COI Editor - Requesting Assistance with Two PagesEdit

Hello User:Z1720

Thank you for confirming the completion of edits I requested on the Jeffrey Sachs page.

I see you help COI editors, and I'm wondering if you might help me with edits to the Rajiv Shah and Rockefeller Foundation (to come) pages? On Dec 12, I posted some requests to Rajiv's page and I was wondering if you could be so kind as to review those to see if they can be put through? They are all formatted for inclusion. I had reached out to another volunteer who said they would assist me if they had time, but it looks like they have been too busy. One source is a primary source so I would love to get your input on that. It is the one from an interview for a Concordia conference. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you might provide. I thank you in advance for your consideration. Best LeepKendall (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @LeepKendall: I have seen your request for Rajiv Shah in the queue. In the interest of fairness, I am completing older requests first. If I end up reviewing your request I will post in the article's talk page. Likewise, if someone responds to the request and you want a second opinion, please post on my talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I totally understand User:Z1720. Thanks for your quick response! LeepKendall (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

relative to the entry of pichenotteEdit

Hello, As a French Canadian I am very familiar with the subject and the word 'pichenotte' and how it is used and it is obvious to millions of my friends that the narrow point of view currently given on Wikipedia is incorrect. Why would WIkiipedia editors not want a broader, inclusive and more correct article ? Unfortunately there are not any book sources that I am aware of, but the Quebec Museum is a reliable source and the Tavistock Gazette, and web sources about the game, all agree with me. I make a few boards every year,so yes, I have a conflict of interest, which I have stated in my profile. I am trying to do so in the most neutral way possible,

DVQuebec (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


Hello Z1720 - the current article about pichenotte quotes NO SOURCES ! NO CITATIONS, and seems to make no sense to millions of us French Canadians, so how can it stand as is ? I have given many sources and citations, that support my statements. Certainly better than none, don't you agree ? If there is a current manufacturer of the square board, who are they ? Many manufacturers exist of round and rectangular boards. Thank you


DVQuebec (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @DVQuebec: One of Wikipedia's policies is that information is verified. Editors have the burden to produce reliable sources that show that the information is not just "made up." I want a better article, but posting information from unreliable sources does not necessarily make the article better.
The Quebec Museum might be a reliable source, but some of the links that were posted were for the homepage of their website so I could not verify the information. Please post the exact url that you are citing so that it can be assessed. The information should be authored by someone who is an authority on pichenotte, not just a random staff member. As for Tavistock Gazette, I would need to take a look at the site to determine if it is reliable.
Book sources are not the only reliable sources. Scholarly articles, reputable newspapers, and academic journals are all considered reliable. I use the Wikipedia Library, my local library's website, and scholar.google.com to find new sources. The sources can also be in any language, including French.
As for the text currently in the article: if there is information that is incorrect and needs to be removed, please post it on the talk page. An editor will assess if the information needs to be removed.
Please post below or use the help desk if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Z1720 for your comments...and yes, I would like your help to improve the article. How should we proceed to improve it ? I have no qualms about the game once being a square game. But the word pichenotte encompasses a lot more in the life of the French Canadian people. It refers to many different flicking games. I am new at this, so some of my links or citations may be weak. However, if you be so kind as to click on many of the links I have provided, you will see that many of them support the fact that pichenotte means almost any disk flicking game you can imagine, and it means even more than that. The specific URL of the Quebec Museum de la Civilisation that shows a round pichenotte game board is https://collections.mcq.org/objets/76963 . I thought I had included that in my proposed article, but perhaps I did not. As the Canadian historian and author Wayne Kelly, who I quote quite often had found out after 30 years of research about the game of crokinole, in his book, The Crokinole Book, he says over and over again that there is almost nothing written about the histories of either game, crokinole or pichenotte before 1987 when he began his research. There are no 'experts' on the game or the history of pichenotte. Pichenotte is a generic term meaning flick. It is not a patented game. The man in the Quebec Museum is the head of the Collection and not just a staff member. As you noted, I also quote from the wThe Tavistock Gazette is a long established newspaper in the town that many say is perhaps the birthplace of the game of crokinole, so if anyone is going to deny that pichenotte is a round game, it is Bill Gladding of the Tavistock Gazette ! But he agrees with me that the word pichenotte also refers to the game the Ontario residents know as crokinole. Also on the www.pitchnut.com site, the man who has roots in Quebec also states plainly on his history page that residents of French Canada who play his game of pitchnut, also refer to crokinole as pichenotte. Pichenotte being a unique Canadian word, based on the French word 'pichenette'. Thanks for your offer to help. I think this is a good discussion and look forward to a more accurate article. DVQuebec (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @DVQuebec: I suggest reading WP:RS to gain an understanding of what Wikipedia says are reliable sources. It is unfortunate that historians have not focused on this game in their research, but that does not mean that we can use unreliable sources to support the text. Instead, it means editors should use the reliable source we can find to build the article, and perhaps have a shorter article until more research is published.
The biggest problem with the edit request was the formatting. It was too difficult to figure out what was supposed to be added to the article and where the text's information came from. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style to bring some consistency to our articles; reading that might help format your request. Specifically, references should be linked to a specific website page or book page number in the footnotes. To understand how to reference in Wikipedia's style, please read Wikipedia:Inline citation and look at the coding in other Wikipedia pages, specifically in featured articles. I also suggest that you do some test edits in your sandbox.
Wayne Kelly's book might be a reliable source, so that might be a great starting point. I also found this book that references pichenotte, and found some references on scholar.google.com. You can also use the databases from the Wikipedia Library or your own local library system to find sources.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or you want me to look at edits in your sandbox and give some suggestions. You can also ask your questions or get advise at the help desk. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Confirming no conflict of interestEdit

As stated on the Sheppard band page, I have no conflict of interest. I am not friends with the band or related to the band, do not work for the band and have never worked for the band, and I have not been paid to make these changes. I am simply a fan of the band and an avid follower of the Australia music industry. You will see the content I removed in relation to Greg Sheppard had been done so years previously (please see the talk page), where it was agreed the addition of that information was irrelevant and arguably against Wikipedia rules. It was removed then and I am simply removing again now. Tennineeighttwo (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Tennineeighttwo:, thanks for letting me know that you do not have a conflict of interest. I want to let you know about the three revert rule. It says An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. I see that you have reverted edits twice today. I strongly recommend that you do not revert or edit the article again, even if you think you are "correct". Instead, engage talk page discussion or, if that does not resolve the issue, you can engage in dispute resolution. Please let me know if you have any questions or post at WP:HELPDESK. Thanks Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Erica NlewedimEdit

Hello Z1720, thank you for all the work you do at wiki. I noted that you voted to delete the page Erica Nlewedim last year because she did not meet the notability criteria. I have however updated the page in light of recent events and will appreciate your review of the page for possible publishing. Thank you --Kemmiiii (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Kemmiiii: thanks for reaching out. I took a quick look at this article and noticed some concerns. IMDB, and movie/TV trailers on YouTube are not reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. These will need to removed, as well as the information that the source was verifying. Typically, three reliable sources are needed to show the person is notable. These sources need to prominently feature or talk about the person in the text; passing mentions are not notable enough. You can find a list of assessed sources at WP:RS/P. Let me know if you have any other questions. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been very helpful. Kemmiiii (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your Review of Digital Currency Group Request EditsEdit

I wanted to thank you for reviewing the request edits I made on the talk page of Digital Currency Group. Sorry for the long delay in responding to your feedback. I posted the full text of some of the paywalled articles you were unable to review at the bottom of the request edit. Here is the link. Thank you for your consideration. CertifiedTurtle (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent Changes made to ON24Edit

I dont understand why my recent edit was changed. It had errors in the original name of the company and I do not take kindly that you have removed the company history. On24 was founded by us in my facility under my company name, and we were the one who hired the current CEO. It just came to my attention that the current CEO due to the upcoming IPO has covered all tracks leading back to the 3 of us founders of the company. Unfortunately there is several books and publications that have stated these facts - I will fight this tooth and nail as we have dedicated years of our lives to bring this company to life. I would like to politely ask you to please do not change the company history back. If that does not work I will seek legal help but I will not let this go. Thank You!

Sincerely, Csaba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfikker (talkcontribs) 03:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Cfikker:. As you have a conflict of interest with ON24, I invite you to read WP:COI. Specifically, the section that says "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" (their emphasis). If you would like to propose a change to the article, I suggest following the instructions at Template:Request edit/Instructions and posting an edit request on the talk page.
The edits were removed because a source was not provided to verify the information. It is the responsibility of the editor that posts the information to provide reliable sources to support the added information. I have reinstated my changes and if you would like to add information to the article, please use the template I outlined above.
I also invite you to read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Editors who propose legal threats on Wikipedia will be blocked. I suggest that you strike out the second last sentence in your comment above like this.
Please post below if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I attach material that you requested in an email to you?Edit

Hello Z1720

Re: your message on my requested changes in the Munchener Post entry.

You'd asked that I send you copies of the pages cited in my request for changes. When I go to send you an email via the Wikipedia system, I am not seeing a way to attach documents. Please advise.

Many thanks

SenseData (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)SenseData

Hi @SenseData: unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't let users attach files to email. Here's a couple of options:
  • Upload the files to an external site (like Dropbox) and email me a link to the images.
  • Send an email without the attachments, and I will reply. This will give you my email address and you can send me an email with attachments.
Let me know which works best for you. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wm Lyon MackenzieEdit

Hello:

I'll continue my c/e later but since you're on WP here are two other clarification "issues" I noticed:

’’Early years’’’: In 1822, his mother and son immigrated to Upper Canada with Isabel Baxter, whom his mother had chosen to marry Mackenzie. Mackenzie’s son James with Isabel Reid? Needs clarification.

‘’’Creation of the ‘’Colonial Advocate’’ ‘’’ ”He announced his retirement as editor on May 4, 1826.[12] Two weeks later the newspaper published a fictitious meeting where contributors selected Patrick Swift as the newspaper's new editor. Mackenzie continued to publish the Colonial Advocate under the Swift alias. Why??

I'm enjoying working on this.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Twofingered Typist I am glad you are enjoying this. Responses below:
"Early years: Yes, it was James, I added his name to the sentence.
Creation of the Colonial Advocate: I will read the sources again, but I think he did this because the paper was losing money and he wanted to garner interest for more subscriptions. I'll have to research this though.
I am planning on nominating this article for FAC in mid-April. Can I ping you in the nomination description as a user who helped improve the article? Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Z1720 By all means. I'll continue with my c/e. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

William Lyon MackenzieEdit

Hello:

I've finished the copy edit you requested on the article about William Lyon Mackenzie.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

There are a couple of other things I'll draw to your attention.

Imprisonment ”A bullet was fired through his prison window.” Do we know who/why? Tried to check source, but the page was unavailable to me for viewing.

Amnesty... …his public service in the 1830s and received $1200… A conversion for inflation in US dollars is used. You might want to add a footnote to explain the US dollars since most readers will assume he was paid in Canadian money or sterling. This from the Canadian Encylopedia - ”British money never became dominant, however, and a hodgepodge of money circulated in Canada in the first half of the 19th century, including Nova Scotia money, American dollars, Spanish dollars, American gold coins and "army bills" used by the British forces to buy supplies in the War of 1812. The use of the army bills accustomed Canadians to reliable paper money.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/money

I don't think it will be an issue during the GA review, however, the Political Philosophy, Historical Reputation and Legacy sections are a string of sentences with the structure "A said this" and "B said that". That will be a problem if the article is submitted as a FA candidate. These sections need to be rewritten more along the lines of the Religious Views or Economic Policies sections. Before you undertake this, it would probably be helpful to find a similar feature article on a politician and see how these topics were handled in it.

Best of luck with the article moving forward. Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Twofingered Typist: thanks for your feedback. Here are some responses:
Imprisonment: None of the sources specified why the bullet was fired. I don't think it was related to Mackenzie's imprisonment. I'll check the sources again, though.
Amnesty I'm going to look at the sources to see what currency the $1200 was paid in. Thanks for bringing this to my attention
For the Political, Historical and Legacy sections, I was also worried about the formatting of those sections. I like your suggestion of looking for another political FA and I'll fix them up.
Thanks for your comments. These have been really helpful. Let me know if you have other comments or questions. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Twofingered Typist, sorry for bothering you again, but I noticed you put & nbsp; next to various dates. What does that code do? Also, I revamped the Political and Historical sections of the article, mostly by moving sentences around. Can you do another pass and give an opinion on its FA suitability? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Z1720 Hello: The & nbsp; code (non-breaking space) ensures there is no break in the text as it appears on a screen that might cause confusion. This was not a big deal when everyone read WP on a computer screen, but it can be annoying and confusing on a smartphone or some other smaller sized screen. I use it in dates, car names like Porsche 911 RSR, monarchs Elizabeth II etc... anywhere (sparingly) where it makes it easier for the reader.
The edits you've made have greatly improved the text. Your first step is to submit for GA and see how that goes. How it'll be received when you nominate it for FA is so dependent on the reviewer, it seems. But they all have one aim—to get the article in the best possible shape. Be patient. I suspect you'll learn a lot and find it very rewarding. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you met my response to your edits of the Munchener Post entry?Edit

Hi Z1720

Did you get my response to your edits of the Munchener Post entry? I'm puzzled because I'm not seeing it on the talk page but I'm quite certain I sent it. Maybe it misfired?

Thanks!

SenseData (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)SenseData

@SenseData: I edited Talk:Münchener Post on Feb. 2. No one has edited since. I think your message misfired. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Resending my response to your Feb. 2 edits of new material for the Munchener Post entryEdit

  Moved to Talk:Münchener Post – Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi SenseData, I moved your response to the Munchener Post talk page, which you can locate above. This keeps the discussion in one place. I will respond to your questions there. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Re your suggestion on changing to "Munich Pestilence"Edit

  Moved to Talk:Münchener Post – Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

SenseData I have moved your response to Talk:Münchener Post. I am trying to keep the discussion on one page so editors can easily read our conversation. Please DO NOT respond here; respond on the Munchener Post talk page. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahmed Al Khateeb - additional change from COI requestEdit

Hi Z1720, thanks for making some of the changes requested on Talk:Ahmed_Al_Khateeb.

His name at the top of the infobox also needs to be changed from Ahmad bin Aqil Al Khatib to Ahmed Al Khateeb in line with the article move and sources cited in the move request e.g. Bloomberg, Arabian Business, Arab News, Oxford Business Group.

If you're okay to make that change as well it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Turaif10 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge fourth anniversaryEdit

  The Red Maple Leaf Award
This maple leaf is awarded to Z1720 for expanding or updating several Canada-related articles during the fourth year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In appreciationEdit

  The Reviewers Award
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Follow up on Digital Currency GroupEdit

Hi Z1720. Thank you for your careful review of the Request Edits for Digital Currency Group. There have been some new sources, and I think you unintentionally overlooked some language in the first group of sources I wrote up all the details at the very bottom of the Talk section, below the first group of sources, here: Talk:Digital Currency Group#Corrections and Updates for Review July 17. Thanks for your impartial review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CertifiedTurtle (talkcontribs) 00:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@CertifiedTurtle: I've seen this message, and I put it on my to-do list. I have a busy weekend so I will try to resolve this in a few days. If I have not responded on Talk:Digital Currency Group by next Friday, please write another message on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletterEdit

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
  •   Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  •   ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
  •   Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
  •   Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
  •   The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
  •   Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
  •   Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
  •   Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
  •   Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

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. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

GANEdit

Hi there, Just wanted to let you know I'll work on the GAN review for Mackenzie in the next couple days. Should be in plenty of time for the next WikiCup deadline! Go Phightins! 22:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, preliminary review complete! I'm on Wikipedia in off and on doses these days, so if you need to catch my attention, pinging me on my talk page might help. Nicely done on this article! Go Phightins! 00:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Lyon MackenzieEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Lyon Mackenzie 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 Go Phightins! -- Go Phightins! (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahmed Al Khateeb – tourism visa launch, minor updatesEdit

Hi Z1720 and thanks again for reviewing my edit request at Ahmed Al Khateeb. There is some further information which could be included, principally that he was responsible for the launch of Saudi Arabia’s tourism visa in 2019. I’ve posted on the article talk page linking to a userspace draft – see here (diff) for the difference between that draft and the current version.

My main suggestion is a new section on the tourism visa launch, but I’ve also proposed some other minor additions/updates/copyedits. If you have any time to take a look that would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Turaif10 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Turaif10: The proposal has a lot of text you want to add and change, and I am currently devoting less time to edit requests. I suggest opening a new edit request by using Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard. This will allow other editors to see your request and ensure it is fulfilled sooner. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Z1720, okay thanks I'll try the edit wizard. Turaif10 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Lyon MackenzieEdit

The article William Lyon Mackenzie you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Go Phightins! -- Go Phightins! (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with Digital Currency GroupEdit

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my suggested update for Digital Currency Group. There is just one issue left at Talk:Digital_Currency_Group#Corrections_and_Updates_for_Review_July_17 It is #3 at the very bottom -- I provided additional information relevant to your consideration of the original request. You left a note on March 5 that you would come back to this - I hope you don't mind my pinging you with a reminder.

I'd like to add an additional request - with all of these changes, including substantial new reliable sourcing, I no longer think the tag at the top of the article saying it is written like an advertisement is applicable. I believe everything is NPOV now and there's no advert content under WP: PROMO that would justify this box, which in this case is I think being used more to malign the company than improve Wikipedia by encouraging editors to fix an article.

Thanks for your help. CertifiedTurtle (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi CertifiedTurtle sorry for the delay with this. I finished your request on the talk page. As for the promo banner, I am devoting less time to completing edit requests and looking at promo material at this time, so I won't evaluate the banner right now. However, I suggest that you open a new request edit ticket, asking that the article be evaluated and the banner taken down. This will help you get a quicker response. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Allan J. McDonaldEdit

 On 26 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Allan J. McDonald, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the 1986 Rogers Commission investigation, Allan J. McDonald revealed a coverup by NASA engineers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Allan J. McDonald. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Allan J. McDonald), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

— Maile (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Golden State Foods COI edit requestsEdit

Hi! Reaching out because you previously helped review my edit requests for Golden State Foods. I've posted some new requests on the talk page there. If you have time, would really appreciate your feedback! Best, Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi MaryGaulke I am not reviewing requests at the moment, and I am sorry that a large backlog exists. In the interest of fairness, when I return I will start with reviewing the oldest request and work my way down the list. Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Totally understand! Thanks for your response. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for William Lyon MackenzieEdit

 On 29 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Lyon Mackenzie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Lyon Mackenzie was the first mayor of Toronto? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Lyon Mackenzie. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Lyon Mackenzie), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer reviewEdit

Hi Z1720, I read your review of Featured Article Candidate 2019 FA Cup Final and think it would be very helpful to my nomination of Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women if you could review it. It recently failed at FAC. There were 2 reviewers who gave support and one who opposed, RTM, who happens to be the nominator of the 2019 FA Cup Final article. It seems he is opposing because of this, quoting him from his FAC review of Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women: "You need to imagine you're explaining to a 7-year-old child and if they don't understand the entire article without having to click away, that's a fail. It's not what I consider an FA should be but sadly the FA co-ords and others have set their stall out that way (within the last two months) so we all should comply with that." I agree with him that setting that specific standard is wrong. And I see in your review of the 2019 FA Cup Final that you have already thought about this topic. I have invited contributor RTM to do the peer review, but so far he has not responded to my request. I would like to bring it back to FAC and believe your Peer Review of it will be important for a successful nomination. The Peer Review lives here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women/archive2. I hope you can find the time and would very much appreciate it. Thanks. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Edwininlondon I will add your PR to my to-do list. If I don't respond in a few days, please ping me as I have probably forgotten. FYI, I am more relaxed in my vocabulary requirements. I believe a high school reader should understand the prose and if a word is more complicated then sometimes the context around the word is sufficient without needing to change the word. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Z1720 Thanks very much for your Peer Review of the match article. I have now brought it back at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women/archive3. Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC).

Thomas David MorrisonEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Thomas David Morrison has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

For the Night peer reviewEdit

I want to sincerely thank you for your help on "For the Night". I'm going to close the peer review now and put it up for a copyedit. ShootForTheStars (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

War of the Fifth Coalition rescueEdit

  The Article Rescue Barnstar
Many thanks for your work to help rescue War of the Fifth Coalition at WP:FAR. What a great example of collaboration and Wikipedia at its best! - Dumelow (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 GAN Backlog driveEdit

  The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for completing 5 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

William Lyon MackenzieEdit

Dear Z1720. I think I have gone as far as I could. You can ping Hog Farm and tell him. Thanks for your patience with me. I hope I helped. Sometimes of cources I was off the mark. My English is 2nd language. I have learned a lot by reading books about English style like William Strunk's The Elements of Style, Fowlers's The King's English, Fenton's Improving Your Technical Writing Skills, which I all recommend. With thanks, and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Johannes Schade: Thanks for your amazing comments in WLM's FAC. I hope this was a positive experience for you. I just have two favours to ask: 1) Can we move your comments to the FAC's talk page? Large amounts of comments increase WP:FAC's load times and other editors struggle to load the page. 2) Can you post in the FAC that you will not be giving more comments, and specify if you will Support, Oppose, or not give an opinion on its promotion? This lets the FAC co-ordinators know that you have completed your comments and hopefully they will not ping you to ask if you are going to give more comments. Thanks again, and let me know if you have any questions! Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Dear Z1720. We had a long conversation about WLM. I think we both got a bit tired of it at the end. Has someone complained about its length? I do not think that ordinary text, even if it looks long, will increase the load time more than a few milliseconds. Graphics probably would. That is why they do not like them in FACs. I feel it is unusual to move parts of FA discussions to the talk page, but perhaps this is due to my lack of FA experience. Move the comments if you think that is the right thing to do, or even delete. I have stated that I will neither oppose not support at the beginning of my intervention and I have stated that "I think I have done my part" at the end. This should be clear enough.—I struggle with bthe interpretation of the FA criteria. Most of what we have done falls under 1a "Well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". That is quite open to subjective interpretation. Some goes under (2) "It follows the style guidelines"; that concerns the cases where we were able to cite the MOS, like in MOS:ITALICTITLE or MOS:WORKS. Call me again when you feel I would be useful. I am of course still on a learning curve and hopefully will improve. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi Johannes Schade, thank you for your amazing comments. I agree that I was getting tired at the end of the review, but these comments make the article better. In regards to moving the comments to the FAC's talk page, some editors have done this when the number of comments is numerous. We cannot delete the comments but moving them and leaving a note on the main page helps other readers load the FAC page. SandyGeorgia (a very experienced reviewer) suggested this move in this edit: [1].
As for the explicit response: I suggest posting your statement above at the end of your review. Although you stated at the beginning that you were not going to say "Support" or "Oppose", sometimes the FAC co-ords miss those statements or are unsure if more comments are going to be posted. A note at the end stating that you are finished with comments prevents the co-ords from pinging you in a few weeks asking your opinion and prevents delays in its closure. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Z1720. You told me I accidentally deleted content from WLM's FA review. It has happened again. I deleted SandyGeorgia's remark to which you linked, the one in which she says "I am in the same boat ...". I think I have now understood how this happens. I usually react to an email that alerts me about a change in the page and I open the diff to see the change and then and click on the version where the change was made. But if a newer entry has been written since that time that makes me work on a old version which overwrites when I save. In this case I must always click on the Read tab. That will bring me to the latest version. I wondered what is the easiest way to get WLM's FA review? How do you navigate? I hoped there would be a way to get there from the article's talk page, but that does not seem to be so. Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Johannes Schade: Here's the wikilink to the review: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive1 I go to this link when I see there are new comments on my watchlist. I try to avoid diffs because it's harder for me to read. (Hence why I sometimes miss comments, let me know if I did not reply to any of your responses). Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Johannes Schade: Thanks for moving the comments off the FAC page. Instead of posting the comments on William Lyon Mackenzie's talk page, I think SandyGeorgia wanted them on WLM's FAC talk page, located here: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive1. I am sorry if that was not clear. I have moved the comments there. Thanks again for doing this. Z1720 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Z1720. I found that moving comments to the talk page as SandyGeorgia demanded is part of normal procedures. It is mentioned on the WP:FAC page in the collapsed text under the heading "Commenting, Supporting and Opposing". This text states: "To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with ... ) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive." Makes me feel better.—Besides, the normal navigation to the review would be: WP:FACGO and then scroll down (quite far) to the review and click the "edit source" link to the right of the name; or type "WP:FACGO#William Lyon Mackenzie" into Wikipedia. I hope you will have smooth sailing with the rest of your FAC review. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you. 7&6=thirteen () 20:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletterEdit

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

  •   The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
  •   Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  •   Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  •   Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
  •   Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
  •   Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
  •   Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
  •   Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Extratropical cycloneEdit

Just wanted to inform you that we are proceeding to move Extratropical cyclone to FARC and delist it. NoahTalk 03:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

John Rolph (politician)Edit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article John Rolph (politician) has been completed.
In the Return to medicine section. In 1828, Judge John Walpole Willis ruled that the court of Upper Canada could not proceed unless all the judges were present. Rolph requested that Judge Levius Peters Sherwood issue written rulings, and when this was denied he protested in the courtroom by taking off his lawyer's gown. These read as two disconnected events, is that correct? Why did Willis want all judges present before the court could proceed? (Sounds like a supreme court set up.) What did Rolph have to do with that?

The second event is Rolph wanting written rulings. Do we know why? Obviously one can appeal a written ruling, an oral one not so easily.

  • The two events are connected: I rephrased the section to add more information. The source doesn't say why Willis made this ruling. The purpose of the paragraph is to explain why Rolph stopped practicing law and focused on practicing medicine. I removed the written ruling, the request was more of a request for Sherwood to give his opinion on the matter. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

In the Municipal Politics section. Rolph remarries. We next hear about his family 36 years later when he dies at his daughter’s residence. If that’s really all there is about his personal life it might be worth mentioning.

  • Sources don't give much information about his personal life, but they also don't really comment about the lack of information about his personal life. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Years in the US - Rensselaer Van Rensselaer? Incorrect first name? No sign of it in the WP article on the family.

  • The name is correct, an article just hasn't been made for him yet. His name has been wikified during William Lyon Mackenzie's FAC, so I think it should be red-linked here. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Hey Twofingered Typist, I responded above. Thanks again for your copyedit: your fixes and comments greatly improve the articles I submit. Let me know if you need anything. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: The Return to medicine section makes much more sense now. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

A thank youEdit

  The Good Heart Barnstar
Thank you for showing hospitality to me during the peer review of Parliament Hill. When I requested a peer review of Five Members, I was met with an aggressive tone, and I thank you for not showing that to me. Aknell4 (talkcontribs) 22:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Owens & Minor Logo Nov 2020.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Owens & Minor Logo Nov 2020.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Who Killed Canadian History?Edit

Hey there. Given your work on Canadian history, I thought you may be interested in a new page I've made for J. L. Granatstein's 1998 book, Who Killed Canadian History?. I'm going to try to get it to GA status eventually, but given its controversial status I wanted to have some that are more experienced in Canadian history than I to have a quick look at it first. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 19:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Tkbrett: While I won't work on the article full-time, I am happy to read and assess the article before its GAN and FAC. I also suggest reading articles on books that have recently passed FAC; A History of the Birds of Europe passed its FAC in December 2019, and it's a non-fiction book that might help. If you plan on taking the article to FAC, I suggest reviewing FACs; this will build goodwill among FAC reviewers (and they will be more likely to review your article when you nominate it.) Reviewing articles also builds your knowledge of the FA criteria and how it applies to articles. Let me know when you think the article's ready for a GAN or FAC and I will review it.
In taking a quick skim of the article, I think the Reception section is too large, the lede might need expansion and a Background section would help explain the context in which this book is written in. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. Yeah, no worries about not working on the article; I'm not looking for someone to collaborate on it, I just want to make sure I provide a relatively balanced take on what is such a divisive book among Canadian historians. I have some FAs under my belt but I haven't reviewed any as of yet. I guess it's probably time to give it a try though! Thanks for the criticisms regarding the page. I'll get back to you. Tkbrett (✉) 22:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tkbrett: I didn't notice that you had FAs; you don't need my advice! I am always happy to review articles, and I hope you'll jump in to review FACs, too. I look forward to your ping when its ready for review. Z1720 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I've poured over all the articles on JSTOR and all the books at my public library that I thought were relevant; with nothing much to add I went ahead and nominated it for GA. I'd love to hear your honest thoughts if it's still not too much to ask. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 00:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tkbrett: I won't do an in-depth review of the article until the GA is complete, as a neutral editor will give lots of great comments during the GAN. When the GAN is complete, leave me another message and I will do an in-depth review of the article (as if it was an FAC). Feel free to ignore my thoughts if they are not helpful. Here are some comments based on a skim of the article:
  • "disputes among Canadian historians characterized the 1980s and 1990s." I can think of lots of things that characterise the 80s and 90s (scrunchies, boy bands, the bad fashion choices...) but Canadians historians fighting with each other is not one of them. This should be more specific.
  • "touching off major debates" touching off is jargon and should be rephrased
  • The first paragraph of the "Context" section is very long. Can it be split?
  • The picture of the Netherlands librations celebration is weird: the article uses a picture from 1975, even though the event took place in 1995. I think a picture closer to 1995 would be more appropriate, or don't use a pic at all.
  • This: [2] is a better picture of the Canadian War Museum, as it doesn't have a giant tree blocking some of the building.
  • You have a thesis as a source, and I'm not sure if those are considered high-quality. They don't go through the same rigorous review that an academic journal article or a book from a reputable publisher would receive. I see that it is only cited once, so can it be replaced?
  • I am skeptical that the quotations throughout the article are necessary. Can someone's thoughts be summarised instead?
I hope this is helpful. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks much, I really appreciate it. This gives me plenty to go in and touch up. I believe theses are fair game; I've noticed them on an FA or two (though to be fair, all of the ones there are PhDs.) Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Types RiotEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Types Riot 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 Tkbrett -- Tkbrett (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Types RiotEdit

The article Types Riot you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Types Riot for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tkbrett -- Tkbrett (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

your request for full-text citationsEdit

Hi, Z1720. On the Foundation Capital page you asked that I email you the full-text of several citations that are not available online. I tried to do so following your instructions, but Wikipedia won't let me send you an email until I verify my own. I tried to verify my own, but after weeks of trying I have not received the verification link in my inbox. If you don't mind emailing me at sang@foundationcap.com I can just respond with PDFs of the full-text of the citations you're looking for. Sangatfoundationcap (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sangatfoundationcap: Unfortunately, I am not fulfilling edit requests at this time, so I won't be looking at the sources you have for the request. I suggest that you resubmit the edit request on Foundation Capital's talk page (taking into account my comments) and another editor will take a look at the suggestions. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Musée de l'Amérique francophoneEdit

 On 18 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Musée de l'Amérique francophone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Musée de l'Amérique francophone's collection contains first edition copies of The Birds of America and Encyclopédie? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Musée de l'Amérique francophone. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Musée de l'Amérique francophone), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested Liz Evans revisions completedEdit

Hello. I have completed the revisions you requested for the age Liz Evans (Canadian nurse). I added requested citations and removed an unrelated section about the Portland Hotel Society. I believe the page now fulfills criteria for approved publication. Thank you for your work. Tlupick (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Peer review requestEdit

@Z1720: Hi, just wanted to request you that if possible, kindly take a look at "George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign" created by me, and suggest some points helping me in improving the article in its peer review. I hope to nominate it for GA. Thank-you! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: There are lots of editors who have commented at the PR. I don't want to duplicate their work, so when their concerns are resolved please ping me and I will start my review. Also, I always suggest that editors submit their work to WP:GOCE as they will clean up the prose and sometimes give comments on how you can improve upon the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Z1720, I have resolved almost all the concerns raised by the three users. Have added {{done}} tags or {{partially done}} tags. The article was submitted to Guild of Copy Editors, and was copy-edited a few days ago. You may start peer review, if you feel that other issues are resolved. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Types RiotEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Types Riot has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Congratulations on attaining a GA designation. Best of luck with an FA nomination when you get to it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

FAREdit

Thanks for all your help there. It wearies me every time I look at the FAR page and see 30+ on there, with many stalled out. I'm half-afraid some of them will never end. The more help going on with that, the better, as I think FAR is really important. URFA/2020's kinda stalling out, which is sad, but it looks like Sandy will be away for awhile, and I'm running out of energy, so that may have to get put on pause until the FAR system gets processed through a bit. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Hog Farm, I'm happy to help out at FAR. Real life is more important than Wikipedia, so I'm happy to pick up some slack until people are more available. Let me know if there's more I can do to help, like update stats at the end of the month or draft a quarterly report at the end of June. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Drafting a quarterly report at June would be very helpful (I think Sandy's last quarterly report is a good starting point). I'll still be around, but won't be nominating anything at FAR for some time because somehow of my 6 noms, 4 are stalled out and a fifth is looking like it's starting to stall out. I'm also gonna have a 90 miles (140 km) one-way commute to work for the next week or two, so I'll be around less (although I'll still be around). If you're comfortable assessing any of the in-good-shape ones, that would be nice too, although don't feel like you have to if you don't want to. Once stuff settles down for me, I hope to try to go through the ones that have been marked by at least one person to try to get some off the list. Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: I've drafted a Q2 report and put it at User:Z1720/URFA. There's no rush to edit it, as we have three weeks until the end of the quarter. I don't think I will assess the "in good shape" ones because I am not experienced enough in FA (and I don't have a successful FAC yet) but I will continue to monitor URFA/2020 and try to get articles far from standard to FAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try to take a look this weekend; there shouldn't be much to do now, as we won't have the number for another couple weeks. And FWIW, I think the FAC reviews of your's I've seen are of pretty good quality. Hog Farm Talk 02:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Types RiotEdit

 On 8 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Types Riot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on June 8, 1826, rioters destroyed William Lyon Mackenzie's printing press in the Types Riot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Types Riot. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Types Riot), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)