This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fathoms Below. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi CollectiveSolidarity. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguilltalk04:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I have opened a sockpuppet investigation involving User:TruthTurtle88 as they have similar editing styles and disruptive editing on the Death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet page as other suspicious accounts in the past.
I have no idea what that post to my talk page that you undid was about, butit was repeated by yet another IP. Who is the banned user? If you meant 108.211.110.206 (talk·contribs) then the user is blocked, not banned. Meters (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Meters, those were socks of User:Mrbeastmodeallday. He has remained disruptive on the United States talk page. He said that he is IP hopping to spam edit requests, and when other editors removed them, he has continued to message those editors disruptively. That is why I was pinged in that IP message on your talk page. Just check the history of Talk:United States. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be getting attention from an assortment of IP editors so I've temporarily semi-protected your talk page. Let me know if you'd like the protection lifted early. Thank you and sorry for this nonsense. LizRead!Talk!
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dead Cells 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 ProtoDrake -- ProtoDrake (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Secondary Source criteria for U.S. House Elections
Hi! I wanted to thank you for reviewing all the new pages I've been making for United States House of Representatives elections in Texas. I noticed that on the first two pages you reviewed, you marked them as in need of secondary sources, and since you did that, I have been sure to find as many as possible for those and all subsequent pages. As I move further back in time, however, I think it is going to get harder and harder to find secondary sources about these elections, so I wanted to ask, what do you consider to be the minimum level of secondary source usage pages like these need? I will probably be able to use the Texas Almanac's political history sections as secondary sources for the general overview of the elections going back at least a few more decades. Would you consider that enough to establish notability? I will still be trying to find as many secondary sources as possible for these pages, but I just wanted to know what your criteria are for adding that tag. Thanks, OutlawRun (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I go to a university in Texas, so in addition to Google Books, I think I'll try and look through the libraries on campus to see if I can find anything there. For example, I can use The Years of Lyndon Johnson for anything to do with LBJ, and I'm sure I can find some books about John Nance Garner and Sam Rayburn to use for their House races. Thanks again, OutlawRun (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae The author said it might not be ready for mainspace, but now reading his comment here. I realize I may have been too hasty. I apologize for doing this, and I will accept any applicable consequences. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
worries, I was honestly just trying to figure it out. I don't know if he meets NSOLDIER or whatever they use now but it seemed...notable enough. o PRAXIDICAE🌈01:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
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.
I can't recall exactly which article, but it's articles broadly relating to them, could be about people, events, etc. It's a routine notice, don't worry about it. I gave myself one. Doug Wellertalk13:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Happy Editing--IAmChaos02:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@Uanfala understand they are not votes. But they probably should have clarified that moving to Crucifer (plant) is not the common name because there are 80,800 hits on google scholar (generally reliable sources) for Crucifarae, 194,000 hits for Brassicaceae, and only 37,800 results for Crucifer (which generally talked about only the plants). So changing Crucifer to Crucifer (Christianity) and Crucifer (plant) would probably be the less common since the most searched title for the plant is Brassicaceae, and Crucifer is searched up more than Cross-Bearer. But if you consider my close a supervote, feel free to revert me.
I can't revert you because I'm involved, you're the only editor who can withdraw the close. The point you're making is correct, but orthogonal to the question at hand. We're not trying to decide between "Brassicaceae" and "Cruciferae" as the name for the family. What we're trying to decide is if there is a primary topic for "crucifer". We need to be looking at the uses of that word and what proportion of them are for each meaning. It's beside the point what other, unrelated, terms can be used for those meanings. Do you get my point? That's an easy mistake to make, I just caught an RM regular mixing up those two earlier today. – Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah! I misunderstood that you wanted to multi-move Brassicaceae to Crucifer. But certainly, there are more results for the Cross-bearer than the plant on Google’s General search. But anyway, Crucifer (plant) already redirects to the primary topic Brassicaceae, so a hatnote on the primary general topic (The Cross-Bearer) should be sufficient. Since there are more people using the general search than the scientific search, it probably suggests that the cross bearer is the primary topic. Forgive me for my misunderstanding, I think I was a bit hasty in closing that move. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
A hatnote enters the picture only if you grant there is a primary topic. I was arguing there is no primary topic. What google search results are you seeing? I did provide a few in the RM nomination, here's two of them again: "Crucifer" Christianity (266,000 results) vs. "Crucifer" plant (501,000). There appear to be a lot more hits for the plant than for the church role. – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The quotation marks are there so that you the search engine returns results only for that exact term and not for related terms, like cruciferous or Cruciferae. – Uanfala (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Since I’m going to be very busy for a while, if you desire that I withdraw the close, please link to this diff that authorizes that you may undo this action on my behalf. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Praxidicae. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Lilly Moon, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello. I hope this message meets you well. If you aren't too busy, do review this page Lojay. Your kind and encouraging words are always appreciated. Amaekuma (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Amaekuma, I have done as you asked. I have reviewed the page and unfortunately I do not think Lojay meets the General notability guideline. Although there are citations, the English Wikipedia can be strict sometimes because it wants significant coverage, which is usually at least 50 to 100 words talking about a subject directly. In relation to Lojay, a long newspaper article talking about where he grew up and what his family did would be a better citation than a short internet article that mentions him in only one sentence. There are other issues in one of the citations, such as puffery. Wikipedia wants to be neutral, and it likes its citations to not give too much praise. But if you think the praise should be included, please say the website or information source that gave the praise.
I hope this does not disappoint you. Making articles is very tough, and is something that requires a lot of time editing and reading the rules. I suggest spending more time reading the rules and editing other articles, such as other Nigerian singers. After you have spent some time reading, talking with others, and editing, you can try and write another article. Help:Your first article is very helpful in regards to this. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and you are from Nigeria, right? You might consider translating articles from Hausa, Yoruba, or Igbo or another Nigerian language into English once you have gained some experience editing (I would say in a month or two). Read the instructions in the blue text carefully if you ever consider translation. Thank you for asking me to help you. I hope I have assisted you properly. If you need any more help, please ask me. Go in peace. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I acknowledge your message. Although I don't agree with everything you say especially regarding sourcing and wikipuffery, I have read all the articles you referred me to. Thanks for your feedback. I hope to keep getting better.
Also, unfortunately I don't know how to write any of the Nigerian major languages. I only know french and English.
I know only Spanish and English, but there are plenty of articles for translation at WP:PNT. Once you have gained some experience, you can try translating one of the French articles on the list into English. If you need any other assistance, don’t be afraid to ask me. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@Amaekuma I took a look at the sources list in WP:NIGERIA, and apparently all the sources are good enough in the article in regards to their criteria. The only problematic source is Bella Naija because it is an internet blog. After re-reviewing all the sources, including the 19th one you just added in, the article should now have enough information to be considered notable. So at this point, disregard the above statements, because the 19th source added enough coverage for an article to be written about him. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi,Thank you for your attention ..
I edited some of the article but Can you specify the sections that require editing?Aye1399 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC) (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2022
Aye1399, hello there! The article reads a little bit like a news piece at the moment. Please read WP:NOTNEWS and also read MOS:WTW in the editorializing section. I believe that it is also inappropriate to refer to the Greek government response as being said by “Athens”, as it could create confusion why Athens is responding instead of Greece. Just mention the Greek official who specifically made the response instead of referring to just Athens. Anyway, I am on vacation at the moment, so I can do some editing on the article when I get back in a week or so. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The Beta israel page. There is a study from 2010 that mentioned that the Ethiopian jews are cluster with semetic-speaking Ethiopians and not with the cushitic-speaking Ethiopians. Yet it doesn't mentioned in the Wikipedia page. Why is that if I may asks? Tofu54401 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
On 23 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dead Cells, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dead Cells was published in early access because the developers feared that there would be an "indiepocalypse"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dead Cells. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dead Cells), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello I've re-edited the following article. You may re check it and let me know on the same which area needs improvement. Thanks Rejoy2003 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The grammar appears to be sorely lacking. I would check the article to make sure the spelling and punctuation are correct. For example "He also reported to his co-actos and crew about a toothache." It should be "co-actors". I suggest checking the article for more spelling mistakes and grammar errors. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Primus Canada
Your reversion of my change is incorrect. Primus Canada is not owned by Birch Communications. Birch Communications is itself a defunct entity, having been absorbed by Fusion Connect. It is not owned by Fusion Connect either. I provided citations for all the corrections to the page that I made.
Primus Canada exists as a distinct customer facing organization with it's own employees, offices &c. so it should have it's own page, like Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Aurora Cable Internet, and many other organizations.
Please correct your error. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The axel (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Please see this [1]. Public relations releases do not demonstrate notability for a company, and a Google Search/Book Search that I did did not turn up any reliable sources for the company. Please also see WP:GNG. The article needs reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thank you, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Washalma dynasty
Hi, I need your help in a Wikipedia page called the "washalma dynasty". the washalma dynasty was found in the 13th century by the Arogoba people. Yet the Somalis in Wikipedia are keep delete it. Can you do something about it? Tofu54401 (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, the WikiProject Vital Articles that you've recently joined is now conducting a drive for improving Vital articles. The drive aims to expand short Vital articles to 30 kilobytes in page size, and because of that, is named the 30 kB drive. The drive allows use of semi-automated editing (such as AWB and IABot), and would run from now to 31 August. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cabin134, Not sure why you notified me about this. However, this is an odd redirect, because I think very few people will search for the statistics with a slash "/" I suggest moving the redirect to "2022 monkeypox outbreak statistics" instead. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Reviewer suggestion
Hello, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) pleases I want you to help me check this page Tolani Baj, it had some well-meaning contributors copy edit and worked on it, I want to know when it will be due for review considerations or how to improve it. Thanks and God bless Celeboyz (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP drive awards
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
This award is given to CollectiveSolidarity for 195 reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to move a 9 year old article to Draft space. Draftifying is for recently created articles, not long-standing articles. The editor who reverted your move pointed to this Village Pump Proposal as an explanation for reverting your move to Draft space. It would be worth your time to reviewing the results of this discussion that occurred earlier this year. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!01:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elden Ring 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 Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
New Page Review queue August 2022
Hello Fathoms Below,
Backlog status
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
@CactiStaccingCrane, what article are we going to focus on after the drive? I think if we can bring articles up to GA one at a time, we can speed through the reviews and get them all posted. I think FAs should be after we get all the vitals to GA, because having them all GAs in the meantime would mean that the readers would be getting slews of useful information while we work on tougher FAs. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should work on two GAs on the next drive, one slight broad and one slightly controversial. FAs is not our main goal here, it is not our next step due to the limited improvement FAC provides and the obscene amount of efforts required. It is more of a nice-to-have goal. Our immediate goal would be to make a lot of GA-quality articles, and to review older works to ensure that they are also of GA quality. Remember, our goal is to have 1000 Vital GAs and FAs by 2032 :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Blablubbs and I blocked a few accounts earlier that used special characters to imitate your username. Did you create these as doppelgängers? No worries if so, although you’ll want to flag them as legitimate alternative accounts. If not then there’s nothing to do, they can just stay hardblocked. Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 18:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Check my block log, scroll down to 14:44 today. Ultimately it’s probably some LTA or other, and usually figuring out which one isn’t worth our time. firefly ( t · c ) 19:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Since Ingenuity is inquiring into the matter on your talk page, I suggest you hear our their advice. I'd refrain from draftifying articles until you have some experience, say after you spend some time learning at New page patrol school. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Harcourt ministry review
Hi CollectiveSolidarity, thank you for your review of Harcourt ministry. I am, however, a little confused why you tagged it with Template:refimprove. There are 15 citations in the article; every sentence after the opening paragraph is cited. What problem needs to be resolved? I plan on making similar articles to this in the near future, so I'd like to know how to avoid issues going forward. Thanks! — Kawnhr (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kawnhr That’s actually a mistake on my part. I was reviewing the sources, and I thought that the article was using the same source from the Times Colonist in 13 different citations. But re-reviewing it, I noticed that the sources were published in different years! Self-trout for me on that. I was also a little concerned with the Canadian Encyclopedia as a source, but WP:CANADA appears to accept it as a general source. All in all, this was my own mistake, and I will definitely look at Wikiproject Canada for more sourcing advice in the future. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Would the United States mine Washington DC to annoy Moscow?
There is a lot of propaganda in the current war. The task of Wikipedia is to give a neutral assessment, and not to lean towards the propaganda of one side or another.
The only thing that can help here is common sense.
If we refuse to use it, there is no chance of neutrality.
Russia already controls Donetsk. Donetsk is inhabited mainly by citizens of Russia (people received Russian passports for 8 years. There are no citizens of Ukraine left there).
Name at least one reason for Russia to strike at Donetsk, or carry out remote mining?
At the same time, Russian military armies are actively moving around Donetsk. Its mining - can potentially complicate these movements. Not so much that it would make military sense, but enough not to create such problems for yourself.
The question is - why do you keep the obviously false statement that Russia is planting mines in Donetsk, but reject the obviously true one - that Ukraine is doing this?
I note that from the point of view of Ukraine, the entire population of Donetsk is the so-called "separas". That is, persons who have renounced Ukrainian citizenship are enemies of the Ukrainian state. The “separas” also include the children of Donetsk residents, as Petro Poroshenko, for example, repeatedly stated when he was the president of the country.
The OSCE forces repeatedly recorded shelling of Doncek by Ukraine, which had no obvious military goals. That is, the shelling was purely punitive in nature.
In this regard, I have a question: on what basis did you cancel my edit? It is clear that this is not a matter of neutrality.
Reaction to the truth adding in article: very fast deletion. Reaction to the question about deletion - ..... still waiting.... Very fanny :-D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.197.26.232 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, you removed an edit from the Cultural references category on the page for The Pleasant Valley War. I was referring to a book that was written as a fictionalized account of the range war in question. I believe that the line was removed in error. If not, can you let me know what I can do to have it added again? 2001:1970:4F63:A900:0:0:0:7942 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
You can re-add it if you include a citation that identifies that the information is accurate. Take a look at WP:Reliable sources to see what qualifies as a good source to use for a citation. Once you have a source that confirms the information, you can add back the information alongside a source. You can look at the Teahouse if you have any further questions. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I replaced the citation you added with a text I found on Google Books. Wikipedia likes citations to have straightforward information that is directly confirmed by the cited text, and I could not find text in Will Henry's novel saying where he found the inspiration for The Fourth Horseman. Thankfully, I found a third-party source that confirmed the information that you mentioned. Anyway, I'm sadly not the strongest voice around here when it comes to editing advice, so if you need any further assistance, you can ask the Teahouse or the Help desk. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP message
Hi Fathoms Below,
Invitation
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
@Kj cheetham Alright, here are a few things I noticed :
The lead is a bit short for a GA at the moment. I suggest expanding it with some more details on this history of the castle, its design etc. 2-3 paragraphs is usually the typical length for a GA.
I suggest merging the section "Current History" with the 20th and 21st century subsections.
The current spacing of sentences is a bit choppy; They should be merged into singular paragraphs if possible.
There is a citation needed tag, and a few sentences might need some copyedits. I can help with the latter.
This is just a cursory glance, and a GA reviewer will go into more depth on the contents of the article. I’m not very experienced with buildings, but I can help out some. Take a look at the FA Bodiam Castle if you need any inspiration. You don’t need to make it as expansive as Bodiam, but some general history and/or design will be enough for GA. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that! I've merged the sections as you suggested and added a tiny bit more to the lead. I don't think enough material exists to make it the length of Bodiam Castle alas, but I'll try and work on it a bit more over the next week. It seems to be mostly single sentance paragraphs in the second half of the article, so I need to focus on that I think. It you can help with copyedits after I work on it a bit longer that would be appreciated. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi again CollectiveSolidarity I've done some more work to expand it, would you mind taking another look? Any help on the copyediting side would be much appreciated. I think I find it easier to proof-read other people's work than my own! Hopefully I can submit it to GA soon, though imagine it may be a while before it gets reviewed. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to thank you again for closing the thread. I wasn't going to pursue the issue anyway even though I have found many times over the last 28 years that threads on Internet fora between anonymous people simply become a platform for unreflected claims. I'm sure good faith was meant by the OP but familiarity with the topic being addressed and a better understanding of English would have been more helpful just as with other dissent which has been only 0.7% of the call to action. Your username does you proud, thank you for your support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Elden Ring
On 2 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elden Ring, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the writer of Elden Ring compared the game's mythology to using a dungeon master's handbook in a tabletop RPG? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elden Ring. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Elden Ring), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I didn't see any consensus for removal of the "Western democracies" qualification (Talk archive 102), but don't feel strongly one way or another. We'll see if other editors let it stand. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones. I originally supported its inclusion, but I then realized that making comparisons is not always the best thing on Wikipedia. But yeah, just like you, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Vital GA Drive
The first ever Vital GA Drive by the WikiProject Vital Articles has begun. The drive aims to improve Coffee and Land to good article status within 45 days, from 1 September to 15 October 2022. The Vital GA Drive is WikiProject Vital Articles's first step at achieving its ambitious goal: all Vital articles achieving good article status by 2032.
Hi CollectiveSolidarity. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguilltalk16:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Skul: The Hero Slayer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
You have been invited, along with the other participants in Wikiproject Vital Articles, to start editing the Technology page and add references. Our goal is, by September 3rd, to have the article at least to B-class, but what would be generally preferable is to improve this article to the extent that it gets to GA-status. I may post a notice to the community bulletin board, but it is not definite. I hope to see the Technology article improved! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 ⋅𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔⋅ 02:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
To request my attention, find my talk page and I will respond within 24 hours.
I can't respond to you on SWViwer so I"m responding here. While I can do that, there's actually a specific user warning for changing between english variations which I can't leave via SWViwer to my knowledge. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
