold the spirit of being cautious about bold edits or the (optional) advice at WP:STATUSQUO, even if it's within the rules. Irrespective of this minor quibble, I also wanted to thank you for your patience and bridge-building in the actual discussions so far, and for the work you've been doing on the article more broadly. It's much appreciated. I'm hopeful we can resolve the disagreement over the background section with the RfC. Best, Jr8825 • Talk01:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On June 13 you made a Bold edit here [2] which was Reverted by Cinderella on the next day. By BRD that means that both of you were to Discuss it in order to establish consensus on the Talk page prior to any further edits. Instead, you went ahead with another revert which appeared to be against Wikipedia policy for BRD. My revert was to follow BRD and allow both of you to establish consensus on the Talk page following BRD policy at Wikipedia. Once consensus is established on the Talk page then all the editors will see the outcome and follow it. See your Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see things the same way (I see the bold change to the status-quo as being your initial reduction in size) but I understand your view. Now we've both expressed our views, let's not discuss the reverts further -- I'm happy to leave your preferred version live on the page while we work to reach compromise/consensus on the talk. I do think an RfC is the best way forward, as I don't think it's likely we'd generate a consensus among the participants of the last discussion, considering our different standpoints. Thanks again for your feedback in the previous two discussions, I hope you'll continue to offer your views at the RfC and we can find a creative way to reconcile our differing opinions. Best, Jr8825 • Talk14:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ErnestKrause! I appreciated your FAC review of Mick Jagger. I hope to run The Rolling Stones through the gauntlet following another GOCE edit (just filed the request). I was wondering if I could get some input on that early from you to help make FAC a bit easier? If so, I have started a peer review page for comments. I have no immediate plans to take Keith Richards through, but also curious some brief thoughts about that one as well. Thank you for your time. TheSandDoctorTalk16:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice going on the article for Mick Jagger. For the peer review, it might be useful to see if Kyle Peake might be able to find time for it. I've also listed a FAC for the music group BTS in the old nominations section there if you might have time for making support/oppose comments. The GOCE idea for the Rolling tones article looks like a good idea. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, ErnestKrause! The article you nominated, BTS, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To EarnestKrause, for taking BTS to FA status. Your determination to carry on despite the initial oppositions is certainly commendable. I'm so glad that your efforts finally paid off. FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have learnt a lot from the GA process of Hanyu's article and since then have been asking for your opinions regarding other articles on him because I really respect your opinions. But please give a courtesy to inform one of an article's regular editors who obviously has been thinking to co-nominate the said article (as suggested by FA nomination instruction) before you nominate it and to not forget mentioning the said editor has brought another article related to the subject to FL in your introduction on FAN. I'm very aware I don't own any articles I've edited for years, but I'd like to have a say in it. I hope you understand. Thank you. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your name is already listed in the FAC preface which I wrote yesterday, and you can add your signature to the nomination whenever its convenient for you to add it. Its usually considered to be discourteous to add someone else's signature in general circumstances. Same for Henni as another co-nominator. See you at FAC. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ErnestKrause. I'm not perfect, and if you have actionable/practical suggestions for things I can do better, I'm happy to listen. My talk page is always open.
That said, you're obstructing my participation at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by continuing to redirect the discussion towards my conduct. Please think about how you'd feel if another editor reverted several hours of your hard work on a busy page, making it impossible to restore, over their objection to a small part of your change, and then started a discussion accusing you of misconduct to boot. I'm going to remove your thread about my behaviour -- an article talk page is not an appropriate place for it -- and I'm going to rename the thread about my table of contents proposals from a title that's focused on me ("September 2022: Large number of major changes to structural elements of article including major revision of TOC without discussion") to a title that's focused on content ("Major table of contents changes"). Please don't revert it back to the original title for a third time, now that I've explained here why I'm not happy with it. And please don't continue to discuss my conduct on that talk page. I linked the guidance on ways to resolve perceived conduct issues in the thread, but to make things simpler: step 1 is discussing your concerns with the editor on their talk page, and article talk pages should not be used for these kind of discussions. It'd be much easier if we can both focus on discussing content and sources, but if you want to continue discussing my behaviour you're welcome to use my talk page. Otherwise, you must use a noticeboard. Jr8825 • Talk00:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus The reliable sources which I consulted were very strongly leaning in the direction which I indicated, and the Wikipedia article which you linked gives two very different definitions as:
2 Approaches
2.1 Mathematics in sociology
2.2 Society and mathematics
I'm imagining that there may be some confusion in the use of terminology when writers do not wish to use the long form of statements such as "the use of applied mathematics in the field of sociology". I'm also finding this book for sale which seems to go for the other definition here: [3]. In the case of Asimov's fictional construction for his use of 'psychohistory', then its fairly clear that his interest is in the use of applied mathematics for the forecasting of sociological events. That's the direction I think that the article should take in its elaboration. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, ErnestKrause! The article you nominated, Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the club
The Featured Article Medal
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for the article, Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons, done in collaboration, "about the mens ice skating champion Yuzuru Hanyu's Olympic seasons. He has recently retired from competition and completed his career of competing at the Olympics; this article covers his medal winning three appearances at the Olympics."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to add that here. Its remarkable that you know nearly 3000 Wikipedia editors interested in the quality of articles. Quality control of the articles by peer review seems like a top feature at Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please read WP:STONEWALLING, in particular "Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus", and WP:CON. There are no grounds in wikipedia policy for continuing to revert something when it has broad support on the talk page, and then never giving any explanation as to what your objection is. These actions are not supported by wikipedia policy. Please do not engage in behavior that resembles this. Tristario (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is conduct issue, and conduct issues belong on user talk pages. You keep telling me to "make consensus" on the talk page, and despite me repeatedly asking you here, here, and here, you still have not said what your objection is to the inclusion of information about polling in the article. How exactly is it possible to reach consensus if the main person objecting simply says "no consensus", and then never explains what their objection is, despite being repeatedly asked? These actions are not following wikipedia policy Tristario (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be upset that another editor User:GizzyCatBella has posted your page for discretionary sanctions, and you appear to feel that you now want to wallpaper my Talk page with these messages. I've already asked you to stop edit warring on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, and I've asked to place all of your edits on the Talk page there to keep your comments in one place. I'm requesting again that you stop edit warring on the Invasion page. No further comments on the Invasion on this page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"To Be Loved"
Hey, I was wondering if you could indicate a vote at the FAC about your assessment of the article and whether it should be promoted. Please ignore if you do not have the time or inclination.--NØ16:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: James Madison FAC
> From your edit history, it looks like you occasionally have possible interest in political biography articles. For the past several months, I've been editing the president's article for James Madison ... Any interest for you to possibly be a co-nominator for a FAC nomination for this political biography article? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I have done some political biography articles. But I don't know much about Madison nor about what the best books are about him. And I haven't nominated anything for FAC in a number of years and I have no desire to try again. So that's a no on your query. But I can give a few thoughts.
One thing I have seen at FAC lately (not as a nominator) is that they have strong views on article length, with 8,000 words being the desired limit. I disagree with that, and I think the Madison article at 10,000 words is appropriate. They also have a strong desire to see scholarly sources in articles, so the more things you have cited to books from university presses, the better.
As for the article itself, I look a brief look. One thing I would recommend is to eliminate the "Personal life" section and integrate its material into the appropriate parts of the chronology. See for instance the FA articles John Adams, Chester A. Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Millard Fillmore, James A. Garfield, and so on, all of which integrate such matters just as any real published biography would. In particular, this will allow you to describe Dolley Madison's time as first lady, which is well known, alongside Madison's time as president.
The other thing I noticed is some inconsistencies in cite formatting. Sometimes you wikilink publishers (fns 29, 274), most of the time you don't. Sometimes you have periods after page numbers in book cites, most of the time you don't. Most of the time you harvard-link book cites, but sometimes you don't (fn 197 through 201 for instance). Also be careful to use 'pp.' not 'p.' when you have a page range (fns 173, 198 for example). Most of the time you have ISBN parts separately but sometimes you don't (fn 274 for instance). Be consistent in publisher names (University Press of Kansas, not Univ. Press of Kansas). Be consistent about whether you include cities of publication for books. And so on – these are the kinds of things that reviewers may spot and soak up their mental energies instead of focusing on the article's content.
Yes it is, but I think you could go a bit further. Add a section "Marriage and family" before the On September 15, 1794, Madison married ... and Winchester Reverend Alexander Balmain presided. text, and make the Madison never had children ... and a slave named Coreen. text a separate paragraph within that section. But move the Madison, an introspective individual, enjoyed a ... a leading role in the social affairs of the nation. text into the "Inauguration and cabinet" section, which could maybe be renamed "Inauguration and cabinet and roles". Wasted Time R (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted Time R I've given it a start; for the "Madison, an introspective individual..." part, its currently moved to the Cabinet section when he was appointed secretary of state and Dolly's skills were already in evidence. You can switch it around if you think of something better. I'm wondering how good you are at sources and if you might consider moving the article into all sfn or all Harvard sources; its currently a mix of both. I'm somewhat slow at this and if you could help smooth out the sources formats to be the one or the other then it would improve the sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but maybe you could change the tense in the first lady sentence to something like "Dolley subsequently helped to establish the modern image of the first lady ..." to indicate that it's a bit out of the narrative sequence. As for sfn or harvnb citing styles, I don't like either of them and I don't use them in the articles I write and if I'm modifying an article that uses them I fumble around until something comes out that looks okay. So I would be no help there. Having to slog through 300 footnotes is one reason people avoid FAC ;-) Maybe the reviewers these days aren't as picky about them as they used to be, I don't know. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted Time R Your Dolley version looks better. There were alot of comments over the last 2-3 days at the Madison Talk page which I've tried to add into the article; possibly you could say what looks ok and what might need to be looked at further. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what you are pointing to, I think the 'informal review' process may have gone a bit haywire. Better that particular editor give their comments at FAC itself, where they can choose to support or oppose based on how many of their suggested changes are incorporated. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead with the FAC nomination for the James Madison article and was wondering if you might be able to look in and possibly make any support/oppose comments there for the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
As I said previously, I don't know enough about Madison to make any substantive assessments on the article. I have directly fixed up a couple of cite formatting areas I noted earlier. Other fixups would require knowledge I no longer have about MoS requirements for FAC, such as linking publishers or not, giving locations where books were published or not, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its all appreciated. Even as an interested reader your comments are still useful, as well as your support-oppose comments. I'll leave up to you to decide how to best use or not use your own contribution time, though your comments even as limited to being an interested reader of the article are still of significance to others participating at the review. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTS MAMA update
I don't really think that the MAMA nominations should be included, as it isn't really worth mentioning, especially if that information can go on the awards related article. The article will only get bigger and bigger. I would only update the important events. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️18:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btspurplegalaxy: When I placed the edit this morning, my thought was that you would figure out how to combine the wins with the previous 2022 MAMA BTS nominations edit, since you previously mentioned the nominations as a concern. The article as whole has been keeping track of the various Awards wins and it seems worth retaining in some form on the main biography page. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your continuous support to nominate and promote articles to featured status in the scope of figure skating, including Hanyu's page series. Your help is highly appreciated. Henni147 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAR for Olympic Games
I have nominated Olympic Games for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk05:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All comments on the Madison article should be placed on the Madison Talk page
Removal of maintenance templates
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from James Madison. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Freoh (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at James Madison. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Freoh (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which editors? And which of my edits do you see as disruptive? I've been trying to discuss everything reverted on the talk page before re-adding it. Freoh (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to stop by. If you ever find the name of the product of the services she is promoting then you might let Keith know on the Wednesday Talk page; he is experienced at finding things. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation style
Hey, as a general note, please try to conform to the common citation style used in articles. This is to ensure that articles maintain a consistent style. In most articles, including Wednesday (TV series) for example, the {{Cite}} template style is used ({{Cite web}} for webpages, {{Cite magazine}} for magazines, and so on...). It can be tedious for other editors to correct citations afterwards, so it'd be great if you keep that in mind in the future. Thanks! Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 17:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. You're saying you don't bother formatting them correctly because you assume that I'm going to revert it anyway? Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 17:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you don't take my reversions personally. I've been very transparent with my reasoning, and have always cited policy and guidelines when I took issue with your edits. Note that the entire popular culture section is to your credit, and I've only tweaked a couple of things here and there. I greatly appreciate your edits and have thoroughly enjoyed our collaborative process on that page. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 17:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was brought into the article yesterday by another editor. You can always click on the "Page tools" tab on the history page for an article to see who the most recent and most frequent editors are for these types of edits, and it might be faster that way. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox
I would like to point out that the changed infobox was not agreed upon. There was a discussion here, but no consensus for a change was achieved. No discussion regarding a change to the DPR and LPR took place after this point on the talk page. So, I would kindly request you open a new discussion on the talk page to get people to agree to your version before changing it again. Thank you. Applodion (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella has expressed no support for your change. Where did you even read this? And everyone else on the talk page also seems to oppose your changes. Applodion (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you read that backwards. My comment stated that I am supporting the edit Cinderella. I'm requesting that you also keep all of your comments in one place on the Talk page of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article and not here. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a formal warning that you are edit-warring on the template. Your unilateral alterations have been objected to by numerous editors, and the editors you claim support your change have counter-claimed that this is untrue. The onus is on you to achieve consensus to make the alteration, not on others to undo it. You are at 3RR currently having made reversions at 23:09, 17 January 2023, 15:52, 18 January 2023, and 22:08, 18 January 2023 within the past 24 hours.Mr rnddude (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three of you appear to have been edit warring to force your version of the edit into the Template while Talk page discussion was underway. My own edits were to support several other editors who were supporting the new version of the Infobox Template which you and your edit companions were reverting while Talk page discussion was still under way which is against Wikipedia policy. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Force your version - You mean the longstanding version that has existed since early in the article's inception? I had no hand in the creation of the template or in nearly anything on it. You made a bold edit that substantially altered the belligerents section, and five (not three) editors re-instated the previous version. And, as should be apparent to you from the talk page, these changes are contentious. Several editors like none of the changes, several agree with some of the changes and disagree with others, but nobody agrees with all of them. I also don't know how you can keep claiming that you were [supporting] several other editors, when all three of the editors (Mzajac, Slatersteven and Cinderella157) you named on the talk page have stated that they don't agree with the changes, one of the two editors (Radioactive Boulevadier) you named in an edit summary partially reverted those changes (removing the line (no military alliances) and reverting from military alliance with back to supported by), and the other editor (XtheBedrockX) has stated that they support only one of those changes. I have refrained from !voting on the talk page to allow the invested editors to form a consensus regarding which changes to implement and which to reject. Since you've asked my opinion there directly, I will leave a comment sometime today. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are the one who was engaged in edit-warring by reverting several users. You're the one who has done changes claiming to have the support of several users, despite none of these having said so and later explicitly refuting it. This is highly disruptive, and the fact that you appear not to understand it after everyone has rejected supporting your edits is worrisome. A reminder that WP:Competence is required, competence is required for having appropriate discussions to reach a consensus. It is impossible to do this inventing support from users, reverting five other people, and making accusations to others of POV-pushing or of intending to mislead. And, you should've sought actual consensus before adding any of your changes in the first place. SuperΨDro10:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was made in support of the another editor, Cinderella, following BRD; once BRD was invoked then all edits were required to go to the Talk page until consensus was reached. Instead, all three of you started forcing your edits into the article against Wikipedia policy for BRD. It must be obvious to all three of you that if you had just waited 2-3 hours and allowed the other editors to respond to my inquiry that you would have seen that three of them had reversed their positions, and then your edit would have been restored anyway and following Wikipedia procedures for BRD. Michael has acknowledged that he had misread the editor who started the thread and has asked all the editors to just move forward. In good faith then I've added a separate thread for Mr rnddude's suggestions for comments. Any further discussion of these items should be kept on the Talk page for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in order to keep all comments in the same place. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ErnestKrause! Could you take a quick look at the second FAC discussion for the biography of Tara Lipinski? I made a detailed review and some final adjustments, and the article should be fine for promotion now. Christine and I would be very happy about a feedback from you. Thank you very much in advance! Best wishes Henni147 (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit was made along with another edit with Bellew deciding to back Usyk in the current line-up for the unification bout with Tyson Fury. Bellew backing Usyk against Fury has a history of Tyson Fury putting down Bellew and his corner with diminutive insults when a fight with Bellew was contemplated a few years ago. See the citation in the edit for the reliable source quote on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have made numerous personal attacks against multiple editors at Wikipedia. There is currently an ANI in progress regarding what appears to be your poor edit conduct on multiple edit pages and with multiple editors over several months. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific? None of my comments were intended as personal attacks, so please let me know what I said that feels like an attack to you. — Freoh00:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thread at ANI filed by another editor against your account appears to give multiple and varied examples of your edit disruptions over the past months. Please keep your comments on the ANI page filed by another editor regarding your edit history. All your comments belong on that ANI thread filed by another editor against your disruptive edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put your comments on the ANI in progress and not on this Talk page. Your comments should be kept in one place only while the ANI against you is in progress. Dhtwiki has mentioned that you have had a previous account at Wikipedia; could you indicate what your previous account name was, and some of the Wikipedia articles you edited from your previous account. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must keep your comments in one place on the ANI thread started by another editor currently in progress against your disruptive editing. You appear to now be stonewalling and not answering the multiple questions being asked about your other account which needs to be answered on the ANI page against you by multiple editors and not here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What multiple questions am I not answering? If you have a question that you would like me to answer there, could you {{ping}} me and ask directly? — Freoh14:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must put your answers on the ANI which has been opened against you by another editor and keep your answers in one place. There are multiple questions on the ANI page opened against you regarding your 'new start' with a new account filed by Dhtwiki and other editors. You must answer on the ANI which has been opened against you by another editor and keep all your answer there in one place. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was indeed closed, and I encourage this discussion to be abandoned. User:Freoh, I closed the discussion with admonishment that your various misbehaviors were subject to further administrative action. I'm requesting you to "drop the stick"; I have the weight of the community behind me and the direct capability of awarding escalating blocks. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added one extra RS today; I'll try to get in more on this over the next day or two. You can join in if you have a favorite search engine which you prefer; most of that article is checking out one by one as I do the web searches. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD:Could you answer this inquiry? There is a FAC in progress which requires editors with special competence to enhance the article; another editor feels that he may be more competent any of them. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to have been using the Canvas message (and similar use/misuse of Personal attack messages and Stonewalling messages) with multiple editors over the past months with some repetition in the following examples: [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Some of the editors he has singled out for this type of treatment are Dhtwiki, Penlite, Johnuniq, Batwoman, Gwillhickers, and others. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I was someone who opposed the first FAC and supported the second one after improvements were made. It's not like I was specifically asked to give an endorsement there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't participated, not among my things on Wikipedia, but I don't see anything wrong in asking for comments about a page up for a feature nomination. The point is to improve the page, right?, and if reviewing editors find routes of improvement, more power to them. Canvassing only comes into play in AfD's and the like, not in asking for recommendations for improvement of a long-term well-edited page. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh, Please assume good faith. You just accused eleven editors of bias, with nothing to support it other than they may have voted favorably during the first James Madison FAR, which SNUGGUMS just pointed out, does not include everyone, including myself. You are also assuming that because some editors voted favorably before that somehow this automatically constitutes bias this time around. Again, please assume good faith. All notifications were worded in a neutral manner. Please review WP:Appropriate Notification. If you continue with this sort of behavior you are likely to find yourself in front of a noticeboard, again, like last time.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did assume good faith. I agree with you that the notifications were worded in a neutral manner; the WP:APPNOTE guidelines that you link make it clear that this is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The WP:VOTESTACKING guidelines prohibit ErnestKrause's behavior:
In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate.
Randy Kryn, if you are of the opinion that canvassing only comes into play in AfD's and the like, then I think that you should get consensus before making this change to the guideline. SNUGGUMS, I know that you gave an oppose vote at the first nomination, but I interpreted your comments as essentially an accept once you deal with other editors' concerns, which is more positive than any of those whom ErnestKrause failed to notify. This does not change the fact that ErnestKrause selected editors to notify in a biased way the editors that ErnestKrause notified disproportionately favored his nomination. — Freoh11:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC); edited 12:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm forced to call shenanigans on your last statement. Of course, User:Freoh means in my opinion, ...ErnestKrause selected editors to notify in a biased way. Or he could have said in my view, or by my reading. These are reasonable ways of phrasing. What is not acceptable is declaring as fact Freoh's subjective (and self-serving) view. This sort of mixing subjective and objective runs like a river through User:Freoh's editing history, which I've been digesting in the last few weeks. The oft-mentioned abuse of overlinking seems to resemble gaming behavior, often pointing towards something/someone else and away from their actual positions. I'm having a harder time after all this reading accepting all this activity in good faith. BusterD (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear to the editors responding here what Freoh appears to want. Freoh apparently does not understand the basic policy of the peer review nomination policy at Wikipedia which states: "...you must secure the assent of the significant contributors before (and during) nominating." That means that they need to be contacted according to Wikipedia policy for peer reviews. BusterD has asked politely in the thread above this one, that Freoh drop the stick on this matter, however, Freoh has decided that he wants to, according to Gwillhickers, to now confront 11 experienced editors at Wikipedia with renewed pointed commentaries, rather that simply drop the stick as requested previously by BusterD. I'm not sure why he has decided not to follow BusterD's previous advice to him. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Freoh makes sweeping accusations of bias with no other substantiation than some of the participants voted favorably during the previous James Madison FAR with the glaring implication that it was bias that made them vote so. This is not at all good faith. Meanwhile, he has had every opportunity to chime in at the current FAR and voice any opinions for or against the nomination, but has yet to do so. At this point it would seem that he is not so naive as to figure that this on going and fuzzy talk session could derail the current nomination as was done before. This gaslighting needs to end . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I agree that my wording was misleading, and I have just edited the comment to be clearer. BusterD, could you point me to specific comments that you find problematic so that I can better avoid the impression of mixing subjective and objective? ErnestKrause, I am curious: what were your unbiased criteria for selecting editors to notify? Why (for example) did you notify DIYeditor but not me? — Freoh12:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are pinging HJ Mitchell, DIYeditor and other editors. Both BusterD and Drmies have asked you to drop the stick and to 'stop it'. Could I ask you to drop the stick. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ErnestKrause, your review at Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1 was raised by the nominator at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. I have had a look, and think it's worth noting the obscure and perhaps surprising point that notability is not part of the WP:GACR. In the past we've had GAs merged to other articles, or even straight deleted. If you feel the articles would be better merged, per WP:NOPAGE or on notability grounds, I would understand but a GAN is not a useful forum for it. (GAN is a one-editor review, a much lower bar than notability discussions which generally include far more participants.) It is also worth noting that the GACR are unrelated to how a topic as a whole is handled, that is also a more involved discussion.
On the specific points you raised, I note you failed citing poor leads. Could you provide more information on what you'd expect to see from a lead? You also seem to allude to missing content, what coverage of these papers is lacking? These are topics that would affect the GACR directly, and could be fixed through the GAN process. I would recommend if you strongly feel the overall topic structure of the various involved articles is wrong, that this be raised elsewhere as a separate discussion.
On assessments, while I also don't self-assess my own articles, it's generally seen as fine for any editor, even involved, to move the article between stub and B-class. At a quick look, my personal view is that the three articles (including the subjects of Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1 and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1) are beyond start class, although I at this point lack the knowledge of the subject matter needed to determine if I'd put them at B-class. CMD (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While we're here, I'd really like to know the logic behind thinking three 1300+ word articles, none of which have a lead section less than 175 words, are "very rudimentary start/stub articles with poor lede sections". I'd also like to know which part of WP:ASSESS states that contributors to articles can't rate them for lower than B-class, and why you nevertheless couldn't have done your job as a reviewer, instead of vaguely citing WP:QF and naffing off. I assume you were talking about quickfail criterion 1, and if so, which of the GA criteria did you feel the articles didn't meet? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both editors for their comments. Earlier today Ajpolino left a message on the GAN Talk page and below as to offer the best solution to restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page which I'm in full agreement with. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, ErnestKrause! The article you nominated, James Madison, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Earlier today Ajpolino left a message on the GAN Talk page as to offer the best solution to restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page which I'm in full agreement with. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May 2023
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 112.5 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage)14:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Nikkimaria I'll start these edits in the opposite direction. Nice going on the prose trims today and yesterday. If you are going to Images verification next, then I'm noticing that there are two images in some of the subsections which might look better if limited to one image selected per subsection. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!
Hello ErnestKrause, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️21:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
