This is an archive of past discussions about User:FormalDude. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey FD, I wanted to let you know I made some minor edits to slightly refactor and reword your TBAN proposal to use the Support/Oppose format more common to ANI sanction proposals, and to include the boilerplate language usually used for the wording of a TBAN itself: directly referencing the CTOP area and including the "broadly construed" language is highly useful in keeping the constraints of such a CBAN clear, thus being fairer to the person placed under the sanction while also reducing likelihood it will be violated at the edges. Still, I hope you don't mind the presumption! SnowRise let's rap00:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Don't really know what to say here after all this time, other than I feel like a lot of our alleged issues stem from a misunderstanding that I believe we could easily work out were we to actually talk to one another in a frank and open discussion. I'm happy to have it on either of our talk pages, but all things considered I think it would be better to have such a discussion either via email or Discord DM. Det finns så mycket man inte känner till. Will understand if you're not interested, but I think it would be better for the entire community at this point were we to sort this out one way or the other. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: To be honest I don't have any issues with you, I've just been trying to avoid interacting with you. You seem to be the one still holding on to issues with me, given you brought up our past dispute as leverage in an RfA, and then you became the sole opposer of an ANI sanction I proposed as your very first edit to ANI in the over eight months since our last dispute there.
Why don't we just agree to not interact with each other, not mention the other (directly or indirectly), and not participate in discussions that the other has already participated in? That's something I've been doing for a while now anyways, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could afford me the same. ––FormalDude(talk)03:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Please assume good faith, and practice it. Your revisions of edit I have made tend to show a lack of good faith and are highly judgmental. You undid grammatical corrections I made. That you undid grammatical corrections tends to be suggestive that you did not bother to read the edit - lack of good faith. As for your most recent undoing of edits I made; I linked to a video that is 1 of the 4 videos listed on the page. Also, rather than just undoing edits, how about using the talk page to discuss edits that reference materials that has been on the page for many days. Thank you AgntOtrth (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Reverting your edits doesn't mean I'm not assuming good faith, it's common WP:BRD. You added a reference to Facebook, that's not allowed per WP:SPS. External video links are not the same as references. You also added a sentence that was incoherent. Try to understand how you may be making the article worse, and familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. I'll use the talk page if there's a genuine dispute, but going to the talk page instead of just fixing your errors would be a waste of time. Of course you can feel free to start a talk page discussion if you think any of the corrections I've made were mistaken. ––FormalDude(talk)03:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
you removed grammatical edits, you made the article worse by removing the needed grammatical corrections. So please follow your own advice and Try to understand how you may be making the article worse. You made the article worse, you made the article grammatically incorrect. It was not a good faith edit on your part to remove edits that made the article grammatically correct. AgntOtrth (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the meaning of good faith. I have never once claimed that you are making errors deliberately. I see now that my first rollback incidentally restored a small typo that you fixed, my mistake. I didn't notice that as the majority of the rollback was restoring content you removed without explanation and removing a broken sentence you added. ––FormalDude(talk)06:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Disruptive conduct
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You reverted an edit claiming it was just a video; your claim is verifiably FALSE, There is an entire article.
Secondly, IN CONTEXT, ergo, not a talk show, not science, not politics, foxnews is not prohibited. Context matters, and in context the use is not prohibited. Please familiarize yourself with the use of the reliable source list. AgntOtrth (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi FormalDude. Regarding one of your most recent comments on the Adolf Rizzler RfD ([1]) — I’m just leaving you a message here to request that you strike the final sentence of that comment. I understand and respect that you disagree with me on whether or not the redirect should be kept, but—to be frank—I don’t appreciate the implication conveyed by your comment that my mind is one that doesn’t understand the definitions of novel and obscure. I’d therefore request that you strike that final sentence, as - although I appreciate that you may well have made the comment in good faith; and once again, being frank - it could be interpreted as being a thinly veiled personal attack. Thank you. A smart kitten (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Adding to this because it just occurred to me that my comment beforehand may have been seen as being condescending. I apologise if it was. It’s hard to convey tone on the internet sometimes. To be clear, I was stating in good faith that, reasonable minds may differ on the matter; rather than trying to hit a below-the-belt blow. A smart kitten (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Muhammad Asad Mumtaz: If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later, but creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, and if you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then propose one at Articles for Creation instead of creating one directly. ––FormalDude(talk)12:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Question from Lailahjinx (13:37, 8 September 2023)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see, for some reason that is not how the link you provided displays for me. Still though, Lord Nicholas James Hodgkinson does not appear to be notable themselves. Notability is not inherited simply by being related to a notable person. ––FormalDude(talk)03:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, FormalDude,
I deleted this article after you tagged it for speedy deletion. But, for the future, I want to recommend that in cases like this, you let the AFD run its course. Since it was deleted as a CSD G7, should the article want to restore this article, it would be restored upon request. If it was deleted through an AFD Delete decision, this would not happen. So, while CSD is quicker than AFD, an AFD deletion is longer lasting and might have been a better choice with this article. Just something to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs) 23:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but I think an author agreeing to deletion after the start of an AfD shows a consensus that the article should be deleted, making it a sort of WP:SNOW close to avoid unnecessary procedure. An undeletion request from them after agreeing to deletion in an AfD should be controversial enough to be denied. ––FormalDude(talk)23:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject on one of your recent edits
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your edit about PragerU’s topic on Robert E. Lee was removed, I started a talk page to try and add it back up, can you look into this if you get the chance as I don’t know much about the topic Bobisland (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, just getting started but not sure how to go about it. I;m in the food business and I'm 77 years old and would like to post my business accomplishments before it's too late to do so. I hope you're a patient person. --Kyfoodie (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 30 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Iron Man, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Stan Lee modeled Tony Stark after 20th-century business magnate Howard Hughes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Iron Man. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Iron Man), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
That was way too fast to call that a WP:SNOW. Four votes in four hours that took place while most of the rest of the world that doesn't reside in the US were asleep. TarnishedPathtalk23:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Consider the context: there was no prior discussion about the RM, and it was 5 weeks after the exact same question had been posed to the community in an RM. ––FormalDude(talk)07:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Your basis for closing was WP:SNOW. Admittedly as you point out, 6 1/2 weeks (17 August 2023 to 2 October 2023) is way too fast to be having pretty much the same RM discussion again. Part of my reason for withdrawing the RM I started, aside the amount of NOs, was that I'd realised I'd stuffed up in my choice of target. This RM is what I would have chosen as a choice of target after reading some of the NOs from the discussion I started, not that I would have chosen to put an RM so soon without some sort of appetite. However, given that it was started (presuming good faith on behalf of the IP), I think that you acted exceedingly premature calling this a WP:SNOW given that there are many time zones on this planet. Given the considerations you point out and the fact we don't all live in the US of A, I think it would have been appropriate to leave the RM open for 24 hours before calling WP:SNOW, if that's what the votes called for at that time. TarnishedPathtalk10:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@FormalDude, hello! I've continued to deal with some ongoing health challenges. I took your invitation to view the latest discussions about sources relating to the Church. I don't feel I have much to add to those discussions at this time, which is why I haven't weighed in on anything. But if something new comes up on those pages, I'll gladly join the discussion when I feel so inclined. I wanted to advise you that I have looked at 4 pending edits here and have found nothing wrong with them. I understand that Wikipedia requires special permissions to accept such edits and wondered if you are in a position to accept those changes. Also, I am wondering about whether you'd think I might qualify for additional user permissions myself, and if that's something you think I should pursue. I'd like to be able to be more helpful here if I can be. And I've had certain situations where I wish my opinion and perspective here carried more weight. Some have previously suggested I should pursue becoming an admin. I don't think that's the right route for me at this time, but if I can help with some of the same things you have helped with in the past, I'd be interested in doing so. Any thoughts? Thanks. Jgstokes (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey Jgstokes, nice to hear from you! I reviewed those pending edits and actually found a number of problems. Not all bad, I kept one of their additions, but the rest I reverted. I started a discussion on the talk page about it as well.
To be clear, userrights do not carry any additional authority with them. Wikipedia is built on the ideal that all editors are equal, even admins. That's not to say that people don't dismiss users on the basis that they're not as experienced, just that they are wrong to do so. I think you'd be well suited at being a pending changes reviewer. Take a look at WP:Reviewing pending changes#Becoming a reviewer and feel free to request it if you believe that you meet the criteria. You could also request rollback rights, which is a tool that allows you to undo a user's recent edits to a page in mass, it is particularly helpful for reverting vandalism. ––FormalDude(talk)05:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
FormalDude, thank you for looking that over so promptly. I saw the talk page discussion and agree with what you said. I am not necessarily looking for "authority", and I'm grateful for the reminder that all Wikipedians are (or should be) equal. I just feel like I could be doing more here. I have gone ahead and submitted a request to become a pending changes reviewer and have requested rollback rights as well. I think that's a reasonale place to start. Thanks for those suggestions. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Imani institute has carried out a benchmark on library operation from pendo Institute ,write a report to showcase what learnt on that visit (30 marks) --Chrispine Oduor (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This currently shows last updated today (26 Sep), but the page's history shows last updated 16 Sep. If it can't be made to show the true date of last update, it should be removed as pointless and possibly misleading. ―Mandruss☎11:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. You may have noticed a number of changes made to Wikipedia pages about the Church by User:Dmm1169, with whom I've developed a good working relationship. His contributions have been invaluable. It was recently determined to split off United States temples from the List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region page. A new page was created, but because the user in question failed to cite the relevant policy in creating the page, the new page has been flagged for a potential copyright violation. I've advised him why this issue occurred, but I am not sure if there's anything I know of that can help fix this situation. When I explained the situation to him, I promised to do what I could to help clear this up. Do you have any suggestions in this case? Also, I was able to be granted both of the permissions we discussed, so I'm looking forward to helping out more with those items as well. Thanks. Jgstokes (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
No worries, I'm not sure what it was because I don't see anything in the page history. Copying from within Wikipedia is usually never a copyright violation, though it can be done improperly if you don't mention the page you copied the text from. That is easily fixed though with a WP:DUMMY edit summary mentioning the article the text originated from, or by adding {{copied from}} to the talk page. ––FormalDude(talk)05:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. It's gone. I guess somehow between my message to the editor in question and my request for you to help, it was somehow resolved. The user in question told me about some policies that support the way he did it, and I was vaguely aware of the existence of those policies, so somehow or another, it was able to be resolved. No muss, no fuss. Thanks. Jgstokes (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jgstokes: I see now in the page logs that it was marked by a bot for page triage. I believe that just flags it in the New Pages Feed as a potentially copyright violation, which is meant to alert new page reviewers to look into it. Any reviewer who does will see that it does not constitute a copyright violation. Though someone still should probably add the proper attribution through a dummy edit or the copied from template. ––FormalDude(talk)05:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
You didn't add the parameters and you used bracket links when they weren't needed. It's also a banner so it just goes at the top of the page. I've taken care of it. ––FormalDude(talk)06:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Working Man's Barnstar
This award is given to FormalDude for collecting more than 10 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article Patricia Banks Edmiston you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Patricia Banks Edmiston for comments about the article, and Talk:Patricia Banks Edmiston/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 Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Deletionist's Barnstar
In recognition of your excellent work at AfD, but maybe in the future not be so diligent in nominating my articles there?😃
@BBQboffin: Lol thanks, though I don't consider myself a deletionist. On the bright side, one of your article's deletion discussion resulted in keep, so you've got an official stamp of approval on it from the community! ––FormalDude(talk)23:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Life
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 5 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Life, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that life exists in every part of the biosphere, from the deepest parts of the ocean (bacterium pictured) to altitudes of up to 40 miles (64 km) in the atmosphere? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Life. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Life), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Hi LorentBerbatovci, welcome to Wikipedia! To add an image to an infobox, set the image parameter to the name of the file you want to add to it. See Template:Infobox#Illustration images for more info. If the image is not yet uploaded to Commons, you can upload one yourself, but only if it is freely licensed. For a file to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must allow for both commercial reuse and derivative works. ––FormalDude(talk)04:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, FormalDude. After your recent success with Patricia Banks Edmiston, I was sorry to see you had deleted the Women in Red template from you user boxes. I hope this does not mean you are no longer interested in writing interesting articles about women. In any case, thanks for all your efforts and happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Ipigott, thanks for reaching out. No, it doesn't mean that at all; writing and improving articles about women is still one of my primary goals. I removed the ubx because I wasn't sure I'd contributed enough to the WikiProject lately–there's many editors who have done a lot more than me. I've gone ahead and added it back, at least just to encourage others to join the WP. ––FormalDude(talk)12:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Question from Paul A Tobin (14:54, 7 December 2023)
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi
I wrote five textbooks that were published in 2007 by Morgan Claypool publishing and are now published by Springerlink. The books are about simulating electronics using a software called PSpice. I know that Wiki is not about free publicity but can I write an article telling readers about my books? --Paul A Tobin (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@YeezusBark: It looks like it took me about 9 months, but I didn't edit much at all when I first created my account. If you edit frequently, as in everyday, it could be done in less than a month. ––FormalDude(talk)01:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Question from Crithikacella (11:33, 10 December 2023)
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's rhetoric 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.
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
❄️Happy holidays!❄️
Hi FormalDude! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. I like how the stream forks in this one. Looking forward more good discussions on Discord in the coming year! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk
Solstice Celebration for FormalDude, 2023, DALL·E 3.
Question from Crithikacella (07:24, 24 December 2023)
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I posted an article yesterday
But when i searched it in Wikipedia after writing that ,it didn't came in the website
But it's there in my contributions --Crithikacella (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
User:Crithikacella, you have not "posted an article": you created a User page, which is supposed to be about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. Instead, the contents of the page are an unsourced few paragraphs about the evolution of life on Earth. Wikipedia already has an article History of life about this topic, which you should be able to contribute to once you familiarise yourself with referencing. For creating an article on a topic not already present on Wikipedia, see H:YFA; for your contributions, see Special:Contributions/Crithikacella. Folly Mox (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2024
Women in Red| January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296
Latest comment: 9 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Just out of curiosity how was the image in violation of copyright? And if it was how do upload it because it's very important Salfanto (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Social media profiles are non-free media, and Commons (the place you uploaded it to) only allows freely licensed media. To upload it to Wikipedia instead of Commons would require it to meet all ten criteria at WP:NFCCP, which it does not. ––FormalDude(talk)00:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
No. Copyright protection generally lasts for the length of the author's life plus another 70 years. Also, as I said, the image does not meet all of the criteria at WP:NFCCP, and as such cannot be uploaded under non-free content. ––FormalDude(talk)06:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search.
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Reviewer Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to FormalDude for collecting more than 50 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
March 2024 GAN backlog drive
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.17:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello.
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@FormalDude: Hello again. I don't want to bother you, but I never did give up on that adoption program thing. I thought that I had already replied to one of your messages, but I hadn't, and so I kept on waiting for the notification of you responding. I did eventually check and see I never responded on July 31, 2023, but you never saw it. I'm sorry if it looked like I just disappeared, but I really just screwed up. I didn't really want to edit any pages without know what I'm doing either, so I just chose to wait. Checking the page again, I see you've archived it, understandably so. If that's reversable, I do still wish to continue the adoption process. If not, I just wanna let you know what happened with me. Random Editor135 (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@Random Editor135: No bother at all, you can always message me here. I unfortunately am not able to continue your adoption because I have gotten quite busy recently. You may wish to find a new adopter at WP:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters.
I will keep your adoption page archived so you can refer back to it. Although I can't continue your adoption, do please feel free to reach out to me anytime if you have Wikipedia-related questions. ––FormalDude(talk)23:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, FormalDude. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cyril deGrasse Tyson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.
Latest comment: 5 months ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I absolutely do not expect you to feel obligated in any way to review this page, as I understand the logs are heavily backed up and you are likely very busy. But on the off chance you have a moment to spare, the page Brad Heckman has been ready for reviewing for a bit. I will typically wait about 4 months for a page review before wondering if there’s anything I could do to bring it to someone’s attention — however another article that I authored and moved to the mainspace about 3 days ago got reviewed within 4 hours of being published haha. I am admittedly a bit confused about the process and just don’t want this article to get lost in the mix. If you could even give some feedback on how exactly to request a review, it would be much appreciated! :) thank you for all you do. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @4theloveofallthings. I looked over the article and it does appear to be one of the more difficult kind of articles to review, so you may be waiting a while (current backlog is at five months). Unfortunately there's nowhere really to request a review... a review is requested simply by the fact that it is currently unreviewed, so it just has to wait out the queue. Nothing much else you can do besides asking someone like me (curious how you found me BTW). I haven't had a ton of time to edit recently, but I can try to review this for you. One problem I'm having is I cannot access this WSJ article. Would you be able to email me a copy or something? ––FormalDude(talk)06:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@9t5: After a review of the article's references, I unfortunately do not see any sources that meet the notability criteria. The majority of sources are not independent of the subject, and some do not contain significant coverage. Several parts of the article read in a promotional tone.
I am inclined to nominate the article for deletion, but I'd like to give you a chance to respond first. From what I'm seeing, I don't think this issue can be remedied without the addition of new sources that meet notability criteria. I couldn't find any in a cursory search, but maybe you will have better luck. ––FormalDude(talk)06:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@FormalDude Hmm okay, and I absolutely respect your opinion. Would it be possible to give me a little bit of time to try and gather some more sources and see what I can do to strengthen it before nominating it? 9t5 (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@FormalDude And sorry about the username switch so suddenly haha. My original one was terrible I finally couldn’t stand to look at it any longer. 9t5 (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
As I research the subject and try to find some new sources, I have initiated an RfC discussion on the talk page of the article, asking other editors for their opinions on the notability of the subject. I just wanted to inform you of this in case you saw it and thought it was in some way undermining your review of the article. I am just trying to be as productive with my time as possible and allow others to give their feedback in the meantime, hopefully without the immediate need for a nomination. Thank you! 9t5 (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@9t5: Yes, take your time, and no worries about the username. I see Aoidh explained the issue with that RfC and gave you some good advice. (Also, it's not really possible for you to "undermine" my review, I don't have any extra authority as a reviewer, and my review is just my own. There's absolutely nothing wrong with seeking feedback from other editors. That said, I appreciate you telling me anyways.)
I did reply to you at the talk page, but I want to expand a little more about my review. I realize it may seem like I haven't given you much constructive advice on how to improve the article, but that is because if the topic of the article doesn't first meet notability guidelines, nothing else matters. So the only advice I can give is to find sources that pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC or WP:PROF. If you need any help understanding what that means exactly, or how to evaluate sources, let me know – I am happy to clarify.
I know how disappointing it can be to have an article you worked hard on deleted (not that AfD means it will be), but in the long run, it's a learning experience that you grow from. I used to dread an AfD on one of my articles, but now I love them, because usually it results in one of two things: it's kept, which is like a stamp of approval from the community, or, it's deleted, in which case it probably actually deserved to be deleted, and I learn from it and become better at article creation. ––FormalDude(talk)06:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
A New Category:
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I see that you have created a new category:Wikipedians who have been selected as Editor of the Week. A great idea but I noticed that many recipients (over half) are not listed. Over the years, there have been about 530 editors that have received the Award. What I noticed was that some editors, like DanCherek (for instance) have 2 or 3 pages listed. Same with Luk3 and many others. There should be only one for each recipient. So the 257 editors listed is way under the actual number of editors that should be included in the category. I'm not sure how you load the category. I love the idea but we need to fix it. Let's chat! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Buster7, thanks for reaching out. If I remember correctly, the category is loaded with pages that contain this userbox. I see the issue, but I'm no expert in categories and I'd appreciate any help fixing it! Also, I apologize for my delayed responses, I haven't had a lot of time to edit lately. If I don't get back to you in a timely manner, you are more than welcome to take action into your own hands. ––FormalDude(talk)05:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 16 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pharos (crater), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pharos, the largest impact crater on Neptune's moon Proteus, is more than half the diameter of Proteus itself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pharos (crater). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pharos (crater)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, your gallery looks great! can you make me a userbox with a picture of Bob Dylan and the quote "Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky
With one hand waving free"
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, FormalDude,
Just thought I'd let you know that this draft was deleted as a stale draft, CSD G13. If you would like to work on it, you can ask for its restoration at WP:REFUND. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!00:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Moved to User talk:KingTheD
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
––FormalDude (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
. 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:Patricia Banks Edmiston and Talk:Patricia Banks Edmiston/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
; see Talk:Patricia Banks Edmiston for comments about the article, and Talk:Patricia Banks Edmiston/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 Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Hello, FormalDude. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cyril deGrasse Tyson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
