Archives

The article Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson 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 Kwkintegrator -- Kwkintegrator (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwkintegrator: Thank you for taking the time to conduct this good article review, for providing useful guidance for getting the article fully up-to-snuff, and for providing me the opportunity/time to make needed adjustments to the article. This is greatly appreciated. SecretName101 (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: You had failed to notify me of the closure of my earlier topic ban appeal, which would have been appreciated. But I, in genuine gratitude, thank for having closed it, nonetheless. While it was not the closure I had wished for, obviously, I still appreciate that you took it upon yourself to resolve a discussion that stayed un-closed for far too long after new contributions had ceased. I had seen requests for a closure go unanswered for a long while, so I genuinely appreciate that you took care of the unresolved task.

This is not a challenge to the result, but rather a request for more clarity from contributors that might be able to help.

(The appeal has been archived here)

In verdicts/discussion, I had been told by several that I did not seem to fully grasp the reasons for the ban. In particular by @Begoon:, @Yngvadottir:, @Guerillero:

In their verdicts, neither Begoon nor Guerillero actually specified what they felt I had failed to grasp or acknowledge. I feel it is unfair and hampers my ability to reflect and grow if I am not actually given any direction as to what I am perhaps failing to grasp. So if they could lay out what specifically I failed to acknowledge about the reasons for the ban, that would be useful for me.

Yngvadottir at least provided me a description of what they felt that I had not acknowledged. However, these were things I indeed HAD acknowledged, so I am a little bewildered by that. They charged me with failing to notice, “the at best marginal notability of the subject, coupled with the wholly inappropriate emphasis in how it was written”, contrary to the fact that I had explicitly acknowledged both of these things already. I had acknowledged that it very problematically placed a wholly extreme emphasis on several unflattering details of the subject’s life. At the time I published the article, I had I thought that the subject perhaps fell on the side of relatively-marginal-but-notable-enough, but I have never professed that he had strong enough notability that there weren’t grounds to dispute notability (in fact, I believe that I had throughout much of this process expressed that I have seen a strong case for him lacking enough notability, often using direct derivatives of the term “marginal” in my wording). It is bewildering to me how I can explicitly acknowledge something multiple times, and be yet be charged/faulted with failing to have done so.

Any assistance by providing more clarity on what y’all would like me to better reflect on would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

SecretName101 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how helpful this is going to be, since one of the things that emerged in the appeal is that you hadn't kept your topic ban in mind and seemed unwilling or unable to recognize that it was just what it said, "broadly construed". So it wasn't just your understanding of the reason for the restriction. But ok. Looking back at the appeal discussion, take a look at this diff, from 17:09 on April 4. You say there, I think that the article indeed was poorly-considered. It painted too negative a picture on a figure that do I believe is notable, but I also believe threads the line between sufficient and insufficient notability for this project. (I'm assuming you intended to type "I do" rather than "do I".) This contrasts with what you said immediately above, at 17:04: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. The earlier statement says you now recognize his notability was marginal, but you thought at the time his notability was above the threshold; 5 minutes later, you are saying with emphasis that you believe him to be notable (present tense), even though his notability is marginal "for this project". This is a contradictory pair of answers to Begoon's questions, What did you do that led to the ban? and How would you handle the same situation now? You were asked to respond to both in detail, and it's apparent that you tried to do so, but the later response makes it clear that you are still defending your decision to write an article on the guy, and not grasping that we are talking about Wikipedia notability, not some kind of abstract notability or notability on another publishing platform, so marginally notable on Wikipedia ("threading the line") is marginally notable. You walked back a better response to make some point about how you still think he's notable ... with some distinction between Wikipedia notability and notability ... and that indicates, to me at least, that your judgement on BLP is not fully trustworthy.

You have to manage your own adherence to both your topic ban and our wider rules and guidelines. I can't speak for Begoon, but what I saw was them patiently asking you questions to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of what you did that led to the topic ban, and of your having followed the ban, so that it can be lifted. It was your job to show these things in your answers, and although yes, you clearly tried, I wasn't impressed by the argument about the word "concerning". If you put the first synonym of "concern" that you quoted from the dictionary, “be about”, into the wording of your topic ban, you would have "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that are about living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed", which is exactly right; the wording you have not been observing carefully enough is broadly construed. There's a link on the term in the topic ban notice. It's the opposite of what you said at AN in explaining why you'd made several edits that mentioned living people, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. (Quite apart from the fact I disagree; "concern" does not only refer to "is the main topic".) I've said before, I recognize that being topic banned from living people is very hard for you, since what you like to write about is people who have been elected to offices, and you like to use a lot of newspapers and other sources that often relate such people's careers to other people's, including living people's. But to get it lifted, you have to demonstrate understanding and that includes understanding how to adhere to the topic ban. Otherwise, you are, again, showing that your judgement can't be trusted. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: As I went over before, people don't get bans put in place on this project for disagreements about the notability of potential subjects. Deletion discussions are there for a reason, to determine a communal consensus on notability. Notability on wikipedia requires consensus, and it is okay in forming that consensus for users to have differing viewpoints. I have always acknowledged that there are grounds to argue that the individual fell below the notability, but I also have said that there is a possibility he falls ever-so-slightly on the notable side. And I honor that the community reached a consensus that they do not feel he is notable enough, so it is a dead issue regardless.

That is not a crime for which a user requires a topic ban. Is it? SecretName101 (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I feel that I have been far more cautious in broadly construing the ban these last few months. SecretName101 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your response. I appreciate you not ignoring my request for input. This is helpful to be able to unpack and better understand what was said in my last appeal. SecretName101 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was never just 'notability'. The underlying issue was that you used the facilities provided by Wikipedia to create a grossly inappropriate attack page on a living person. Even if said individua had met Wikipedia notability guidelines, the article would still have been a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: I agree, that notability was not the sole factor. But as I have said before, the intent was never to attack the subject. I made a massive error in judgement in taking an article out of the draft space that painted an incomplete picture of a subject due to limitation in sources I had access to on them. I should have recognized the limitation of available online sources as a further sign that the figure was of negligible notability, and not published the article unless I ever had better balance and a more complete picture. It was very poor judgement on my part, that I own up to and have learned from. I also thank you for engaging and helping me unpack this. Even if we may have had unpleasant interactions in the past, I hope this will be civil between us. SecretName101 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the more notable topic, though, was the nightclub/bar he owned. That would have been the wiser thing for me to have written an article on. But I’d avoid ever writing an article on that now, because it feels inadvisable and like it would be definitely frowned upon for me to be the one to create such an article after the previous related article. SecretName101 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the accusation by Yngvadottir of a contradictory claim. Perhaps we understand the word marginal differently and that is the crux of why you thought there was contradiction. SecretName101 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Presidential transition of Abraham Lincoln

added a link pointing to Hometown

Presidential transition of Dwight D. Eisenhower

added a link pointing to Lame duck

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on United States House Select Commitee to Investigate in Regard to Alleged Improper Influences on the Impeachment Trial requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Daiyusha (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Impeachment investigation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created, Indian commissioner, appears to be a straight cut and paste copy of Board of Indian Commissioners. I’ve redirected the title back there for now. What are you trying to do? Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Not sure what happened there. I was certainly trying to make a redirect. I think I accidentally copy and pasted the wrong edit window there. I think I thought I had copied from the edit window of Indian Commissioner (a redirect to the article), but accidentally was redirected to the article and instead copied its edit window instead which I unwittingly copied and pasted. SecretName101 (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok no worries we all fumble especially when we’re working late. Glad a redirect is what you intended. All the best Mccapra (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. Thank you for creating 1833 Treaty of Chicago. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Amendments to the Illinois Constitution of 1970, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Home Rule Doctrine (Illinois), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bill of Rights (Illinois Constitution of 1970), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition of Timeline of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, as it appears that you never actually made a nomination page. Please click in the link in the talk page template you added to fill out a nomination statement, and then it can be re-added. --PresN 01:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrew Gregg Curtin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassius Marcellus Clay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. I greatly admire you. Wishing you the best. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 20:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mycranthebigman: Thank you so much! SecretName101 (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Amendments to the Illinois Constitution of 1970".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Home Rule Doctrine".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bill of Rights".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have noticed that you have contributed heavily to the Mayoral election results for Worcester, MA, but I see nothing for the whole city council. I was wondering if you would be able or willing to include the election results of the city council races on Wikipedia as well.

I would be happy to help! 109.42.243.230 (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made an account just for the correspondence here. DasKleinesPäckchen (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. Thank you for your work on Articles of impeachment adopted against Andrew Johnson. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Louis Brandeis Supreme Court nomination 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 Duonaut -- Duonaut (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John F. Collins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Greene.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Louis Brandeis Supreme Court nomination 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:Louis Brandeis Supreme Court nomination for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Duonaut -- Duonaut (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lighthouse Place Premium Outlets, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Template:Infobox SCOTUS nomination has duplicate "header12"s. Davemck (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SecretName101 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My topic ban was lifted per a consensus at the Administrators Noticeboard SecretName101 (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SecretName101. I have just closed your BLP TBAN appeal as successful (AN permalink) and made a note at the arbitration enforcement log (diff). You are no longer topic banned from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons. Please be careful with any BLP-related edits going forward, and congrats on a successful appeal. DanCherek (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of confirmation votes for the Supreme Court of the United States 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/List of confirmation votes for the Supreme Court of the United States 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.

Drdpw (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chicago Union Station ridership, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michelle Wu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earmark.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your passionate work on elections, especially in covering the 2022 midterms. I've really enjoyed seeing you around the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: Thank you so much SecretName101 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chicago Union Station ridership 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/Chicago Union Station ridership 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.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please use ((copied)) template when spinning off content from articles as per the recent edits on Hillary Clinton articles. Also please seek consensus to split first, otherwise it will likely be merged back. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be stuck on the reasons the link is not allowed when we are way passed that, I understand the reasons now..  Again I am not a Wikipedia expert and asked politely FIRST and was flat out ignored, on purpose.. ohnoitsjamie even saying afterwards "I'm not owed a response" (is that a nice thing to say?) and full retaliation by unnecessary blacklisting. Also, This is not the first time this admin has been a bad actor: https://ohnoitsjamiewikipediascammer.wordpress.com/ 24.189.112.39 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Defeedme @24.189.112.39 Using an IP to post on Wikipedia in a manner that your account has been blocked from posting is sockpuppetry. I recall you've been warned before not to sockpuppet with IPs. Sockpuppeting is a grounds to be outright banned from Wikpedia. Do not do this.

Persistent spamming seems like a reasonable grounds to blacklist a website that has no encyclopedic value to this project.

They've been very curt with you, yes. I don't love that they have been. But you are being eggregioius in your conduct here as well.

And I am not going to address a Wordpress post from 2008 that provides no evidentiary basis for its claim.

I would refrain from fussing about that website. It only seems to land you in trouble. If you are here to contribute in general and not solely to promote your website, my advice is to let this issue die. It seems like a losing battle.

Do not respond until your account is permitted to. Doing so with an IP address or a different account is sockpuppeting and will likely result in more consequences. SecretName101 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "fussing"- I'm giving the FACTS, since You decided to chime in about it.. "They" have been more than CURT with me, "they" have retaliated for no reason. There has been no "persistent" spamming, I stopped when admins explained. THEN I asked politely if it could be added to the bottom (based on the long rich history since 1996 and my limited knowledge of wikipedia) and was completely ignored - is that hard to understand.. I'm not owed a response? Is that nice?

In your last sentence - Are you threatening me? At this point I'm convinced almost everyone here is a bully (especially the admins). 2601:589:4100:1C77:990B:6DF2:5B87:7209 (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Defeedme @2601:589:4100:1C77:990B:6DF2:5B87:7209 I warned you not to comment like this because doing so is prohibited as it is sockpuppeting. I was telling you what is in your best interest if you genuinely would like to avoid being outright banned from Wikipedia. Sockpuppeting is subject to sanction, blocking, and banning. It was incredibly unwise for you to have disregarded my advice. It'll most certainly hurt your cause, and that is unfortunate for you. Yes, the rules and conventions of Wikipedia are frustrating to navigate, and I have been relatively sympathetic to you in recognition of that. But you have repeatedly dug yourself into unneeded holes and ignored warnings and advice that you have been given. This is like the bicycle fall meme at this point [1] , you are repeatedly sabotaging your own cause and then getting upset when things don't go in your favor. I fear that an admin will probably be very tough on you because of this continued sockpuppeting. SecretName101 (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SecretName101; I've removed the post-block discussion on the Defeedme talk page, as it was pointless and a misuse of a talk page while blocked. I'd also recommend WP:DENY here (though you are free to keep whatever you want on your talk page). Any future contact you can just report to WP:AIV or ping me if it looks like I'm active. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can an experienced non-involved user help us determine whether it is appropriate to refactor a long conversation chain at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Establishing a guideline outline preferred dimensions (aspect ratio) for images in the inboxes for biographies and elections. I beelive it is appropriate to refactor it by either collapsing a portion as expanded content or resectioning it because it hurts readilbity and is a distraction among other reasons.

I fear at this point that the lengthly thread might have been a successful implementation of a deliberate tactic by another user: antagonize and steer a conversation to great length so that it'll discourage others from contributing to the discussion in order to sabotage the chances of a proposal they dislike getting any consensus. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already been refactored, so this question seems to be moot. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper Yes. It has been given attention since the request was made here. Thank you, however. SecretName101 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I recently left a message on talk:efforts to impeach Joe Biden#Article's protection in the hope that someone could notice it. Please check.197.240.155.207 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed your submission Draft:Jacob Loeb and noticed your use of restricted access newspapers.com sources. Did you know if you clip the article that is then open access? I just mention as I didn't know the first few articles I used it on. Open access sources are not required here, but it's not just nicer to the readers but also more likely to get a quicker AfC review if sources can actually be checked as I don't know how many other viewers have access. I clipped and replaced the obituary as an example and just thought I'd mention in case you didn't know. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2022 Wisconsin Treasurer elections and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#2022 Wisconsin Treasurer elections until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm currently trying to bring List of first ladies of the United States to Good Topic status. I understand that you're a major contributor to Betty Ford and you've already brought it close to Good Article status. I was wondering if you had any interest in nominating it as a Good Article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien I definitely do. It's already on my "to do" list for articles to nominate in the future. I have a few articles currently awaiting assessment at the moment, but Betty Ford hovering around the top of the articles I intend put nominate once those are assessed. I limit the number that I list for nomination at a given time, as (in the past) I once had too many articles all begin separate assessments at the same time, and that proved too much for me to handle. SecretName101 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! In that case I'll focus on some of the other ones. I have not yet learned that lesson, so I'm trying to nominate a bunch of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Mayoral elections in Waterbury, Connecticut indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. Thank you for your work on List of impeachment resolutions introduced against Donald Trump. User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Great article. I never knew there was that many.

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

scope_creepTalk 17:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - the practice of removing all mentions of Johnson's arrest and domestic assault allegations goes back to at least October 2020, to an account called DaddySaurus, months before I noticed it. It's likely the same person, popping up every few weeks, attempting some variation of that removal every time. Pure speculation next: wouldn't surprise me if it were Chad Johnson himself, based on some of the attacks on my talk page from back in 2021. I should probably start reporting the IP addresses as socks of the DaddySaurus account, but I didn't have Twinkle yet when that situation happened. Makes it much easier now. Anyway, I wanted to provide some context as to why that's been on my watchlist. Wes sideman (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - wes sideman now has multiple UNRELATED socks with similar complaints. Twinkle Twinkle little star how I wonder what you are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inexpiable&diff=prev&oldid=1088585622#Your_reverts 64.29.139.52 (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lori Lightfoot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Quigley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. Thank you for your work on Federal impeachment trial in the United States. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House impeachment managers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

SecretName101,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SecretName101, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of January 8, 2023 riot at the Three Towers Plaza, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mississippi state consititutional officer elections has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Louis Brandeis Supreme Court nomination you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Louis Brandeis Supreme Court nomination for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Duonaut -- Duonaut (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Illinois Constitution of 1970, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shawn Teller -- Shawn Teller (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend for comments about the article, and Talk:Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shawn Teller -- Shawn Teller (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mike Schmuhl 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/Mike Schmuhl 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.

Bedivere (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	Thank you for your continuous and ever-present work on municipal politics. I wish my municipal articles could be as good as your articles. Jon698 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698 Thank you so much SecretName101 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed you had previously edited the Brandon Johnson page and were a seasoned Wikipedian. I noticed some uncited & tendentious information on the page earlier today, and attempted to fix the problem by adding sources & language to balance, while preserving the substantive content. I thought I'd ask for some feedback on some recent edits I made, and if you think there's anything I ought to have done differently about the page/the dispute. All best 25Means (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1899 Chicago mayoral election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graeme Stewart.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Locations of major party United States presidential nominating conventions, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Impeachment of Andrew Johnson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Impeachment of Andrew Johnson you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Impeachment of Andrew Johnson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kam Buckner. Not welcome at da SD (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Not welcome at da SD Is this an error? I added sourced electoral history to an incomplete electoral history section. Clearly not an act of vandalizing. SecretName101 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you aware that your recently created series of Cook County Sheriff election articles (such as 2022 Cook County Sheriff election), appear to need to be converted to proper WP:REDIRECTS?

To do this, replace the contents of the pages with #REDIRECT [[XXXX Cook County Sheriff election]]. Thanks,  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 22:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CityUrbanismWas trying to create redirects. I was already in the process of fixing the error when you commented here. Accidentally created without realizing the code was missing #redirect

Quick noticing though SecretName101 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @SecretName101. They look like they will be legitimate redirects, but without being proper redirects, it's likely the articles would have been tagged with WP:CSD.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 22:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SecretName101, a recent GAN of yours, Proposed South Shore Line station in South Bend, was reviewed by a sockpuppet, likely using ChatGPT. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is not good at this job, and these reviews have been removed. Your nomination has been returned to the GAN queue at the original nomination date. No action is needed on your end, aside from the usual GAN process! Apologies for any inconvenience. Best, CMD (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis yeah, I was confused how a review could be done so quickly. Usually reviewers take far more time. didn’t realize people used ChatGPT for that, nor for what endgoal SecretName101 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Trude Building, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1993 Boston mayoral election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 1832 Boston mayoral election. Chandler Greenholt (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chandler Greenholt Is this an error. I created a new article, no vandalism occurred? SecretName101 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Allerton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Adler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2023 New York City parking garage collapse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the 2023 New York City parking garage collapse, a robotic dog named Digidog was deployed by the New York City Fire Department? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2023 New York City parking garage collapse. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2023 New York City parking garage collapse), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101, the nominator has responded to your review. Please stop by your review page as soon as possible to reply. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy 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:Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy and Talk:Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayoral elections in Springfield, Massachusetts has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Anna Paulina Luna

added a link pointing to Christopher Wray

Barry Moore (Alabama politician)

added a link pointing to Christopher Wray

Cory Mills

added a link pointing to Christopher Wray

Diana Harshbarger

added a link pointing to Christopher Wray

Greg Steube

added a link pointing to Christopher Wray

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I don't want to start an editing war so I wanted to ask you a few things about Kim Janey's infobox. First, you mentioned a consensus. I couldn't find it in the talk page, so do you mind linking me to it? Next, I believe you about the charter that mentions different offices, however, unlike what you said, acting mayors actually usually do have different jobs in most strong mayor-council cities (example: SF, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc.). Do you mind quoting from the charter where it specifically says they are different offices?

Thank you so much!

WezouskyMike (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WezouskyMike there’s some consensus in the edit summaries of the edit history from during her acting mayoralty SecretName101 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the charter outlines a separate title of “acting mayor” and separate scope of power for those serving as mayor in the absence of a mayor. SecretName101 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would just also encourage deference to how local media interpreted acting mayor as being distinct from mayor as a title.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2021/01/22/boston-acting-mayor/?amp=1

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/25/metro/boston-could-soon-have-an-acting-mayor-what-will-that-mean/

The local press generally referred to Janey as “acting mayor”, something that is rare from in most cities. SecretName101 (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy for comments about the article, and Talk:Presidential transition of John F. Kennedy/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump 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/Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump 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.

HouseBlaster^talk 22:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Boston City Council tenure of Ayanna Pressley

added a link pointing to Felix Arroyo

Marty Walsh

added a link pointing to Sober

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed article on Amara Enyia. Keep up the good work!

Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1828 Boston mayoral election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrison Gray Otis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101,

You can't create a category redirect like you would create an article redirect. There is a different code that is used. Please look over the content on Category:Bok family of Boston so you know what is done in case you need to create a category redirect in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Proposed South Shore Line station in South Bend you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Proposed South Shore Line station in South Bend 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:Proposed South Shore Line station in South Bend and Talk:Proposed South Shore Line station in South Bend/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Proposed South Shore Line station in South Bend you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Proposed South Shore Line station in South Bend for comments about the article, and Talk:Proposed South Shore Line station in South Bend/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:District attorneys in North Dakota has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell brothers (criminal duo), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

LittlePuppers (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really notice any NPOV issues; if anything, you were very (almost overly) cautious with the "regarded as possibly aspiring to..." and whatnot. (Also a lot of passive voice, but I don't mind that.) Regarding NPOV: I mean... they're criminals. You wrote what they did, without saying "they were terrible horrible people and I really don't like them" - neutral doesn't necessarily mean positive, but I'm sure you know that.

I did tweak working in a few places, mostly typos and things that weren't immediately clear to me; nothing major, but feel free to revert any of those changes if you disagree. I also left a few comments in edit summaries. A few other questions that aren't a big deal but I think would add a bit to the article:

• The timeline of when Alvin and his wife had their children isn't particularly clear; was it before or after his 1970-1982 sentence (and do you have anything on when he got out on parole, other than "by 1982"?)
• Do you have rough years for when it would have been Alvin died?
• M-1 links to a disambiguation page

Overall those are just really minor nitpicks, I don't see any major shortcomings with the article as-is. LittlePuppers (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LittlePuppers Alvin's daughter Andrea graduated college at Princeton in the class of 2004. Since a source I found indicated that he died when she was in college, that seems to mean that he died sometime between 2000 and 2004. So a search for any obituaries or death notices would probably be focused on that timeframe. SecretName101 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph P. Hannon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, could you add what the "P." in his middle name is? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kim Janey you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kim Janey 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:Kim Janey and Talk:Kim Janey/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SCSA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to put together something of a team to improve the article for the 1924 US Presidential election; I worked on this article in the long past, but I have extreme difficulty in summarizing information in a manner which would be proper for Wikipedia. If you take a look at the article you would be able to see that in many of the places I made entries I had taken the words from my sources more or less verbatim. What I'm trying to do now is put something of a team together to finally tackle the article and make it presentable, and for that I primarily need writers. In the past I would inquire at the Wikiprojecct that I'm part of, but much of the membership is now inactive, and I'm at a loss as to who actually works on the articles extensively these days. Whether your interested or not in helping, please let me know. By extension, do you happen to know anyone else who might be? Ariostos (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Frank M. Clark (businessman), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Christy Mihos, 2006 (3x4).jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Looks like a campaign image. Questionable licencing by uploader. EXIF metadata suggests this was pulled from Picasa.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped a previous upload, I will note that I am not the “uploadeder” who license laundered if there is such a concern. SecretName101 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. Thank you for your work on Impeachment in Wisconsin. User:Tails Wx, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work on the article!

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

Tails Wx 02:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Trude Building, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. Thank you for your work on 1998 Cook County Board of Commissioners election. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jim Gilmore has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. Thank you for your work on American Medical Liberty League. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused about the whole situation on the talk page. From my current perspective, you replied to my message with some caps, then mocked me for being confused about your message, before denying that you even replied to me. Is the indentation showing something different on your end? (I have GardenCosmos' at three indents, myself at four, and yourself at five in that thread.) I am a bit peeved about the situation, but if it is a bug on your end then I can at least understand the confusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V I apologize that that came across as being rude towards you.

The context should have given you an idea that the first reply was directed at Cosmos' comment that preceded your's. Since what I said didn't address what you had said, but directly corresponded to what Cosmos had said. And caps were only used to highlight a key term. SecretName101 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for apologizing. Unfortunately, no I could not tell by the context that you were directing it to Cosmos' as my mind doesn't work that way, sadly. (I do have struggles in discussions with multiple people in real life as a result.) Gotcha on the caps and sorry on my end as well. I also struggle with intent at times and misunderstood. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V Sorry with my assumptions that didn’t account for our world being full of neurodiversity and differences in thought patterns/thought processing SecretName101 (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kim Janey you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Kim Janey for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. Thank you for your work on 2028 Republican National Convention. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trude Building, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 18:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Army-Navy football game at Soldier's Field.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) 18:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Army-Navy football game at Soldier's Field.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) 18:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Events at Chicago Coliseum indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2023 elections in Israel indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SecretName101, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Illinois Constitution of 1970".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited James Kvaal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Duncan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Guido St. Laurent, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events in Illinois by venue has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 14:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Impeachment in Virginia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Impeachment in Rhode Island, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Impeachment in North Dakota, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Impeachment in the Northern Mariana Islands, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed all your hard work cleaning up Draft:Tiffany Henyard. Mayor Heyard is being widely reported in reliable sources, and all the WP:RSP issues seem to have been cleaned up. How do you move an article from draft to mainspace? Cheer. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions are the instructions for reviewers. this says you are a reviewer, so you should be able to do it. SecretName101 (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ready for prime time. I'll give it a try. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Impeachment in Pennsylvania, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecretName101. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Frank M. Clark".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Raymond Flynn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Raymond Flynn you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Raymond Flynn for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1996 United States Libertarian presidential primaries by state has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 15:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 15:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sophia King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bally's.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1996 United States Libertarian presidential primaries indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on biographies, but be aware that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Editing_images discourages the use of AI upscaling on historical photographs, as the process may introduce details which are not present in the original:

AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.

Editors colorising black and white photos is also generally discouraged, by the same guideline. Belbury (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 Garland mayoral special election 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/2018 Garland mayoral special election 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.

Nickps (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see concern raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Marty Walsh. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your ongoing levelheadedness at Tiffany Henyard. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You insist that others improve that mess of an article and then start reverting back any cuts that are made. The ice rink? For goodness sake, there's no allegations of illegality here, it's a municipal pissing contest. It isn't due inclusion. Please go to article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 Things do not need to be illegal to be mentioned on Wikipedia articles. Especially since it is not in any way framed as being an act of even alleged criminality. A large line-item that has attracted scrutiny need not be illegal to be notable. SecretName101 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of municipal piffle. A power struggle in a tiny pond. It's not relevant to an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 Your edits are verging from cleanup into whitewashing. SecretName101 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they're really not. I suggest you also add WP:RGW to your reading list. I left in literally every mention of a lawsuit. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 I'd urge you re-read that yourself SecretName101 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, again, for the second and last time I will caution you to assume good faith - your commentary regarding Tiffany Henyard is getting very personal; I am focused on the article content and not you. I would appreciate the same courtesy. Furthermore I asked you to reduce the number of tags you used on me as I am tired of constant notifications regarding this one article. Your response was to immediately tag me.

I want to make this very clear. The article is on my watchlist. I will see your comments. You do not need to tag me. Please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 I am warning you that the rationale YOU STATED is a personal opinion, and editing with that as your basis is an act of bias. Assuming good faith does not mean to ignore when people outright declare their bias. SecretName101 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving you one last chance to A) comply with my repeated requests to stop over-tagging me and B) redact your claims that I am intentionally white-washing this article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you are intentionally white-washing. I said that it appears you are either making clear misjudgments (in good faith) or intentionally white-washing.

I never cast any doubt that the prior is the an equally or more likely explanation for your editing. SecretName101 (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you redact the white-washing claim you made here [2] and here [3]? Yes or no? Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment does not doubt that your actions may be without malintent. In fact, it presents misjudgment as a valid explanation for your edits.

the second comment also assigns no malintent to your edit, as it only states that the end-result of your editing verges on whitewashing territory. pointing out the end-result of your editing is not an accusation of mal-intent.

Neither asserts that you are acting with malintent. for what reason are you demanding that I retract those comments?

I am not accusing you of mal-intent in either comment. What is your issue with either; and what reasons would I be asked to retract those comments? SecretName101 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a no then? Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking what issue you find in those comments. What are they a violation of? SecretName101 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a violation of WP:AGF and a clear one. Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way.

where did I assert you were practicing bad faith? I already clarified to you that neither comment is written or made with an

assumption that you are in fact editing in bad faith.

Maybe re-read about AGF. You seem mistaken in your understanding of what it is and is not.

You actually appear to be violating the advice set out at WP:AGF

Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "assume good faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others.

As AGF makes clear, one can indeed call out incorrect conduct (such as edits whose end-result amounts to a whitewashing of content) without assuming that those actions must have been done with mal-intent. And AGF does not prohibit one from doing so. SecretName101 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your motivation: the end-result is a white-washing. SecretName101 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]