User talk:Thebiguglyalien

Your GA nomination of Emily Donelson

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

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 2

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

Discretionary sanctions at WP:ITN (cont.)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive352#Discretionary_sanctions_at_WP:ITN

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

Quote from the thread: "... both US politics and gun control already are designated as contentious topics..."

There were several options listed in the thread, but I think, for what you seem to be looking for, you might try either posting a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_enforcement, or start a request for community sanction at WP:AN, per Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions.

I think, since those 2 (and many other) contentious topics already exist, asking at Arbcom, is probably the better first step. And then, if they do decide to avoid a decision and kick the can back to the community, you can go that route if necessary. But, I do think this should be a simple motion for arbcom to approve for WP:ITN on some extisting topics at the very least.

And the thing is, I would presume that nearly everything listed under Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Active_sanctions can show up at WP:ITN. Which, I think, is not true of most pages/processes in Wikipedia. So maybe Arcom could just say in a motion that all topic-based general sanctions (CTs) apply at ITN. I don't know if they would, but it's a thought.

But if they really want it focused to just a few of the more incendiary current event topics. I'm guessing you probably would know those better than me, since I'm not involved at ITN. So I guess just go through the list and see what seems to you to be the best (worst) selections.

Obviously, be prepared to add diffs/evidence of the ongoing disruptions.

I hope this helps. - jc37 21:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @jc37: I could have sworn that once upon a time many years ago that you were a regular contributor to ITN. Perhaps it was MFD that I was thinking of. I remember seeing you there at least. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

WaltCip - Hi. Not to my recollection. There are a few other usernames that start with jc, perhaps it was one of those you might have seen, I dunno. Other than the big main page layout RfCs in the past, I don't recall contributing to much of any of the sub-main page proocesses. XfD, on the other hand, I tend to be fairly active with. CFD in particular. I hope this helps. - jc37 10:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of the United States (1776–1789)

The article History of the United States (1776–1789) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789) for comments about the article, and Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Martha Washington

The article Martha Washington you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Martha Washington and Talk:Martha Washington/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Martha Washington

The article Martha Washington you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Martha Washington for comments about the article, and Talk:Martha Washington/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliza McCardle Johnson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eliza McCardle Johnson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliza McCardle Johnson

The article Eliza McCardle Johnson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eliza McCardle Johnson and Talk:Eliza McCardle Johnson/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliza McCardle Johnson

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

Triple Crown

I'm very pleased to present the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels to Thebiguglyalien, for your work on "Did you know?" and the good and featured article processes! — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clara Stauffer

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

Your GA nomination of Clara Stauffer

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

10k!

Happened to click your userpage and saw you just passed the 10,000 edit milestone! I don't know if a congratulations or kudos is in order, so how about both. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Your GA nomination of Julia Gardiner Tyler

The article Julia Gardiner Tyler you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Julia Gardiner Tyler and Talk:Julia Gardiner Tyler/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alanna the Brave -- Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Frances Cleveland

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

Adam Cuerden I'd be okay with pretty much any good portrait; I just left the one that I found there. Of those four, my personal favorite is the fourth one, taken by Charles Milton Bell, though I don't love the background. The third one isn't bad either, but there's another photo from that set in the article. I probably wouldn't use the first one (the puffy shirt is distracting and doesn't seem to reflect her usual attire in photos) or the second one (I'd rather not use a side profile as the lead image). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite done, but how's it look so far? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks good! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And, a little more cleanup and a levels adjustment later, I think we're largely done. Might make minor tweaks if someone points something out. To Featured pictures, I think! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 02:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

And, just for the record: clearly going to pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 02:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Barbara Bush

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

Your GA nomination of Julia Gardiner Tyler

The article Julia Gardiner Tyler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Julia Gardiner Tyler for comments about the article, and Talk:Julia Gardiner Tyler/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alanna the Brave -- Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Julia Tyler advertisement.jpg was a little odd, given the LoC apparently only uploaded a black-and-white copy, but I think I've sorted it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 18:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Thebiguglyalien. Thank you for your work on Adriane Lopes. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

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

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter

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

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

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

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

Frances Cleveland scheduled for TFA

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

Your GA nomination of Sarah Yorke Jackson

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

Your GA nomination of Sarah Yorke Jackson

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

Nomination of List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons for deletion

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

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

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

Your proposal on controversial topics

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

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

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

Onceinawhile I think that write up is admirable, and something worth striving for. I do believe that most editors are participating in good faith, but that's the issue of WP:TIGER at its core. This topic area more than any other has experienced editors that participate in the debate as much as they describe it. I stand by the classic litmus test: after reading an article, can you tell what the primary author thinks about the subject? If you can, then it's almost certainly an NPOV violation. That's going to happen to everyone now and then, and that's fine. It's fixable. The issue becomes intractable when this happens in the majority of an editor's contributions to the topic, especially when it's to present a decidedly negative view of the topic, and especially when the topic is an issue of nationality or ethnicity.

To take the example at hand, I gather that most editors were able to quickly determine what your position is on Zionism, race and genetics simply by reading the article. That generally shouldn't happen. And from there, we get into the issue of the battleground behavior, where many of the keep !votes are people who regularly push an anti-Israeli POV and many of the delete !votes are people who regularly push an anti-Palestinian POV. What in isolation might be a reasonable !vote becomes a question of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CPUSH when compared with the editor's track record of always seeking a conclusion favorable to their POV. Based on what you're saying, I think we agree on this latter point to some extent.

If it feels at all like I was singling you out, it was because your contributions were the only ones laid out at the AE discussion, and because I consider DYKs with a potential POV to be a significant escalation over articles with a potential POV. I'm not willing to name names before similar evidence is collected for any given individual (and I do not envy anyone that tries to present such evidence), but I don't think you're the worst offender in that AE discussion, let alone the broader topic area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi TBUA, thanks for your thoughtful comment. FWIW I didn’t feel singled out at all – I thought your post was very well balanced.

I don’t think your litmus test is correctly nuanced, though. Let’s imagine we have a perfect article on climate change, correctly representing scholarly weight. After reading that “perfect” article, I should be able to judge that the primary author believes that climate change is real and that it is primarily a man-made phenomenon. According to your litmus test, that would make the article an NPOV violation. But of course it wouldn’t be, because it would be representing scholarly weight correctly.

The issue with this in many of the areas in the Israel-Palestine arena is that most observers simply don’t have the depth of understanding to make that judgement on a particular sub-topic without making the effort to read widely (which very few will have time to do). We “know” without doing any additional reading that mainstream consensus is that climate change is real and vaccines don’t cause autism, but the same can’t be said for whether race and genetics are really significant within Zionism, or whether Israel’s mixed cities really aren’t mixed. These are areas that need looking in to first.

Another way to put this is the fallacy of argument to moderation or false balance. Just because two “sides” often disagree, it certainly does not mean they are arguing over the “real” center ground.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Thebiguglyalien. Thank you for your work on Tsheko Tsheko. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

Hello! Hopefully you have a nice day today. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by creating an article. As your article have adhered to the policies of Wikipedia, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a good day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Marie-Laure de Decker

On 16 July 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marie-Laure de Decker, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ilona Tóth

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

Your GA nomination of Ilona Tóth

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

Your GA nomination of Alt-right pipeline

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

Your GA nomination of Alt-right pipeline

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

Your GA nomination of 2001

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

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

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

WiG Editathon Barnstar

		Women in Green Editathon June '23
		Thank you for your excellent contributions to GA nominations Barbara Bush, Sarita Colonia, Sarah Yorke Jackson, Lucretia Garfield and Clara Stauffer, along with completing GA reviews for Ellie Black, Angela Farmer, Hidilyn Diaz, Where Is the Feeling?, Yella Hertzka, Mi Buen Amor and Everywhere at the latest WiG Wildcard Edition editathon! Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 2

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

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 3

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

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 4

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

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 3

The article Federalist No. 3 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Federalist No. 3 and Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

GA nomination for Military dictatorship

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

Your GA nomination of Military dictatorship

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

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 3

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

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 2

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

The Holocaust wasn't just killing, it was murder

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

Your GA nomination of Barbara Bush

The article Barbara Bush you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Barbara Bush and Talk:Barbara Bush/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Harrison McKee

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

Your GA nomination of Priscilla Cooper Tyler

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

Your GA nomination of Barbara Bush

The article Barbara Bush you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Barbara Bush for comments about the article, and Talk:Barbara Bush/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 4

The article Federalist No. 4 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Federalist No. 4 and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Priscilla Cooper Tyler

The article Priscilla Cooper Tyler you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Priscilla Cooper Tyler and Talk:Priscilla Cooper Tyler/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anna Harrison

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

Your GA nomination of Mary Harrison McKee

The article Mary Harrison McKee you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mary Harrison McKee and Talk:Mary Harrison McKee/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Harrison McKee

The article Mary Harrison McKee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mary Harrison McKee for comments about the article, and Talk:Mary Harrison McKee/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Priscilla Cooper Tyler

The article Priscilla Cooper Tyler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Priscilla Cooper Tyler for comments about the article, and Talk:Priscilla Cooper Tyler/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 4

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

Your GA nomination of Military dictatorship

The article Military dictatorship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Military dictatorship for comments about the article, and Talk:Military dictatorship/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pbritti -- Pbritti (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Your work on Military dictatorship, exemplified by your patience and proactive action during its GA review, are characteristic of the finest Wikipedia has to offer. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Lou Henry Hoover

Congratulations, Thebiguglyalien! The article you nominated, Lou Henry Hoover, 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, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louisa Adams

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

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 5

The article Federalist No. 5 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Federalist No. 5 and Talk:Federalist No. 5/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BritneyErotica -- BritneyErotica (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

frances cleveland

hello, Thebiguglyalien! i had a quick question regarding this article and the associated blurb. both the blurb and article lead mention that cleveland participated in the movement to get the u.s. involved in world war i, but i was unable to find a citation for this statement, either in the article lead or the body. did i somehow miss it? the assertion is believable, though i was surprised that it does not appear to be sourced. dying (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

dying, her association with the movement is described in the first paragraph of "Later life". That's a good catch though that it doesn't use that phrasing specifically, so I've adjusted the wording of that sentence a little bit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

dying looking more closely at the sources though, it seems to only be supported indirectly (i.e. she was involved with a group that supported it). The only explicit statement is that she supported military preparedness, so maybe it should be removed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

i am not sure if her involvement with a group that supported the movement would allow us to conclude that she supported it herself. she donated to the woman's christian temperance union and supported the temperance movement, but did not dress as modestly as the union would have liked.

also, if you decide to remove this assertion from the article, i think the blurb should be changed similarly. what would you think about replacing the sentence mentioning world war i with the sentence "During World War I, she advocated military preparedness."? dying (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I've made the change to the article, and I've put in an edit request for the blurb. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

looks good. thanks, Thebiguglyalien. dying (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Frances Cleveland was first lady of the United States during the presidencies of Grover Cleveland. She became an instant celebrity after marrying the sitting president in the White House, and her popularity may have surpassed even his."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for the feedback and reviewing of the When I Die article!!! I'm eternally grateful lol. Ty. Chchcheckit (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Chchcheckit, I enjoyed reading about (and listening to) the album. I usually try not to review the same type of article too frequently so as to avoid burnout, but I might go through another one of the articles you've listed for review if no one else grabs them in the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

...And once again, THANK YOU SO MUCH for enjoying and reviewing the good article (TOL)!!!!! thanks a lot Chchcheckit (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Killer toy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Killer toy 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. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Killer toy

The article Killer toy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Killer toy for comments about the article, and Talk:Killer toy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 5

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

Your GA nomination of Louisa Adams

The article Louisa Adams you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Louisa Adams and Talk:Louisa Adams/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louisa Adams

The article Louisa Adams you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Louisa Adams for comments about the article, and Talk:Louisa Adams/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucretia Garfield

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lucretia Garfield you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammielh -- Sammielh (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 6

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 6 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Centre-left politics

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Centre-left politics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 6

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

Your GA nomination of Centre-left politics

The article Centre-left politics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Centre-left politics for comments about the article, and Talk:Centre-left politics/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Batal Hajji Belkhoroev

Hello @Thebiguglyalien. How you doing? In the talk page of Batal Hajji Belkhoroev I replied to your concerns (1, 2) but it's seems you didn't see them. Could you check them and answer? Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 there were still concerns that weren't addressed. I've checked them and replied to a few. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 7

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 7 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Fyappiy

Hello @Thebiguglyalien. Thank you so much for reviewing Batal Hajji Belkhoroev and giving it GA status. I have another candidate for GA status, Fyappiy, which been more than a month a candidate with no review being done so I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing it? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Thebiguglyalien. I'm sorry to bother you again, but I didn't get an answer. Will you consider reviewing the article? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123, I'm taking a break from reviewing right now after doing 40 reviews for GA drive last month. Fortunately, the drive means that there aren't as many nominations waiting, so yours should get picked up soon. And you can always reduce the backlog and get your nomination prioritized by doing some reviews of your own, if that's something you're interested in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the answer! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 7

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

Your GA nomination of Lucretia Garfield

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

New pages patrol invitation

Hello, Thebiguglyalien. The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles and redirects needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help. I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines. Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions. If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here. Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the Johannesburg ITN item

Just to clarify, because that section was hatted, that I was not implying bias on your part, and to be honest I don't believe you would be the type to be too convinced by location as an indicator of notability. I will admit I was venting again about ITN bias in a general sense and was out of line. My WP:N point still stands but that's not something I really feel like would be productive to discuss at length. No hard feelings! DarkSide830 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Katalin Rényi

On 3 September 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Katalin Rényi, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iron Man, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Rhodes and Franklin Richards.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

A cup of tea for you!

Hey there! I haven't seen you name around and wanted to say hello. I saw you on the Wikicup newsletter; keep up the great work! People that work on-wiki as hard as you do are very inspiring. Panini! • 🥪 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi there—just wanted to express my thanks again for your GA review of the KNP Complex Fire article and your patience re: my working to complete it. Your feedback was immensely helpful and I'm sure it was a good bit of work, too! I see you have done a lot of work in the GA nomination/review arena and I hope you know it's appreciated. Have a great week. Penitentes (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Concert abuse tag

Hi, you recently added a recentism tag to concert abuse. I don’t think the tag is needed or justified for the following reasons, and I would like to remove it. Here’s why:

• The primary contributor wrote the original article about recent events, primarily those in the post-covid era. Up until last week, the title reflected that scope
• The title and scope of the article were recently decided by the consensus of WikiProject Music to be better suited at a more neural title for the general phenomenon
• The larger and older phenomenon still exists at the bottling (concert abuse) article and editors are considering how to deal with this
• Appropriate coverage of the larger historical phenomenon is covered in the history section
• The recentism tag is used to to alert editors of a problem in relation to recentism bias. The article did not have this perceived problem until last week when the article title and scope was changed. Because the main history (bottling) is linked from the history section, and post-covid incidents are clearly noted as section headings, and the concerts project is working on how to best deal with this, there is no need for the tag as all parties are aware of and working on the problem. In fact, the recent move to this general title was part of the solution, as the previous title was considered too narrow in scope. So you can see, the addition of the recentism tag doesn’t make much sense. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What the article used to look like isn't relevant. Tags are about whether the problem exists now and whether it still needs to be resolved. Currently, a disproportional amount of the article is about the last few years rather than the general concept indicated by the article's title. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article hasn’t changed, it now refers to the general concept. And it links to the pre-2020 list of events in the bottling article and highlights the main history. I don’t see a recentism problem, and since tags are used to notify the interested parties, it doesn’t make any sense to tag it, since everyone has been talking about this issue for the last several weeks and is aware of it. The new title is an attempt to address the problem. Unfortunately, you aren’t aware of any of this, and perceived a problem of "recentism" because of the article title, which was just changed. So you see it’s a catch 22. If the article title is changed back to what it was last week, you remove the tag. But that would go against the consensus of the commmunity. This isn’t how tags are supposed to be used. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I temporarily moved the article to a restricted scope, which was one alternative presented last week prior to the work needed to be done to create a larger, more inclusive article. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The content of the article should match the scope designated by the title. If it doesn't, then it should be categorized appropriately with a tag. With your move, it currently does. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean well with your strict rules-based approach, but there are times where that approach is not a good fit for the situation. We aren’t supposed to do moves when an article is linked from the main page, and that was the only way to fix your request and remove the tag. I think you would have been just as effective leaving a message on the talk page and waiting until it was off of the main page to add the tag. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out with the GAN backlog drive

{{The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia|We really appreciate that you reviewed 41 GANs during the drive. Due in part to your efforts, the backlog of unreviewed nominations was reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent.}} (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iron Man

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iron Man you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you review this GAN article?

Hello! Hope you are doing well. Since you have reviewed many GA nominations, i was wondering if you can review mine. The GAN article i am referring to is Wii U GamePad. Cheers. Summerslam2022 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Summerslam2022, I've taken a break from reviewing for the time being. It's not uncommon for articles to wait a few months at GAN before a reviewer takes it, although video game articles are generally a bit quicker. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Lou Henry Hoover

Hope you don't mind me switching the lead image. Not sure if I'll be able to get it to FP, but do think this is better and clearer than what we had. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 03:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Not at all! It was a pleasant surprise when I saw it. I usually don't do too much with images when writing articles just because I don't know how to find good ones (let alone tag their licensing). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

The article It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown and Talk:It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iron Man

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

Your GA nomination of It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

The article It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown for comments about the article, and Talk:It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War Machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cable.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

New essay for you

In light of the events from seven months ago on WP:YEARS, I suggest you give this a read if International Notability ever returns: User:InvadingInvader/Against international notability InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

InvadingInvader, mentally filed away for the future. I think that the lessons learned from the whole WP:YEARS and international notability debacle have relevance to the project more broadly. It touches on several dispute-prone areas where best practices are unclear: event notability, trying to determine weight from primary sources, local consensus, WikiProject ownership, and Americentrism. And side note if you're interested, I've been working on fine tuning 2001 as a proper non-stub article in the GA process. The main thing being worked out now is the sourcing, which might be relevant to this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree – and I'm thinking about making a similar renovation to 2022 in the US in the future. God speed! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor's personal opinion

Hello. You've reverted me on Far-left politics and then toned down the claim that far-left and far-right politics "overlap significantly" to that they "overlap in some areas". Regardless of emphasis, this is an exceptional claim that would be best backed up with multiple sources. Have a nice day. –Vipz (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, I believe it is not productive to have non-content discussion on article talk pages, but wanted to address this message of yours from there: It's a massive timesink when an editor comes to a talk page with The Truth and then works backward from it, trying to find sources that justify their beliefs rather than finding the best sources and summarizing them. I sensed some of that in this discussion. This is called confirmation bias. Our entire interaction was based on me pointing out issues with sourcing and synthesis and you dismissing them because I've not provided sources for other statements ("personal opinions") I made, then when I went out to provide sources for previously posted statements, tacitly accusing me of confirmation bias. Messages towards me I feel weren't worded in the most "assume good faith" way, but that's another story. Hope to hear back, have a nice day again. –Vipz (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Just letting you know I value and respect your opinion, no matter if we agree or not. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Much obliged! Sometimes it can be hard to tell whether the other person interprets a discussion as an interesting conversation or a frustrating argument. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maria Stromberger

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maria Stromberger you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Comments like this do nothing to bring down the temperature of the discussion and are likely to be seen as personal attacks. Such accusations are not appropriate to levy without a lick of evidence.

Furthermore, how about some self-reflection? You frequently edit in AMPOL as well, but I guess you're holier than the rest of us. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of AMPOL editors who don't endorse a position or make an edit just because it strengthens or weakens a conservative viewpoint or a progressive viewpoint. You can't tell which "side" of a discussion they'll be on just from political ideology. But there are also editors where no matter what the issue is, you can always bet that they'll be on a certain ideological side before even opening the discussion. If you're one of the former, then I apologize for invoking your name in this way. But when encountering the latter, I believe that failing to prevent WP:CPUSH is far more harmful than challenging it.

I've come to expect certain editors to always support the right-wing position (regardless of the merits of the argument), and I've come to expect certain editors to always be on the opposite side of the debate (regardless of the merits of the argument). Every time one of these little spats emerges, it always lines up consistently. There seems to be an unspoken agreement that we all just pretend this isn't happening, but that doesn't make it go away. Again, I hope I'm mistaken and that there aren't as many of these editors as it appears. But CPUSH does emerge from time to time, and editors who are unwilling to identify it are doing the project a disservice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, because I really strive to be as neutral as possible and make PAG-based arguments. Overall I actually largely agree with you on this, but I do not think that accusing editors of POV-pushing in the manner you did is helpful. The thing is, it's extremely sensitive and labeling any experienced editor a civil POV-pusher is always going to be controversial. Such an accusation deserves a detailed report with clear evidence, and even then it rarely ends with sanctions specifically for CPUSH. It's a complex problem that the project has yet to remedy. For now the community's primary solution is to enforce strict behavioral standards for those participating in the topic area. That's why I started the report, not because of any viewpoint from the reported editor, but because of the behavior I saw from them: edit-warring, incivility, and canvassing. Some of the responses to the report are subpar, but I can't help that, and their responses are not as important as the responses of uninvolved admins anyway. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Your WP:ASPERSIONs are sanctionable; please strike the entire statement and this one as well or substantiate your allegations, which are personal attacks and inappropriate. Andre🚐 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have already struck the portion that mentioned you any anyone else. All that remains now is my statement is that admins should be more firm with POV pushing in situations like this. Whom do you consider that an aspersion against? I'm not referring to you in that portion. Do you feel that I am? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You already referred to me; simply striking my name while leaving the message, is not a suitably strike for the allegation. Please strike the entire statement, and your response to FormalDude, or explain the POV pushing allegation with diffs. Andre🚐 03:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited AMPOL except perhaps two articles on mass-shootings (which were remarkably free from any POV-disputes) and one/two odd comments in RfCs/t-p discussions. I do not recall coming across your name ever, either. So, maybe explain the PA? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anaximenes of Miletus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anaximenes of Miletus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Births in 2001 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Births in 2001 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Births in 2001 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MirrorPlanet (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anaximenes of Miletus

The article Anaximenes of Miletus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Anaximenes of Miletus and Talk:Anaximenes of Miletus/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)