Draft 1 Draft 2 Draft 3 Draft 4 Draft 5 Draft 6 Draft 7 Draft 8 Draft 9 Draft 10

Notice:

If I left a message on your 'Talk Page', then please reply there. I am temporarly watching it. I will get back to you there.

If you asked me a question here, I will answer here. This way then both parts of the conversation are in the same place.

Archives

1. Archive 1 (Apr 1, 2007 - Jun 17, 2007) 2. Archive 2 (Jun 18, 2007-Jul 17, 2007) 3. Archive 3 (Jul 18, 2007-Dec 28, 2008) 4. Archive 4 (Dec 29, 2007-Aug 2, 2008) 5. Archive 5 (Aug 3, 2008-Dec 23, 2008) 6. Archive 6 (Dec 24,2008-Mar 30, 2009) 7. Archive 7 (Apr 1, 2009-Aug 23, 2010) 8. Archive 8 (Aug 24, 2010-May 25, 2011) 9. Archive 9 (May 26, 2011-Nov 2, 2012) 10 Archive 10 (Nov 3, 2012 - Jan 1, 2013 ) 11 Archive 11 (Jan 2, 2013 - June 30, 2013) 12 Archive 12 (June 31, 2013 - June 7, 2014) 13 Archive 13 (June 8, 2014 - Oct 8, 2014) 14 Archive 14 (Oct 9, 2014 - Oct 28, 2014) 15 Archive 15 (Oct 29, 2014 - Oct 29, 2015) 16 Archive 16 (Nov 1, 2015 - July 30, 2016) 17 Archive 17 (July 31, 2016 - Jan 12, 2017) 18 Archive 18 (Jan 13, 2017 - June 17, 2017) 19 Archive 19 (June 18, 2017 - Aug 23, 2019) 20 Archive 20 (Aug 24, 2019 - Mar 14, 2020) 21 Archive 21 (March 15, 2020 - May 9, 2020) 22 Archive 22 (May 10, 2020 - June 11, 2020) 23 Archive 23 (June 12, 2020 - Aug 24, 2020) 24 Archive 24 (Aug 25, 2020 - Oct 24, 2020) 25 Archive 25 (Oct 25, 2020 - Jan 10, 2021) 26 Archive 26 (Jan 11, 2021 - Mar 31, 2021) 27 Archive 27 (Mar 31, 2021 - July 19, 2021) 28 Archive 28 (July 19, 2021 - Jan 2, 2022) 29 Archive 29 (Jan 3, 2022 - Jan 28, 2022) 30 Archive 30 (Jan 29, 2022 - Nov 8, 2022)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

<-------------- Page views -------------------->

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lambert (automobile) 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 Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Caroline Reboux you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Caroline Reboux for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alanna the Brave -- Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Manistee Watch Company you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Manistee Watch Company for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vice regent -- Vice regent (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While searching for material for the James Davis (printer) article I came across a couple of images of Davis' tombstone and historical plaque at Find a Grave, which can be found here. At the bottom of the page, however, there is a copyright notice, but I was wondering if it was appropriate, and if there was a way to use these photos. I checked Flickr, but no luck there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gwillhickers: Nope. This is a case where one can NOT use those pictures because of the copyright. No way around that. I have come across the same thing several times in the past and have not figured out a way past that.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I was sort of assuming that one couldn't simply take a picture of such an old public item and have it copyrighted, but apparently any photo that ends up at Find a Grave becomes their property automatically. There is another example of Davis' tombstone and historical plaque here that apparently are not copyrighted, but they're partial shots, of lesser quality. Will keep on searching. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those pictures do belong to somebody and ARE copyrighted. The ones marked Photos courtesy of Gray Whitley, New Bern Sun Journal are copyrighted photos and we can NOT use on Wikipedia. Best thing is the hope someone has uploaded asuch a picture at Flickr and then ask them to lower their copyright. No other way around it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking about going the 'Fair use' route, but there are size and resolution limits involved with Fair Use criteria. One of the photos at find a Grave has a 'request photo' option so I signed up and got an account there, and submitted a request to use the photo on Wikipedia, making it clear it was for educational use only. If that doesn't pan out I could always try to contact Gray Whitley, at the New Bern Sun Journal and request usage. Seems like a lot of trouble for just a photo of a plaque, but why not? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gwillhickers: I see it is Jim Dugan of Find-A-Grave that apparently took those pictures. I see there is a Send A Message option at Find-A-Grave, but apparently you have to be a member to do that, as it says - You need a Find a Grave account to continue. If you signed up and contacted him directly you may have good luck in getting him to lower his copyright of "All Rights Reserved" (default) to Public Domain. If he is willing to do that then there is an option at Commons Help Desk where they will accept that copyright with a copy of the email that Jim Dugan sends you saying this. It has to be 'Public Domain because it is Commercial needed and Modifications needed for Wikipedia. Educational purposes ONLY will not do it for Wikipedia. They won't accept a copyright license this way. Contact Commons Help Desk for further on this. It is a good thing to learn, as you may have to go this route sometimes. I have got pictures this way and was able to use them THEN in Wikipedia articles = several times! You should contact Commons Help Desk to learn about this. A good way to get pictures of things. ALL PICTURES are "All Rights Reserved" by default, unless the picture taker himself is willing to lower his copyright to Public Domain. That is the license needed to use on a Wikipedia article. So, bottom line is -

Contact Commons Help Desk Desk concerning this. They will fill you in. It's a good thing to learn!!!!! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it was Jim Dugan who took, or contributed, the photo of the plaque, and someone called Bronxbrat who contributed the photo of Davis' tombstone. There are emails for each member. Yes, I have an account at Find a Grave, but will be emailing them directly, requesting the photos and informing them of my intentions.  ( Done)  If things work out then I'll get a hold of the Commons help desk and take it from there. This is indeed a valuable education, as my uploads to Commons have most always been public domain images, which are of course of great educational and historic value. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gwillhickers: Keep this in mind -> I don't see why you can't turn James Davis into a Good Article, especially if you do as I suggest above and then add an InfoBox. I have submitted two more GANs lately = Lambert Gas and Gasoline Engine Company and Buckeye Manufacturing Company. I worked them up for improvements off-line THEN just dropped in the improvements with the edit summary improvements and more references. Check out previous version before my improvements of Lambert Gas and Gasoline Engine Company Old Version. This is Buckeye Manufacturing Company old version. This is before my 21:34, 11 February 2022 (major improvements). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article still has some work needed, and I'm trying to determine whether James Davis as the Justice of the Peace is the one who presided over the Spencer Dew trial, the man facing execution for counterfeiting and thievery, and who accused Davis of receiving counterfeit notes from, in an apparent attempt to discredit Davis. Also, from my understanding, info-boxes are not required for an article to become GA, but if you would like to add one I've no objections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gwillhickers: You are right, that an infobox is NOT required for GA. Since you have 99% authorship into the article, I'll let you decide what to do. Besides it will probably be you that nominates the article for GAN anyway. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Gwillhickers: I still would suggest an infobox, even though not required for GA. Generally speaking it looks better -and- would encourage the GA reviewer to approve and promote your article to Good Article status. Maybe have as a picture (for now anyway) his Twenty Shilling currency note. If later you can get a plaque picture, THEN drop that in. Test it out to see how that looks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Gwillhickers: I still would suggest an infobox (experience from my 200 GAs). Test it out to see how that looks. You can always change pictures in the infobox if you get a better one later.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Gwillhickers: What you think of the idea if I nominated Davis for Good Article? If I did then probably a good portion of the issues you would have to solve as you are most familiar with the history. I can probably do grammar, copy editing, and things like that. We both would get credit for doing the Good Article. Or maybe you just want to nominate the article yourself for Good Article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Gwillhickers: I have got two more of my nominations promoted to Good Article today = Lambert (automobile) and Caroline Reboux Found 207 successful nominations (GA promotion dates are given in brackets) (talk) -- Doug Coldwell 17:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gwillhickers: Now here is an interesting one. Did you happen to notice that Buckeye Manufacturing Company and Lambert Gas and Gasoline Engine Company BOTH got their improvements and and more references at 10:57, 15 February 2022‎. I was able to do that since I had each upgraded article in a text file off-line. I have 2 Toshiba laptops and on each I just dropped in my new text to replace the existing article and clicked Publish changes on each one at the same time. That then gives a time stamp of BOTH being edited at the same time with these major improvements. It drives the Administrators at the GA arena crazy on how that happens, since I do not show any draft edits. There is no rule against making improvements to an article in draft off-line. I just drop the finished product in at the end as a completed upgraded article ready for GAN in just one edit. Then I immediately submit GAN on each completed article -> so, bottom line is that I have FOUR time stamps at 10:57, 15 February 2022‎. Check it out.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Gwillhickers: This is a technique I learned way back in my DYK days. I made many multiple article DYKs this way. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gwillhickers: Now here is another interesting one. Did you happen to notice that Union (automobile) and Union Automobile Company BOTH got their major improvements at 16:16, 23 February 2022‎. I was able to do that since I had each upgraded article in a text file off-line. I have 2 Toshiba laptops and on each I just dropped in my new text to replace the existing article and clicked Publish changes on each one at the same time. That then gives a time stamp of BOTH being edited at the same time with these major improvements. It drives the Administrators at the GA arena crazy on how that happens, since I do not show any draft edits. There is no rule against making improvements to an article in draft off-line. I just drop the finished product in at the end as a completed upgraded article ready for GAN in just one edit. The administrators THEN check the Earwig reading on each of these articles to make sure I did just did not copy someone's website. I hope the numbers it gives is acceptable to them. The tools I use for this technique of off-line draft articles in a text file are in Drawer 10. They are in this last Drawer because they are big heavy tools and lay then on ground level. The tools are big and heavy for major construction. I used these same tools for the last 14 years to make hundreds of DYKs, especially multiple article DYKs. These heavy tools are specially designed to construct a lot of DYKs and GAs quickly. In the long run the articles I create (or make major improvements to) are easier then the normal way to edit to create or improve articles that most other editors use. These tools have special electronics and software to them and are basically semi-automatic.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Gwillhickers: I now have 13 GANs in the queue.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Gwillhickers: I assumed that you checked out Earwig on Union (automobile) and Union Automobile Company. Keep in mind that these are articles I dropped in from off-line text files on the upgraded articles ready go GAN. I believe with few issues that these articles will be promoted to Good Article. What do you think?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am a little wrapped up in a couple of articles I just created at present, but will give your articles a look first chance I get -- soon. No doubt they're your usual good work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After inquiring to James Dugan about whether he would give me permission to use his photo of the Davis historical plaque he promptly replied back informing me he would be more than happy to do so. He even attached his original his-res photo, i.e. 2238 x 2252. The one at Find a Grave is only 590 x 545. He only asked that he be given credit for the photo. While it is standard to list the artist or photographer name in the file summary, I believe we are not allowed to mention any such names of living persons in the caption. In any case, I'm going to inquire at the commons help desk and ask them about that and how I verify receiving permission from Dugan to use his photo, but I figured I'd check with you first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gwillhickers: Yes! You are correct we are not allowed to mention any such names of living persons in the caption of the picture. Only at the Commons upload as the picture taker. Good Luck in your pursuit. Fill me in of what happens bottom line.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I made the inquiry here. Commons no longer allows files with permission to upload from a second party and would require Dugan and myself to jump through several hoops and fill out the appropriate forms/templates where he would relinquish all rights under a free license and have him send it to commons here: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I emailed Dugan and advised him that the easiest way to have the image available at Wikipedia is to upload it himself, but he would have to create an account first, and it would seem that all this would be asking for a lot of time and effort on his part, no doubt. If Dugan gets an account and uploads the image then I can use the file once uploaded. Meanwhile I included a link to the photo under External links on the Davis article. Waiting for Dugan's reply. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gwillhickers: Yup. I've had the same problem with the Commons paperwork. Option B = Have Dugan get a free Flickr account and upload it to Flickr. After he uploads it to Flickr, THEN you can teach him how to place the correct license on it. This I've learned is the easiest path to get a copyright acceptable picture for Wikipedia. Have done it this way many times over the years.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

I've already suggested Dugan establish his own account here at WP, and that if his photo was in subject specific articles they would be viewed by people interested in that particular subject. Flickr is another option, yes, but if Dugan isn't going to bother with Wikipedia it would seem he would feel the same way about opening an account at Flickr. We'll see. Lotta work for a picture of a plaque, aye? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, he may be hesitant about getting a Flickr account now. Next time this event comes up again JUST suggest the Flickr idea. It is simpler and an easier account to get. Then all they have to do us upload their picture to Flicrr. AFTER they do that (which is All Rights Reserved by default) THEN have them lower the license to Attribution license. This license identifies who the picture taker is. Wikipedia will NOT accept the condiion that a picture is for educational purposes only. They reason here is that others use Wikipedia pictures on their websites on the idea they are public domain pictures. That means others have a websites that are for commercial purposes (to make money). So Wikipedia then needs in the first place a license that allows that = Attribution. Also others are likely to modify the Wikipedia picture (colorize it, move items around, eliminate parts) on the idea that is alright since it is a public domain picture. There they need a license that allows that = Attribution. So bottom line is to get them to upload to Flickr -and- in the future just give that ONE option. Keep it simple = better chance it works out. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gwillhickers: Here is a potential picture you could use for your infobox Just get them to lower their copyright license to Attribution -> per my technique suggested. THEN just crop it out and rotate 1 degree to the right and it would make an excellent image representation of Davis. Good luck.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, James Dugan came through, got himself a WP (commons) account and uploaded the file under a Creative Commons license. The image is now in the Davis article under Final days and legacy section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gwillhickers: Perfect place for it. It so happens that I lived in Ashville, North Carolina for many years and traveled all over the state.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I unearthed some interesting background info about the historical plaque, in the North Carolina Historical Review, and added it as the last paragraph in the Legacy section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Lambert (automobile) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lambert (automobile) 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 Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Caroline Reboux you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Caroline Reboux 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 Alanna the Brave -- Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for adding the new image and the info box. Just curious, how is this image your own work? In any case, I modified the info box a bit.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I lived in Ashville, North Carolina for several years and traveled all over the state and Tennessee. Photography is one of my hobbies, as you can see by these 60,000 pictures I have uploaded to Flickr. I happen to have had that picture in my collection of North Carolina pictures.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice! Any chance you have a photo of Davis' tombstone tucked away and perhaps forgotten about? I meant to ask earlier, can you do a search on Flickr by user name only? I tried adding James Dugan to the Flickr search window, but only got the usual flood of meaningless hits, not even one by Dugan. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I found something. Staring me right in the face: search by 'people', but for some reason I'm not getting any photo results when I click on 'Follow' for James Dugan. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'll look some more for a tombstone picture on Davis. I'm not sure on the "Follow" thing, but I think what it means is that you are notified when he adds pictures to his photostream. No, I don't think you can search by Flickr User Name. It would seem that you should be able to = but don't know how. Might be a good question for Wikipedia Reference Desk, under subtopic "Computers".--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I believe the James Davis (printer) article is ready for a GA nomination. I'll give it one more going over, and welcome you to do so, before I nominate it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did a little image management in the Davis article. Yes, the infobox with an image of the Gazette was perhaps a little inappropriate for a biography. So! You had an image of Davis' tombstone after all. I suppose with many thousands of images in your photo library it was collecting dust in one of your folders, aye? Now that we have an image of the actual tombstone I removed the spelled out version of the inscription. Great addition. Many thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gwillhickers: Article is looking real good. Looks like a Good Article to me. Now all you have to do is make your other articles look as pretty as this one and you will have a handful of Good Articles. You are not that far from that. I think I have a competitor on my heals! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mary F. Hoyt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Mary F. Hoyt you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mary F. Hoyt for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Doug,

I am a new Wikipedia editor and I am learning about the sections of a user page. I noticed that you have the following figures in your "Find Information:" "($28,804 in 2020) = automatically adjusts to current year output, just need amount and start year; another example ($62,216 in 2020)" that I don't understand. Can you please explain the purpose of these figures on your User page?

Thanks for supporting my learning! Robinedits (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robinedits: It's a note to myself that shows the template ((USDCY|1000|1906}. That template I use often on many of the articles I am editing when I open that section by clicking on "edit". An example is at the bottom of Lambert (automobile) is a large table and in that table is "Cost" where I used that template a lot for the cost of each car model.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Mary F. Hoyt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mary F. Hoyt for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Doug Coldwell,

Information contained in the [diagram] about Richard^1 Burt, and his son, Richard^2 Burt is not accurate. The diagram cites an unsourced, error prone 1913 sketch by William Richard Cutter. As below, that author either didn't make the reported claims, or his report was in error,

(1) The birth, parentage and origins of the immigrating ancestor, Richard^1 Burt, are unknown. Cutter (1913) did not report when or where Richard^1 Burt was born, nor did the author associate Richard with the place "Dorchester, England." Cutter wrote "Some of [the early Taunton] settlers were from Dorchester, Massachusetts."

(2) The Wikipedia article reports "Jane Adams" was the wife of Richard^1 Burt and mother of Richard^2 Burt. Cutter makes no such claim. Despite that family files and internet user contributed sites name such a wife, no known New England record concerns or mentions Richard's wife. Her identify is unknown or unproven.

(3) While Cutter (1913) reported Richard^2 Burt was born in 1629, he does not say where. (So, Cutter does not claim Richard^2 Burt was born at Caundle Marsh, England.)

(4) Richard^1 Burt isn't known to have died in 1641. Cutter errored when he reported the death "before October 26, 1641, on which date his son Richard chose a guardian." The referenced date should have been 26 October 1647. See Nathaniel B. Shurtleff and David Pulsifer, eds., Records of the colony of New Plymouth, in New England 12 vols. in 10 (Boston : Press of W. White, 1855-61), 2:119; digital images, Hathi Trust. The court record refers to Richard^1 Burt as "deceased, late of Taunton."

(5) The chart claims Richard Burt, Jr. (Richard^2 Burt) was "American Family Founder, immigrated abt 1639." There are no known records that concern the immigration of Richard^2 Burt. His father's name appears on list of the "ancient purchasers" of Taunton. The deed has long been lost but is thought to have been made about then. GeneJWiki (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneJWiki (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SS Chief Wawatam 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 GreatLakesShips -- GreatLakesShips (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some Fishkill history you'll find interesting: 1 2 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article SS Chief Wawatam you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SS Chief Wawatam 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 GreatLakesShips -- GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your hard work onthis!! Bigturtle (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lambert friction gearing disk drive transmission 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Lambert friction gearing disk drive transmission you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lambert friction gearing disk drive transmission for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Wawatam Lighthouse you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wawatam Lighthouse 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 16 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Loudon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the British Army captured New York City in 1776, Samuel Loudon fled to the village of Fishkill, where he founded the state's first post office? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Loudon (printer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Samuel Loudon), 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) 12:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walter Hunt (inventor) 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 An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Walter Hunt (inventor) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Walter Hunt (inventor) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Daniel Davis Jr. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Michigan Limestone and Chemical Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Michigan Limestone and Chemical Company for comments about the article. (Some matters merit your attention) 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 Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joseph Nathan Kane 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 27 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Davis Jr., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Daniel Davis was the first person in the United States to work with gold and silver electroplating (illustrated) as a business? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Davis Jr.. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Daniel Davis Jr.), 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) 00:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Thomas Seavey Hall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bruxton (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Ratcliff (bookbinder) 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 Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hello,

During the June Backlog drive, BlueMoonset marked this reviewer as inactive and set the review for second opinion.

I'll be taking this over and getting to it in the near future. Go well! --Whiteguru (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Joseph Nathan Kane you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Joseph Nathan Kane for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Joseph Nathan Kane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph Nathan Kane 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 22 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Hall (inventor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Hall made an electric train (pictured) that received power from the rails on which it travelled instead of onboard batteries, a new technology at the time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Hall (inventor). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Hall (inventor)), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 6,161 views (513.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 27 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Phillips Hall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that railroad transportation executive William Phillips Hall was known as the "business millionaire evangelist"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Phillips Hall. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Phillips Hall), 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) 00:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 28 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Seavey Hall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Seavey Hall's banjo signals caused a judge to declare him the father of American automatic electric railroad signaling? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Seavey Hall. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Seavey Hall), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Star Watch Case Company 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Union (automobile) 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 AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Union (automobile) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Union (automobile) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cone Mills Corporation 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 Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Cone Mills Corporation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cone Mills Corporation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Union (automobile) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Union (automobile) 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 AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Buckeye Manufacturing Company 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 Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Buckeye Manufacturing Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Buckeye Manufacturing Company 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 Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lambert Gas and Gasoline Engine Company 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 Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Lambert Gas and Gasoline Engine Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lambert Gas and Gasoline Engine Company 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 Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Hall (mechanic) 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 Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Goddard (publisher) 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 Kaleeb18 -- Kaleeb18 (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article William Goddard (publisher) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Goddard (publisher) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaleeb18 -- Kaleeb18 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Doug. I found an instruction booklet for the Hall Typewriter on the Internet. It has a salesman's talk text, a drawing, and directions for use. The directions refer to marked places on the drawing. Some of the terminology becomes clearer: the Carriage, Index plate, Racquet lever, Handle, Space key, etc. The Hall Typewriter does not have a ink ribbon but an ink pad. Please see:

https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/Hall.pdf

Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johannes Schade: Thanks. I did get the PDF and yes it has a lot of technical information that's looks useful. I'm working on improvements as you had suggested and doing it off-line in a draft. It may take me a few days to put it altogether, so I appreciate your patience. I am interested in improving the article and believe your suggestions are good. In the draft I am working on I am following your guidelines. When I have the draft all done THEN I will drop it in as one edit of the improved article all updated and all done. Just know I am working on the article and you will see the results in a few days as a completed improved article with your suggestions.Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alexander S. Wolcott 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 SirGallantThe4th -- SirGallantThe4th (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article William Goddard (publisher) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Goddard (publisher) 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 Kaleeb18 -- Kaleeb18 (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Union Automobile Company 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 Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Alexander S. Wolcott you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alexander S. Wolcott for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SirGallantThe4th -- SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Johnson (inventor) 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 Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article John Johnson (inventor) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John Johnson (inventor) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Union Automobile Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Union Automobile Company 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 Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 12 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Four-Track News, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Four-Track News is not news about the car music cassettes of the 1950s, but an illustrated magazine of the early 1900s on travel and education put out by the New York Central Railroad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Four-Track News. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Four-Track News), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Thomas Hall (mechanic) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Thomas Hall (mechanic) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 13 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Buchanan (locomotive designer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Buchanan designed the first vehicle to exceed 100 miles per hour (160 km/h)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Buchanan (locomotive designer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Buchanan (locomotive designer)), 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, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,604 views (633.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Alexander S. Wolcott you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Alexander S. Wolcott for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SirGallantThe4th -- SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lambert Automobile Company 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 Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article John Johnson (inventor) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:John Johnson (inventor) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 19 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George Henry Daniels, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Henry Daniels has been called the "Father of the Century"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Henry Daniels. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, George Henry Daniels), 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) 00:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James L. Buie 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 Caleb Stanford -- Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article James L. Buie you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:James L. Buie for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caleb Stanford -- Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 30 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charlie H. Hogan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charlie H. Hogan was called "king of engineers" after he became the first to drive a train at over 100 miles per hour (160 km/h)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie H. Hogan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charlie H. Hogan), 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) 00:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Star Watch Case Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Star Watch Case Company 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Lambert friction gearing disk drive transmission you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lambert friction gearing disk drive transmission for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Lambert Automobile Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lambert Automobile Company 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 Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article John Ratcliff (bookbinder) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John Ratcliff (bookbinder) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article John Ratcliff (bookbinder) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Ratcliff (bookbinder) 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 Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doug Coldwell, I don't see that you've made any edits at all to the article beyond those made right before your immediate renomination that I reverted. It was your second immediate renomination of this article after a short spate of edits, and in both prior nominations the article had major issues, the first one leading to a quickfail, and the second leading you to terminate the review prematurely after the review required major edits.

I would ask you to show greater consideration for the reviewer volunteers who take on your articles in good faith, only to discover that they sometimes, as was the case with this article, fall significantly short. It is only fair to them that you ensure the article meets the GA criteria prior to nominating. Thank you for taking this on board for future nominations, and if this article isn't quite ready yet, please withdraw the nomination until it's clearly ready. It would be unfortunate indeed if it didn't pass on its third review. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Thomas Hall (mechanic) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Thomas Hall (mechanic) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has passed. There is a known bug in Legobot that causes it to report a failure if a previous nomination failed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hawkeye7: That makes 222 successful nominations promoted to Good Article Only 28 more to go. (hehehe)--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article James L. Buie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James L. Buie for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Doug Coldwell! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 16th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Please accept the belated invitation below we forgot to give you at this time last year. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Doug Coldwell,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Benjamin D. Wood 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 Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Benjamin D. Wood you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Benjamin D. Wood 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 Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Closed-Circuit Education Television Project.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) 17:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles Grafton Page 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mail chute 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Mail chute you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mail chute for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Charles Grafton Page you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles Grafton Page 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Mail chute you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mail chute 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daniel Davis Jr. 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't believe I'm actually having to tell you this multiple times, but it is absolutely unacceptable to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, as you did at Preparation (principle). If you continue doing this, I will have no choice but to bring this to the attention of an administrator. I'd prefer not having to do that. You should by now be very familiar with Wikipedia policy, considering the amount of time you've been an editor here. Your repeated insertion of blatantly promotional material about yourself (with the edit summary "ce" to boot) is wholly unacceptable, contrary to Wikipedia policy (WP:COI, WP:PROMO, etc.) and absolutely astonishing coming from an editor of your tenure. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Seavey Hall 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 Vocem Virtutis -- Vocem Virtutis (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Phillips Hall 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 Vocem Virtutis -- Vocem Virtutis (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Daniel Davis Jr. you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Daniel Davis Jr. 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Thomas Seavey Hall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Seavey Hall 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 Vocem Virtutis -- Vocem Virtutis (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article William Phillips Hall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Phillips Hall 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 Vocem Virtutis -- Vocem Virtutis (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Hall (inventor) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Thomas Hall (inventor) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Hall (inventor) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Henry Daniels 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article George Henry Daniels you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Henry Daniels 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Four-Track News 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm new to trying to write for Wikipedia, but I'm certainly puzzled. I see that Travel-Holiday is now a stub, with the extensive section on the Four-Track News deleted, as well as my own history of the successor publications. (My own recommendation at the time was that Four-Track News should be its own article.) Fomalhaut44 (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Four-Track News you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Four-Track News for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would really behoove you to engage at ANI... PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does not mean I can reply?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what the issue is??? I can demonstrate I have made 234 Good Articles. Of those in 2020 I made 60 Good Articles in a 60 day period of time, averaging 1 Good Article per day. I have created 500 Did You Know articles. Here is a list of my multiple article Did You Knows. Here is a list of my Did You Knows that have been placed in DYK Hall of Fame. This article was put on the main page as an official Did You Know 36 hours from when I created it. Do you need more?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Falling back on calling yourself a content creator does not negate the need for you to address your behavior which has been brought up repeatedly for 15 years. Good faith editing still requires competence and adherence to basic policy. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not sure what the issue is??? I can demonstrate I have made 234 Good Articles. Of those in 2020 I made 60 Good Articles in a 60 day period of time, averaging 1 Good Article per day. I have created 500 Did You Know articles. Here is a list of my multiple article Did You Knows. Here is a list of my Did You Knows that have been placed in DYK Hall of Fame. This article was put on the main page as an official Did You Know 36 hours from when I created it. Do you need more?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Are you trolling, Doug? Or are you really so full of yourself that you think mass producing GAs and DYKs makes you above the rules? I don't think you comprehend that there are serious issues with you editing and behavior. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Are you trolling, is your account compromised or is this truly a case of WP:IDHT? I genuinely can't tell since you have refused, as far as I can tell, for your entire editing career to ever address any criticism or concerns about your editing. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for failure to discuss your edits with other editors – please see this discussion –. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).   Salvio 21:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you agree to start engaging meaningfully with the community regarding your editing, the block can be lifted. Salvio 21:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Doug Coldwell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'll be glad to answer. Just now discovered there was an issue. Given an unblock I will give a reply with 3 minutes.-- Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking you; please, go to ANI to discuss this issue with the community, because if you do not, you may be blocked again Salvio 22:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an admin, obviously but the fact that "you didn't know" there was a problem is almost worse than you just ignoring it. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad to see you finally found the link to your talk page after 15 years of editing, Doug. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doug, if you have no objection to me, the blocking administrator, reviewing your unblock request, I will unblock you, so that you can comment on ANI. Salvio 21:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Salvio giuliano policy says the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests (emphasis added) but you are free to accept a request as the blocking admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not sure what the issue is??? I can demonstrate I have made 234 Good Articles. Of those in 2020 I made 60 Good Articles in a 60 day period of time, averaging 1 Good Article per day. I have created 500 Did You Know articles. Here is a list of my multiple article Did You Knows. Here is a list of my Did You Knows that have been placed in DYK Hall of Fame. This article was put on the main page as an official Did You Know 36 hours from when I created it. Do you need more?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You're still expected to follow the behavioral policies. Communication is not optional. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doug Coldwell, earlier today I removed your nomination of Travel Holiday for GAN; the edit summary read: This is clearly not ready for GAN; the article needs reorganization, a reasonably chronological narrative, and copyediting prior to nominating. You renominated it a few hours later, and looking at the revisions you made, I see that the article still fails to meet the GA criteria in a number of ways, from clear and concise prose copyedited well to being broad in its coverage.

Anyone with the experience you outline in your block discussion above should know better than to submit an article in the condition this one is in. To name just a few things:

• The revised lede is repetitive, not clear and concise.
• While the article goes into great depth about Four-Track News, its development into Travel, and its predecessor brochures and guide books, there is very little about Travel Holiday itself as a magazine during its quarter-century tenure under that title (a mere sentence about its prestige and desirability for restaurants to be featured there). I don't count its movement from publisher to publisher; while informative, it doesn't get to the crux of what the magazine focused on, and how much came from Travel and Holiday.
• Further, as Holiday is also a predecessor of Travel Holiday, there should be a summary here about Holiday's thirty-one years prior to the combination with a reference to Holiday as the main article.

In short, you need to have a similar level of attention to the later history of the magazine as you do to its early history and pre-history. Without it, a GA listing is not possible, and the article should not be nominated again until you have achieved a much better balance.

I will be removing your renomination now, since the article is manifestly unready, and it is unfair to waste the time of a GA reviewer on such an article when they could be reviewing articles that are ready. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueMoonset: That's because Doug just copy-pasted the contents of Four-Track News into Travel Holiday and hit the nominate button. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Buchanan (locomotive designer) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article William Buchanan (locomotive designer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Buchanan (locomotive designer) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doug, per the comment by Fram at ANI, and my reply, I am going to spotcheck the GAs of yours I've recently promoted. I saw one close paraphrasing problem in the ones I reviewed, and Fram's pointed out another egregious example, so I think the check has to be done. Do you want to go through them and make sure they're OK before I spotcheck them? If I find I promoted them with multiple close paraphrasing problems I'm going to have to start the delisting process for them. And FYI I will be doing spotchecks on your articles that I review from now on, so you may also want to review anything you still have in the queue to make sure they're free of paraphrasing problems. If everything comes up clean, great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sure, I will go through them today. Thanks for the heads up. I will make sure I don't do any close paraphrasing.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  OK, let me know when you're done and I'll take a pass through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Working I'll continue on this afternoon and pick it up again tomorrow. I will let you know when I have gone through all the GAs.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
•  Done @Mike Christie: I've gone over all the GAs and copy edited accordingly. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Will do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Unattributed public domain copying: the diff is me attributing it, foundational.
2. Blatant copying from here; public domain, also unattributed. All of the early life section in this article is copied or closely paraphrased.
3. This diff added added close paraphrasing and borderline direct pasting, removed here and here.
4. Close paraphrasing from this source in Walter Hunt (inventor) Hunt suggested that they come up with a better flax spinning machine. He created the new machine and three months later patented it on June 22, 1826. Hunt went to New York City after receiving the patent to get money needed to make the new mechanism. This visiting was the first time he had gone to such a large city. There he sold the patent rights outright instead of getting money to mass-produce it. This mode of operation became Hunt's style of doing business in the future. compared to To improve efficiency, Hunt suggested that they build a better flax spinner. Several months later Hunt created the new machine that was patented on June 22, 1826. After receiving the patent, Hunt traveled to New York City for the first time in his life to raise the capital needed to manufacture the new machine. Instead he sold the patent outright, which would become Hunt's pattern of doing business.. The last 3 chapters of Mid life section are closely paraphrased from this source. I haven't removed it yet.
5. Unattributed PD copying in the same article, attributed in that diff.
6. More unattributed PD copying in Thomas Hall (inventor), attributed in that diff. More of the same here.

I'm going to stop for now. Doug, if you do closely paraphrase or copy from a book that is in the public domain, please use ((Source-attribution)) and please do not close paraphrase or copy directly from sources not in the public domain. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walter Hunt (inventor) has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a result of a WP:GAR the page Walter Hunt (inventor) has been delisted as a Good Article.Gusfriend (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Conrad Hubert 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Conrad Hubert you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Conrad Hubert for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if you are aware that the ANI discussion was still ongoing, but a proposal to indef block you has been started there. Your input is welcome. Fram (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Doug - I don't think we've ever interacted before, but I wanted to reach out to you with some friendly advice. First off, let me say that I imagine that it must be horrible to have been contributing so long and now to have that massive litany of comments about your editing over at ANI - honestly, I do get that. However, while I can completely understand why you might not want to engage with all that, I also feel compelled to advise you that your recent lack of engagement with the thread is not doing you any favours. Several editors have brought to light multiple instances of copyright infringements on your part, and it looks like there is strong support for a motion to prohibit you from engaging with either the GA or DYK processes, in hopes of getting you to slow down and address the issue of copyvios in your prose. I would urge you to rea through that stuff, however unpleasant it is, try to understand what people are telling you about paraphrasing and copyvio policy, and make some comment there indicating that you understand the gravity of the issues. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 20:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henry Clay Fry 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Henry Clay Fry you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Henry Clay Fry for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a result of this discussion, the following sanction has been imposed on you:

you are indefinitely banned from making any WP:GAs and WP:DYK nominations. After at least one year, you will be allowed to request that this sanction be lifted at the administrators' noticeboard. Unless explicitly revoked as well, after this ban is lifted, you will still be limited to making 3 WP:GAs and 3 WP:DYK nominations per month.

You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Salvio 12:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Washington County Closed-Circuit Educational Television Project 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 Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Washington County Closed-Circuit Educational Television Project you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Washington County Closed-Circuit Educational Television Project for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mail chute has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have addressed your concern and fixed the cite template in the external links section of Street light interference phenomenon by adding |ref=none per Template:HarvErrors. It is also worth noting that (a) the error only shows up for logged in users and does not affect how non logged in users see information and (b) even for logged in users it only affects one of the 3 scripts mentioned on the Template page HarvErrors. Gusfriend (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crash Bandicoot: On the Run! 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 Blue Pumpkin Pie -- Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Crash Bandicoot: On the Run! you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Crash Bandicoot: On the Run! for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Blue Pumpkin Pie -- Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buckeye Manufacturing Company has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Gusfriend (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Washington County Closed-Circuit Educational Television Project you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Washington County Closed-Circuit Educational Television Project for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haskelite has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Gusfriend (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a result of this assessment the Haskelite page has been delisted as a good article. Please read the reassessment page for more.Gusfriend (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you have been involved in both articles I wanted to let you know that I have proposed the merging of Haskell canoe into Haskelite with discussion at Talk:Haskelite#Merger discussion. As there are currently both good articles I have also notified notifying the appropriate WikiProjects. Gusfriend (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Doug, just passing by. I'm not as active as I used to be, but I'm truly saddened to see the recent events here which have resulted in your absence from Wikipedia. I wish you nothing but the best and hope those who are actively engaged in these negative pursuits can see what they're doing and work with you, and not against you to make things work out. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles H. Black 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joshua Lionel Cowen 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lithophane 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Natural Bridges National Monument Solar Power System 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William M. Brish 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Charles H. Black you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Charles H. Black for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kitch-iti-kipi has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henry Ludington has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Joshua Lionel Cowen you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Joshua Lionel Cowen for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Lithophane you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lithophane for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article William M. Brish you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:William M. Brish for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Natural Bridges National Monument Solar Power System you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Natural Bridges National Monument Solar Power System for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

North Carolina Transportation Museum has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Gusfriend (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SS John Sherman has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Gusfriend (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed some items of concern with your edits at Haskell Manufacturing Company Building and Haskelite Building.

• Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Haskell Manufacturing Company Building a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Haskelite Building. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.

• In the new article you changed the citation style by changing and adding references using the ((Sfn)) template. The guideline page at WP:CITEVAR says normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved

• The building was added to the National Register of Historic Places as the Haskell Manufacturing Company Building which, I believe, is sufficient reason for any move to be done via a recommended move WP:RM as it says that you should not WP:BOLDly move only if It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

• When you created the new page you left the template ((WikiProject National Register of Historic Places)) off the talk page.

• The talk page of the Haskell Manufacturing Company Building also attributes text from another page which was not included in the new page.

Due to issues mentioned, especially the history issues and the need for consensus, I have tagged the new page for CSD as a copy and paste move and I am about to start the move discussion.Gusfriend (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Haskell Manufacturing Company Building a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Haskelite Building. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Gusfriend (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As mentioned above the guideline page at WP:CITEVAR says normal practice is to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved changed the citation style. At Haskell Manufacturing Company Building you changed the reference style by adding references using the ((Sfn)) template. I have fixed the issue on the page but I would ask that you not make similar changes in future. Gusfriend (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Gusfriend (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Gusfriend (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Star Mississippi 18:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This could/should have happened last time as you show no indication you have learnt from the advice provided, nor will you change your behavior that many editors have indicated is problematic. As always, if another admin finds evidence that the conduct will change, no objection to this block being modified Star Mississippi 18:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gusfriend is not why you're blocked. Your conduct, which you have repeated below, is why. Star Mississippi 10:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doug Coldwell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe I should be unblocked because I have not done any disruptive editing. I have been editing for 16 years. In that time I have created 500 Did You Know articles - see my list of 500 Did You Know credits. It turns out 97% of all the articles I created became Did You Knows. From those I have turned 230 into Good Articles. There were some 100 reviewers for the Good Articles and 400 reviewers for the Did You Know articles I created. I have had two of my articles turned into history books by a college professor. He contacted me and told me he likes my articles because he thought they were of excellent quality. He is turning the Wikipedia Michigan related articles into history books where I am the creator or major author. He first wrote up a history book on "Justus S. Stearns-Michigan Ping King and Kentucky Coal Baron, 1845-1933". I created the Wikipedia article on Justus Smith Stearns (90% authorship) on 24 October 2010 that he based his history book on. Professor Michael Nagle of West Shore Community College published his book on September 1, 2015. I expanded the Wikipedia article on Eber Brock Ward ten-fold on 29 October 2010 and have 70% authorship. Professor Nagle is publishing his book of "The Forgotten Iron King of the Great Lakes: Eber Brock Ward, 1811–1875 (Great Lakes Books Series)" on November 17. He will be publishing more Great Lakes Books Series in the future of Michigan (Great Lakes region of US) related articles, some based on Wikipedia articles that I am either the creator of or the major author. I believe his next history book he plans on publishing is based on the Great Lakes train ferry design engineer William L. Mercereau which new article I created in 2017 and have 90% authorship. To me it is a compliment to have reference history books written up by professors based on Wikipedia articles I have created or have a major authorship in. I do believe I know who is behind having me banned - User Gusfriend. His campaign is to have all my Good Articles delisted. He contacted the editors at the Good Article help desk and asked how he could have my Good Articles delisted on a group basis for a short-cut method of delisting them all at once. The answer he got was to have my articles merged into other articles. He has started merging of my Good Articles into other articles with Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation into Haskell Manufacturing Company with a merge proposal on 12 October 2022. I opposed the merge on 23 October 2022 on the basis the two articles have not changed since they were promoted to Good Article originally therefore they both meet criteria for a Good Article and should not be merged together. On 24 October 2022 I was blocked from editing just one day after I opposed the merge. If opposing a merge results in being banned, then editors don’t have the freedom to vote anything different than how the proposing editor wants it to go. Then its a forced proposal (dictatorship) and one MUST go the way the proposing editor wants it to go or else you get banned. No democracy here. Of course if Gusfriend has me banned from editing THEN I can not object to any of his merges and can NOT fix any issues he finds for a Good Article reassessment. My 230 Good Articles are stand alone articles and have no direct relationship to any other articles and should not be randomly merged just to remove its GA status. Most of my Good Articles have not changed from when they were promoted to the Good Article status because they are a recent promotion, therefore they will still meet the GA criteria. Gusfriend is also having many of my promoted Good Articles nominated for (GAR) Good Article Reassessment. However because they have not changed (or very little) since the recent promotion to Good Article status, they still meet the Good Article criteria. The original GA reviewer should be notified on any reassessment instead of skipping that step as a short-cut to getting my Good Article quickly delisted. Then when the reviewer looks over the Good Article they might find something they missed and point that out to be fixed. I would then just fix it (if I was allowed to edit), since the outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed still meets the good article criteria or not. However if I am stopped from editing then I can not fix the problem (assuming there is even one). The article would still meet the criteria for a Good Article, if the problem found by Gusfriend could be fixed by an editor. If he thinks there is something that needs to be fixed why can’t he just fix it. How is it the Good Article reviewer and all previous reviewers all missed that issue of such importance that the Good Article then needs to get delisted because of it? Or is the issue just dreamed up to get the article delisted from Good Article status? Assuming the original reviewer is notified in the first place, as they should be, of the nomination for reassessment - then the problem can be easily fixed by any editor. Since it is likely a minor problem overlooked by the GA reviewer from the issue User Gusfriend points out, then couldn’t he just fix it and not waste everyone’s time trying to delist the article from Good Article status because of the issue. GAR is not a tool that is suppose to be used to delist Good Articles that has just been recently listed, but to find if it still meets Good Article criteria after it has been an article for a long time (e.g. years) and due to many editors editing it that it no longer meets Good Article criteria because of their edits. GAR shouldn’t be used to test the accuracy or reliability of the reviewer. If additional material is found later, then it should be used to improve the article - not a reason to delist the recent Good Article. Yes, that is correct I have had an alternate account for 16 years. It is used for sandbox drafts, NOT editing. The alternate account meets all the requirements of an alternate account. It has a close name to the main account and redirects back to the main account. On the main account I have a UserBox that says I have an alternate account under the name "Douglas Caldwell". Many administrators have come across this account during this 16 years and all have said it is proper. I have used this alternate account to develop out in a draft new articles and potential Good Articles. I have produced 500 Did You Know articles this way and 230 Good Articles this way. Many of those DYKs were multiple article Did You Knows ranging from 2 to 30 articles in a single Did You Know line. This can only be done if all the articles are developed out in a draft sandbox first. Most editors of many years experience advise to use a sandbox to write up a draft first (e.g. User:Casliber, User:Peter I. Vardy, User:Redtigerxyz, User:Daniel Case, User:Rosiestep, User:Northamerica1000, User:The C of E, User:Mjroots, User:Gwillhickers, User:Wetman, User:Phoebe, User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Gerda Arendt, User:Hawkeye7, User:Cwmhiraeth, User:Bigturtle, User:TonyTheTiger, User:The Most Comfortable Chair). Writing up a draft in an alternate account sandbox would be the same thing as writing up a draft off-line. Nobody has an objection to that. Keep in mind that most of my Good Articles were first a Did You Know article I created. Yes, that is true that most of my 230 Good Articles have been reviewed by at least 3 reviewers. 1) Reviewed by a reviewer to see if it meets the criteria for a Did You Know article; 2) The promoter that promoted the article to Did You Know to appear on Wikipedia’s main page; 3) Good Article reviewer that promoted the article to Good Article status. Did all these reviewers not do their job properly if there has to be a Good Article Reassessment? That’s what User Gusfriend is saying by doing a Good Article reassessment soon after it just became a Good Article and the article is basically the same as it was when it was promoted originally to Good Article status. He is using the GAR as a tool to delist my Good Articles, not to improve the articles themselves. GAR should be used to improve articles, not to just delist them. Yes, to Gusfriend an OPPOSE of a merge is disruptive editing because it opposes his goal of delisting my Good Articles. Yes, to Gusfriend my fixing of these minor issues in a Good Article Reassessment (GAR) and keeping the article as a Good Article is disruptive editing because it opposes his goal of delisting my Good Articles. The idea of a reassessment is to see if a Good Article still meets the criteria for that status. The GAR tool is not suppose to be used as a tool to just delist Good Articles. If an article is basically the same article as when it was promoted to Good Article originally then it still meets the Good Article criteria. All the GARs Gusfriend is doing on my Good Articles is only finding minor issues. Can’t he just fix these issues himself as an improvement to the article? What he is saying in effect is that all the reviewers that reviewed the article in the first place missed these significant major problems and did not do the review properly. Today Gusfriend has had two of my Good Articles rushed through to be delisted - Buckeye Manufacturing Company and Kitch-iti-kipi. Gusfriend has never done a Good Article review, however many of these 100 GA reviewers that have reviewed my articles for Good Article status have done dozens of other reviews. Some of these are User:Victuallers, User:Materialscientist, User:Whiteguru, User:JPxG, User:Shearonink, User:Ixtal, User:Hog Farm, User:Whiteguru, User:Lee Vilenski, User:Eddie891, User:Some Dude From North Carolina, User:Chiswick Chap, User:Maile66, User:BoringHistoryGuy, User:Vanamonde93, User:Eddie891, User:Ganesha811, User:Bungle, User:Cleveland Todd, User:Aussie Article Writer , User:Gog the Mild and User:The Rambling Man. These reviewers are very experienced Good Article reviewers and could easily find any issues that are found by Gusfriend, therefore the article is justified to still be a Good Article since the issue was not an issue at the time of the GA promotion. I would think it would be less waste of time for everybody if User Gusfriend just fixes whatever he thinks is an issue instead of starting a Good Article Reassessment to delist the article and have a Good Article review process done all over again to get it promoted again. If an article met the criteria for a Good Article in the first place and it basically has not changed (or just little changes), then it will meet Good Article critera again. As long as the original Good Article reviewer is notified when Gusfriend nominates one of my Good Articles for reassessment, then whatever issue Gusfriend finds can be fixed by any editor including myself (if I am not banned from editing) and the article should continue to be a Good Article. Minor issues are not a reason for delisting a Good Article -> instead they should just be fixed. This is an easier solution all the way around for everybody with less waste of time for editors in doing more reviews. User Gusfriend has created 20 articles, 12 are lists, 4 are Start, 2 are Stub, and 2 are C class. Of the two that are C class one is Haskelite Building, which is a spin-off from the "Haskell building" section of the article I created on 15 May 2016 of Haskell Manufacturing Company and he named it "Haskell Manufacturing Company building" when he created the article on 22 September 2022. Merging should not be used as a short-cut tool to get a Good Article delisted. My Good Articles went through the normal Good Article process and was then promoted by an experienced reviewer. There were some 100 different long-time reviewers that did these reviews and did the promotions on my various articles when they felt the article met the Good Article criteria. There should not be any short-cuts (merges, GARs, stubing) to get these delisted quickly just because certain editors are on a mission to delete my Good Articles and Did You Knows. If there are any issues then they should just be fixed or brought up so another editor can fix them. They will only be minor issues since the article had just gone through the normal Did You Know and Good Article process recently and reviewed by long-time experienced editors. Unless these certain editors are saying that all these Good Article reviewers and all the Did You Know reviewers did not do their job in the first place. Then the question becomes, why did these experienced reviewers get it correct for dozens of other articles they reviewed, however not mine? My articles went through the same process in the same steps as all the other articles these experienced editors reviewed. There is nothing different about my articles, so that means when they were promoted to Good Article status everything was done properly. Basically nothing (or little) has changed in the articles so there is no need for a Good Article Reassessment or any other short-cut (not of the normal proper steps) to get the article delisted quickly just because certain editors are on a mission to delete my Good Articles and Did You Know articles. The "Haskelite Building article was previously known as the "Haskell Manufacturing Company Building", that User Gusfriend took from "Haskell building" section from the article I created on "Haskell Manufacturing Company" on 15 May 2016. Originally I called the "Haskell building" section of the article "21st Century" on 17 May 2016 and introduced 4 pictures I took of the building 16 May 2016. I changed the name of that section from "21st Century" to "Haskell Building" on 1 May 2020 and gave a detailed description on it including the address of 801 N. Rowe Street. I said it was occupied by several businesses in its history. User Gusfriend then on 22 September 2022 split off that section and created his own article "Haskell Manufacturing Company Building" using the text and references I had originally written up in the "Haskell Building" section. Compare the text of "Haskell Building" section of "Haskell Manufacturing Company" article I created to Gusfriend’s new article of "Haskell Manufacturing Company Building" and you will see it is very similar EXCEPT for the dates of the Mendelson Manufacturing Company that he said were 1982 and 1984. He got this wrong because he had not done the original research. He was just using my research to create his new article. The correct dates are 1892 and 1894, that had to be corrected later. The "Haskell Manufacturing Company Building" name was later changed to "Haskelite Building". I made many inprovements to this article and have just over 50% authorship. Gusfriend has just under 30% authorship. I then created "801 N. Rowe Street" article on 23 October 2022. I put on it a merge tag and to discuss merging "Haskelite Building" into this article for a major improvement, since the article I created on "801 N. Rowe Street" has all the detail of the history of the building from day one to the current time. I explained in my proposal why "Haskelite Building" should be merged into my new article I created on "801 N. Rowe Street". The basic reason was that the building was known by a dozen different names depending on who owned it and the purpose of the building at the time, but that the one thing that was always the same was its address of 801 N. Rowe Street. Keep in mind that most of the material came from the "Haskell building" section I originally wrote up in the article I created on "Haskell Manufacturing Company". Instead of discussing this Gusfriend had User Fram just redirect my article into "Haskell building" which leaves out a lot of the building’s total history. Since it shows that Gusfriend created the article on "Haskell building" he wants to keep this. Keep in mind that where he got the material for his article was from the "Haskell building" section I originally wrote up in the article I created on "Haskell Manufacturing Company" back on 15 May 2016. So bottom line is that the article on "801 N. Rowe Street" is a major improvement on "Haskelite Building" which is the material from "Haskell building" I originally wrote up. I am improving on my own material. Just because Gusfriend took the material from the article I originally created on 15 May 2016 doesn’t mean "Haskelite Building" is now his article and now he owns it. I believe that if there was a discussion about merging "Haskelite Building" into the article I just created on "801 N. Rowe Street" that most experienced editors would see this as a logical improvement and that is what should be done. I would know how to do the merge because basically all the material of both articles is what I researched out and know all about. User Gusfriend did not research this out so is not familiar with the material and history of the building. I live 1 mile from the building, Gusfriend lives 10,000 miles from the building. I could then merge the two articles together correctly as I am the person that researched this material in the first place. The idea is to have a discussion by experienced editors on this. I believe that an Administrator or experienced editor should revert User Fram’s redirect of my new article I created on "801 N. Rowe Street" and allow other editors to see the new article. I think there should be a discussion and vote on concenses as to what the general population of editors would like to do. Of course, if I am banned from editing then I can not participate in the disscussion. I should be allowed to edit and participate. I see it as logical that experienced editors would see it that "Haskelite Building" should be merged into the article I just created on "801 N. Rowe Street". But only a discussion would prove this. What harm is there to a discussion about this to get a concenses? I don’t think this should be a dictatorship where one or two editors determine everything. Let’s improve Wikipedia. Let’s open up a discussion and see what experienced editors say about this. As it is now, it has been decided by two editors to use only "Haskelite Building". Shouldn’t we aim for improvements and democracy? I suggest to let my article I created on 801 N. Rowe Street be seen by all editors as I had it on 23 October 2022. At this link is the article with the merge tag and the place for a discussion. I started the discussion with my reasoning with the title "Proposed merge of Haskelite Building into 801 N. Rowe Street. " As you read the reasoning, notice I have not said the opposite of the reasoning for the name previously suggested of "Haskelite Building". The reasoning for my Support vote I said previously was, "It is known by the people of Ludington as the Haskelite Building and has gone by that name by the locals for most of its existence.The building has had ten different names depending on the purpose of the building at the time." The reasoning for Gusfriend’s Oppose vote was, "The building was added to the NHRP as the Haskell Manufacturing Company Building which is probably the best location for the article." But as I explain in my detailed article of "801 N. Rowe Street" the NHRP referred to the building by 6 other names in their Registration Form - Mendelson building, Tubbs Manufacturing Company Building, Haskell Company building, Haskell plant, Haskell factory, and the Haskelite Building. The building was known by 3 previous names prior to when it was known as the "Haskelite Building" - the big Carrom plant, the Mendelson building, the Tubbs Manufacturing Company Building. So for a complete detained history of what the building was called and when, I suggest to use the article I created on "801 N. Rowe Street". The locals now know the building as an apartment building with the name "Lofts on Rowe" (note the Now Leasing sign at the front door of the picture of the building I recently took). Lets have a discussion on this if "Haskelite Building" should be merged into my new article I created on 801 N. Rowe Street. Actually it should be the other way around - the "Haskelite Building" article should be redirected into my my new article I created on "801 N. Rowe Street". All the information is there already and it is a complete detailed history of all the names of the building and why and time periods. Let the experienced editors vote on this with reasoning and give a concenses. Let’s have a democracy and strive for improving Wikipedia. I suggest that an experienced editor or Administrator reverse User Fram’s redirect of 24 October 2022 and let the discussion of the merge go forward to see what most experienced editors feel is the best name for the building.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I can't read that massive wall of text either, but Doug Coldwell is a name I associate with the good on here, he has produced a lot of great content here. I don't know what issue it was which caused Doug to be blocked indefinitely, but it saddens me that it has come to this and there isn't a solution to whatever the problem is. I don't think we can afford to lose content contributors like him. Can't we find a way around this? Thank you Doug for your work here and wish you all the best!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea why I was pinged to this thread, but the GAN reviews I did for Coldwell didn't contain copyvios (or if they did, I couldn't find them). However, that doesn't then mean that we can excuse other instances of things being copyright violations. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto what Dr. Blofeld said. I hope we can find a way around this. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same with Lee here. Please never ping me like that. If you just want to mention my name, ((no ping)) is what should be used. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect Doug pinged many editors who he has had positive interactions with in the hope some (at least) will respond in his defense, perhaps (like character witnesses). I am with Dr Blofeld in that my experiences with Doug Coldwell have been positive and I have always felt he is genuinelly WP:HERE to help build an encyclopedia. It would be a real shame if that is indefinitely prevented. I don't know the full back story here and I am not saying his contributions have been exceptional, but from experience I don't think he is intentionally setting out to be disruptive.

@Doug, your unblock request above will be read by seldom editors, due to the effort involved. I skim read it myself, mostly to see where I fitted in to this. I think this needs to be condensed significantly to just key points, perhaps bullet points no more than a sentence or two each. I hope you can find a resolution but writing a WP:WALLOFTEXT I don't think will get you there. Sorry it's come to this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was pinged, in a section about the advice to use sandboxes, which is strange because I rarely use sandboxes, and so why I would recommend it. Doug, I like your writing of articles, but this text is not something people will read (including myself), - please condense it drastically and get to the point of why you are blocked. I don't watch ANI so didn't see it coming. I have a line on top of the precious list (for a reason): "grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith", - please grant that presumption to Gusfriend and blocking editors, even if it's hard. It may be returned, but that will also take patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an editor I have two things to say: (a) I agree with the wall-of-text concerns made by other editors; and (b) I wish to state, for the record, as emphatically as I can, that my editing work has had many interactions of Doug Coldwell over the years; his presence has been a major asset to that part of the Wikipedia community of which I am a part; and I appeal, in the strongest terms, for whatever constraints have been placed on his account to be withdrawn. Either we, and our administrators, assume good faith, or we don't. Bigturtle (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an editor subjected firsthand to personal attacks, ABF, and generally unacceptable editing from Doug, I am astounded to see all these editors lining up to defend him. Where were all of you at the ANI thread that led to this block, huh? We absolutely can afford to lose contributors like Doug if they aren't willing to abide by civility and other policies. No amount of content creation makes one above the law, and I am disheartened to see those who are making vague comments about wanting him unblocked while seemingly unfamiliar with what Doug did to get himself blocked in the first place. It took a lot to get here. The wall of IDHT above shows exactly the same issues that got Doug blocked. Total inability to work collaboratively, attacks on other editors, and above all an overwhelming level of WP:OWN from him. This is literally a giant rant about how amazing Doug thinks he is, and how that apparently should excuse him from having to follow the rules. We also see assertions that people who don't have as much involvement with the GA process should be ignored: Today Gusfriend has had two of my Good Articles rushed through to be delisted - Buckeye Manufacturing Company and Kitch-iti-kipi. Gusfriend has never done a Good Article review, however many of these 100 GA reviewers that have reviewed my articles for Good Article status have done dozens of other reviews.

You have NO RIGHT to complain about anything being rushed when you constantly pat yourself on the back for shoveling massive quantities of shit onto the main page, doing shoddy research, copyvios, incomplete articles, and thinking that makes you God's gift to Wikipedia. All you appear to care about is how much stuff you can put your name on and the number of shiny icons on your userpage. Such an attitude is not compatible with Wikipedia, as you have amply demonstrated. If you can't formulate a concise unblock request that actually acknowledges the issues with your conduct up to this point and can actually persuade others that you will change, don't even bother.

What about the content creators that have been subjected to repeated attacks, aspersions, and accusations of bad faith? Surely we also are content contributors who matter? Or is it more about tenure than actual valuable contributions to the encyclopedia? Where were all of you when Doug was accusing me of being "jealous" of him and trying to get him blocked because I couldn't make train GAs of my own (which is patent bullshit by the way, look at my userpage if you want proof). How about when he went around marching a copypasta about his credentials everywhere? How about when he repeatedly inserted a photo of himself into articles, quietly edit warred over it, and ignored all attempts at communication until an admin literally had to block him? And how about the rest of us having a right to participate in Wikipedia without being attacked for daring to try and fix the problems of a long-standing contributor who has caused so much damage, we are currently discussing a special program just to clean up all the copyvios, factual errors, poor prose, and shoddy work he's done?

In spite of all of this, I wouldn't necessarily oppose Doug returning to the project. But we would have to see a monumental change in his attitude towards others and a commitment to writing articles properly. Sadly I don't think that will ever happen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: The tone of your first paragraph I think could have done with being reconsidered, especially the expressions that, 1) the above editors are "lining up" to defend DC, 2) that there is a collective WP:IDHT issue, 3) that due to your perceived IDHT view, believe the above editors are acting in a way consistent with why DC got blocked. None of this is appropriate or conducive.

I see you feel exceptionally strongly about your views here, and I have since read a little on the most recent ANI thread, so am somewhat more in the loop than before, but not to the point of wanting to offer an exhaustive viewpoint. I can only speak for myself and I have only had engagement with DC on two separate GA review occasions, so really I can only reflect on those occasions. If I, or anyone else, want to express a degree of sorrow at the current state of affairs, that is entirely fine, but i'd advise caution in how you're phrasing your own responses, particularly as that seems to be a core issue that others have expressed with DC. I don't actually disagree with the fundamentals of your reply here, but please consider a different manner of expression. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is an interesting observation I have noted. The article I turned into a Good Article today is about a train locomotive designer. The previous 6 Good Articles I have recently made have to do with trains. The main instigator in these issues of this ANI is User:Trainsandotherthings. Perhaps just a coincidence. What are the odds?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The Good Article nominations must have been appropriate, as why else did 234 of them get promoted to Good Article. Perhaps I paid off the reviewers. This app shows how many Good Articles an editor has made. https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans Getting a consensus from those that have made few or no Good Articles doesn't make sense. How can those that have made few or no Good Articles give a consensus to the appropriateness of a potential Good Article? That's saying that the Good Article reviewers that do reviews on a regular basis, like the ones I mentioned above, are not competent or able to do a review on one of my GANs. That's saying that those who have made few or no Good Articles are a better judge than the reviewers that do Good Article reviews on a regular basis.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe that an Administrator should use this app https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans to see how many Good Articles a particular editor has done before making any decisions on any proposals. Of course those that have made few or no Good Articles want to stop those that have made over 200 Good Articles. It looks like a case of jealousy, as those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If self-promotion on an article is the issue, keep in mind that at least 2000 editors have looked at each one of my 500 Did You Knows. None of the 1,000,000 editors have brought up anything about self-promotion. I would think if I was self-promoting on articles on a regular basis that at least a few of these 1,000,000 would have said something. None have. That idea has only come up lately by these in this ANI. I believe an Administrator should use this app https://sdzerobot.toolforge.org/gans to check out what Good Articles these editors have and that will give an idea why they wish to stop someone that makes a lot of Good Articles. BTW, while these editors in this ANI are wasting their time trying to stop me from making Good Articles I just made another one. Check out William Buchanan (locomotive designer) that I turned into a Good Article this morning before breakfast. --Doug Coldwell (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me for feeling strongly about this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not sure why I was pinged here, as to the best of my knowledge I've never reviewed content written by you. I'm also not going to read the massive wall of text above. I would remind you though that indefinite blocks are not infinite; you have a path to returning to this community. It requires that you engage in some self-reflection, recognize that there were problems with your work, and commit to both not repeating them and to fixing them up. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Responding to a ping. All I can say is that I've worked with Doug in a number of areas and have had nothing but good experiences, even when we didn't agree on points, etc. He's a great researcher and brings much to Wikipedia. He may have said some things that have angered some editors, the merging issue, and of course the IDHT issues didn't help, but if that's all there is then blocking this long time contributor indefinitely is a bit overkill and is a punishment that doesn't fit the 'crime' -- i.e.no serious policy issues, vandalism, sock-puppetry, slander, threats and things like that. Hoping those in charge will take another look at the big picture. Good luck Doug. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You forgot the mass-copyvio issue —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Haven't combed through all the lengthy talk of all involved. Yes, copy-vio is serious, but did he continue in this effort after being warned? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  He did. A CCI on his contributions was opened last year, and he continued to add copyrighted text after that. He has also not acknowledged in any response that what he did was copyvio or wrong in any way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And the problems go far beyond that. Maybe you (Gwillhickers) should check out the latest ANI thread, where the situation was summarized as a giant mess of copyright violations, improperly attributed sourcing, dodgy sources which don't properly verify claims, and outright tripe ... incorrect information, poor use of sources, mismatch between information on 2 related pages, ... poor prose ... incomplete information in GAs ... DYK statements not supported by information included in articles ... OR and irrelevant information to meet a specific narrative. The fundamental problem is the perennial one, that the DYK and GA review processes are full of holes. But DC seems to have accidentally (and, to be clear, unintentionally) hit on a surefire formula for getting absolutely terrible articles through those holes: he writes on obscure subjects reviewers are unlikely to know anything about (so that even seriously wrong stuff is unlikely to be detected on sight), and once "Doug Coldwell" became a familiar name reviewers began to largely take on faith that what he wrote followed the sources, that the sources were reliable and appropriate to the statements made, and so on. In steady state this self-reinforcing pathology allowed seriously substandard stuff to get the stamp of approval day after week after month after year, hundreds of times.

  All of this is bad enough, but for two months now DC has steadfastly refused to acknowledge these problems at all, instead talking obsessively in circles (as in the unblock request above) about trivial side issues like an article title, as if that's the issue. EEng 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The surefire GAN formula is simply to renominate articles that have failed and wait for a different reviewer. I can't speak to the intentionality behind this strategy, but it does not engender a feeling of collaboration. CMD (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Right you are. What I described has, let us say, a 80% chance of success with any one reviewer. But by taking the approach of "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again", sooner or later you'll get the pass, guaranteed, and thus you have the surefire formula. I emphasize that I have not a scintilla of doubt that Doug really thought he was improving the project, and with the positive feedback of all those poorly scrutinized GAs and DYKs, who can blame him? EEng 03:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Like others who were pinged here, I have worked with Doug before and found him to be pleasant to collaborate with and quick to respond to issues. However, unlike some others, I have read through the discussion that lead to Doug's block, and continue to believe firmly that it was justified & necessary. The problems presented by Doug's editing were not so severe that he did not deserve a chance to explain, apologize, and fix things moving forward, but he did not take this chance. Instead he has refused to engage, stonewalled, accused others of conspiring against him, and constantly bragged uselessly about his number of contributions. Unblocks require a genuine desire to improve and fix problems going forward. I have not seen that from Doug. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wow. Wallotext indeed. What a mess all in all.

I resent being one mass-pinged into this discussion simply because I did some GA reviews.

But I have now read through much of the ANI discussions etc. - yay so much fun.

So far as I can tell I did GA Reviews on 6 of Doug's articles. I have gone over my GA Reviews of these GA noms, running Earwig's Copyvio detector on every single one of Doug's articles that I reviewed and have found no copyright violations: Ramsdell Theatre, Thomas Johnston (engraver) (the only similarities here are in the titles of the craftsman's work which are a necessary part of the article), Tiny Town (miniature park), Ludington family, Yampa (yacht), North Carolina Transportation Museum (Copyvio tool found another site which lifted the WP article without attribution, the article was written in 2017, the other site is dated 2020). The sourcing seems to be fine, I stand by my reviews.

VersaceSpace - I am glad you amended your initial statement of "Instead, he's gotten 200 terrible articles through the flawed Good Article process." to "Instead, he's gotten many terrible articles through the flawed Good Article process." Thank you, at least, for that.

I am saddened by this whole state of affairs. Doug Coldwell - Though you have made many worthwhile contributions, I don't think repeating "500 DYKs/200 GAs/history book/etc/accomplishments/etc./accomplishments" in a WallOText will wipe out the serious copyvio issues found in some of your contributions.

All we have, as Wikipedia editors, is our integrity. Our adherence to quality sourcing, to quality editing, to high standards, to maintaining a neutral point of view is paramount. ...I am sorry but have nothing more to say and I do not wish to be pinged any further to this discussion. Shearonink (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An attempt at summarizing Doug's word wall

Doug's unblock request is incredibly long and repetitive, so I tried to condense it. Beware: it's rough.

• I should be unblocked because I haven't done any disruptive editing
• I have more than 500 DYKs and 200 GAs
• A professor thought my articles were of excellent quality and is turning many of them into books
• Gusfriend is the person behind my block and is also trying to get all of my GAs delisted
  • Gusfriend has also never reviewed a GA nomination, so his opinion on what should be a GA doesn't matter as much as the much more experienced reviewers who reviewed by GANs
• Gusfriend has also only created about 20 articles as opposed to my 500+
• Stubifying, GARs, merging, etc. should not be used to further agendas
• I have more authorship on the articles related to the Haskell building than Gusfriend does

Anything after that has made very little sense to me. Doug's inclusion of copyright-violating text is a huge concern, and I'm surprised he didn't address that here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I have more than 500 DYKs and 200 GAs" gives off the same energy as "I have over 300 confirmed kills" from the Navy Seal Copypasta. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and also, I reject the statement that Doug has 200 Good Articles. Instead, he's gotten many terrible articles through the flawed Good Article process. —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VersaceSpace: Instead, he's gotten 200 terrible articles through the flawed Good Article process, are you sure you want to stand by that statement? That's a considerable amount of editors, those being good article reviewers, of which I am one (sporadically), you are branding here. I for one take issue with the insinuation that I have promoted some (well, 2) of DC's articles to GA status that are nothing better than, in your words, terrible. I am sure, if you were challenged on that, you could probably find some that others would agree with as being sub-standard, but suggesting every GA article of DC's is terrible is an unfounded assertion that I hope you retract. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, not 200, but the number is certainly large. I'm also not blaming any single reviewer for this (or all of them, as you appear to insinuate), that's a pretty unfortunate interpretation of what I said. —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for retracting, somewhat (though I still think "many terrible" is not something that would stand up to scrunity). This matter has clearly brought some strong feelings and opinions, but I don't think making sweeping statements that imply criticism towards other editors who have, in good faith, reviewed these articles is helpful or warranted. My interpretation of your remark wasn't unreasonable, but I am glad you recognise it was a flawed suggestion. I'd like to believe that there wouldn't be any terrible articles if they have each been scrutinised by another pair of eyes, but I do accept that there could well be flaws not obvious to reviewers at the time. It's worth being mindful that any comments directly in relation to the good article process for articles authored by DC do not just reflect or impact this editor exclusively. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EEng's summary, above, is a good description of how this all happened. I promoted several of Doug's articles to GA, and what EEng describes is accurate for the ones I reviewed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made it as clear as I believed was necessary that I think this is Doug's fault. No reviewer expects that such a big-name editor will be hiding massive copyright violations in their articles. So I still think that's a pretty annoying interpretation of my statement. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a rather sweeping assumption that reviewers at large just ignore the sources, or lack of them, and simply promote Coldwell's articles based on his long tenure here at WP. In the process of complaining about Coldwell, reviewers, Wikipedia and the GA review process overall has been seriously indicted. If this is how some individuals really feel they should also be addressing the Wikipedia administration and policy makers. Hanging Coldwell out to dry by itself isn't going to effect this. I'm not contesting the complaints, but can't help but notice that after Coldwell has been blocked his complainers seem, given their overall focus on him alone, that they will just walk away and not pursue matters further. -- Gwillhickers(talk) 04:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are indeed serious flaws with the GA review process. But that won't be fixed on this talk page. I don't have all the answers, I'm afraid. It leaves me with serious despair at the way we handle GA reviews and has even made me question wanting to keep editing here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know what the record is for longest unblock request? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say we assume good faith that Doug is here to help Wikipedia and doesn't want to intentionally cause big problems with copyright or other editors here. Assuming this, and that problems with copyvios was an issue, I suggest that Doug is unblocked and goes through a trial period of a few months where content he produces is reviewed for problems, perhaps in the user space before being submitted. If he is able to continue to produce content without issue for the given period I think the project would be better letting him off the hook and allowing him to continue. I haven't examined your work Doug, I don't know the extent of the problems they are claiming, but assuming they're right, while the occasional paraphrasing is to often expected, you're good enough to avoid doing this. Hope something productive comes of this anyway..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at one of his GAs at random. Henry L. Haskell . The lede is certainly too short on this one for a GA and I think the article would benefit from more bio info and balance. I wouldn't have promoted it. If there are concerns about whether articles currently meet the GA criteria they can be put up for review and constructively improved, which he can't do if he is blocked... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For this to work, Doug would have to acknowledge that his work contains copyvios, demonstrate that he understands what copyvio and close paraphrasing are, and agree to help fix the problems in his past work. He has done none of those things. He has also shown no interest in helping clean up the CCI that was already open. Addressing copyvio only would not address some of the other weaknesses in his articles (see EEng's summary above for a longer list), but I agree it would be a good start. He appears to have no interest in doing so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, if multiple people are concerned with his work he should be willing to improve it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but after his repeated walls of text and continual refusal to get the point, I'm fresh out of AGF to give. WP:PACT is relevant here; we cannot just endlessly chant "ASSUME GOOD FAITH! ASSUME GOOD FAITH!" and treat it as a get out of jail free card for misconduct. AGF doesn't resolve one of all responsibility to follow policy and guidelines, and even good-faith editors can be and are blocked for disruption just the same. There hasn't been the slightest hint of regret or apology for his personal attacks and ABF aspersions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My method of developing an article

This is my method I used to write up an article. My intention from the beginning was to make a Did You Know article. I started by determining a Did You Know fact. I then would start the potential article in a Sandbox Draft. User:Phoebe in her book How Wikipedia Works recommends that an editor write up an article first in a sandbox draft. That is what I have been doing, however I have used an alternate account of User Douglas Coldwell to do all my sandbox drafts. There 16 years ago I made 200 sandboxes and use that account only for drafts, not for any editing. I use my main account of User Doug Coldwell for all my editing. After starting the draft I would then make a inquiry at the Library of Congress about what I was writing about. In about 4 or 5 days they would give me an answer and a set of books for further information on the subject. I would order these books through the Michigan ILL system called Michigan eLibrary. I would start receiving some of these books after about 10 days. This is a sample of the books I have ordered through MeL for research books. Using these reference books I would research and develop out the complete Did You Know article. This would take weeks, sometimes months. In the process I would set aside 3 sources that would be references for the hook at Did You Know. Eventually I would be all done with the Did You Know article in draft. I then would copy the text from my written up draft DYK article and place that text into a text file. Then I would log out of my alternate account and log into my main account. I would then link in an article the name of the article I would want my Did You Know article to be. That made a red link. Into that red link I would put the text file of the draft article I wrote up in my alternate account and use as the edit summary New Article. This would be when I officially created the article. The new article would be typically 5,000 to 10,000 characters. My next step then was to nominate it for Did You Know and use as the source for the hook 1 to 3 sources I had set aside during my development of the article in draft. When the reviewer came by then it was usually approved immediately. Soon it became a Did You Know on the Main Page. In the case of Benjamin Loxley from the time I officially created the article as a new article to the time it hit the Main Page as an official Did You Know it was 47 hours. Because of my intention to make my new article a Did You Know article from the start it has turned out that 97% of all the articles I created became official Did You Knows. = over 500.

Since I was familiar with the article because I had done the research on it in the first place for a Did You Know article then years later I decided to turn a particular article into a Good Article. I then reordered thru ILL these reference books I used the first time for the article. I then dropped into another sandbox draft of my alternate account the long time past Did You Know article to upgrade into a Good Article. After working it for weeks or months and developing it to meet the criteria for a Good Article I would take this new text of the upgraded article and put into a text file. I then logged out of my alternate account and logged into my main account. I would then take this upgraded article text file to replace the existing article and use as an edit summary CE. Then I would nominate that upgraded article for Good Article. Eventually a reviewer would come by and I would resolve whatever issues were brought up. It would then get promoted to Good Article. In this complete process there would have been at least 3 reviewers - 1) initial Did You Know reviewer, 2) reviewer that promoted it to be presented on the Main Page, 3) Good Article reviewer. Of the original 500 Did You Knows I created, I upgraded about half of those to Good Article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think many people are interested in how you write the articles Doug (as honourable as your research is), they're more interested in the content you produce. You've shown over the years that you are passionate about the project and prolific, but if there are multiple experienced editors finding issues, even if other editors have promoted them to GA, I think you should try to iron out what they have a problem with. I would have directly answered in short bullet points what I would be willing to do to sort this out if unblocked or why I disagree and show that you respect the views of others, even if you completely disagree. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doug, posting a smaller wall of text is not going to help you. You seem totally incapable of acknowledging that you have repeatedly introduced copyright violations, misinterpreted sources, added irrelevant or incorrect information to articles, and generally been indifferent to the actual quality of what you write and nominate for GA. Again; if you keep stonewalling on the actual problems with your editing and never address them at all, your chances of being unblocked are slim. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I respect the view of others as when any issues were brought up in the Did You Know review processes and the Good Article review process I resolved the issues. If there are additional issues since brought up by editors on a particular article I created I will be glad to resolve those issues also - as long as I know what those issues are. They didn't show up in the reviews I already had, so I didn't know they existed. Yes, if there are additional issues that several editors think should be resolved on a particular article, I certainly can work on those. I request that not only my main account be unblocked, but also my alternate account so I can work on the issues in a sandbox draft. Likely I will order ILL books to resolve the additional issues and they take 10 to 14 days to get again. Most of the material I got for writing up my articles originally I got from reference books from universities. The state of Michigan has many universities and from their huge libraries I got the ILL books in the first place to write up the article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Here are the sandboxes I have used of articles I have been upgrading the last couple of years. They all have become Good Articles. Yes. I would be willing to improve Henry L. Haskell further as Dr Blofeld suggested. That I can do if my account and alternate account is unblocked. I would put the article in a sandbox and then work on upgrading over a period of time. I would order ILL books, that would take 10 to 14 days to get, that pertain to him and could make those improvement off material from these books I would get from colleges and universities.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doug, once again, you have made no acknowledgment of the multiple issues with copyright violations that have been discovered in your work. No one is interested in the number of good articles you have created as it does not pertain to this issue. I would assume that you would need to address the WP:COPYVIO before your accounts could even be considered for reinstatement. You seem entirely unwilling or unable to do this. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:D904:1910:62ED:FDD7 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Most of the material for my articles have come from reference books like these so I am not sure what copyright violations you are taking about. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]