User talk:Reywas92

This is Reywas92's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
If I left a comment on your talk page, I am probably watching it; please respond there.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives

1 Apr. 13-Oct. 10, 2006
2 Oct. 25, 2006-Jan. 1, 2007
3 Jan. 1-Mar. 3, 2007
4 Mar. 5-May 12, 2007
5 May 16-Sept. 18, 2007
6 Sept. 15, 2007-Jan. 25, 2008
7 Jan. 25-Sept. 4, 2008
8 Sept. 9-Dec. 31, 2008
9 Dec. 28, 2008-Jun. 9, 2009
10 Jun. 10-Dec. 31, 2009
11 2010
12 2011-2013
13 2014-2019
Current

Durham

What does that source say for Packwood in Kern and Kasson in Inyo? Those are two I've been trying to figure out. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasson is under the entry for Tecopa. "Mines were discovered in the neighborhood in the 1860s and by 1877 most of the people in the mining district had settled at this original site of Tecopa, which was situated 5 miles southeast of Resting Springs and just north of Tecopa Pass. Present Tecopa was built later along Tonopah and Tidewater railroad... Postal authorities established...discontinued it...reestablished it at the new site...discontinued it...and reestablished it. Postal authorities established Kasson post office 12 miles northwest of the first site of Tecopa in 1879 and discontinued it the same year. The name "Kasson" recalls Amasa C. Kasson, a Milwaukee investor who was swindled by the promoters of a fake mining venture at the place." So not convinced it's was anything of substance.

Packwood [KERN]: locality, 11 miles south-southeast of Orchard Peak; the place is near the head of PAckwood Creek. Named on Packwood (1943) quadrangle. Called Packwood's on Arnold and Johnson's (1910) map." This is the referenced topo, it's one dude's remote homestead – speedy delete. Reywas92^Talk 03:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but I've got a few more in Kern. Conner, Ceneda, Crome, and Venola. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conner: locality, 4.5 miles east of Millux along Sunset Railroad. Named on Conner (1954) quadrangle. California Mining Bureau's (1917c) map shows a places called Progress located about 2 miles north-northeast of Conner along the railroad. Postal authorities established Progress post office 1913 and discontinued it in 1915.

Ceneda: locality, less than 1 mile southwest of Saltdale along Southern Pacific Railraod. Named on Cantil (1967) quadangle.

Crome: locality, 12 miles west-northwest of Firebaugh along ATSE Railroad. Named on Rosedale (1954) quadrangle.

Venola: locality, 2.25 miles north-northeast of Exeter along ATSE Railroad. Named on Exeter (1952) quadrangle. On Exeter (1926) quadrangle, the name applies to a place located 0.25 mile farther west at a crossroad.

Durham's sources are often just the topos, so if there's nothing on the topo then there's nothing else known here. Reywas92^Talk 06:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also sorry to bother you again, but I think this might be better than Carlos' other mass-produced articles - what does Durham say for Nadeau, Kern County? Page 1011 in the Word Dancer Press edition, if that's the one you have. Thanks in advance, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 03:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Under the entry for Cameron, Kern County, California: "Wheeler's (1875-1878) map shows a place called Nadeau located about 5 miles east of Cameron along the railroad." No indication that it was a (notable) community, just a name on the map that didn't end up on the USGS topos. Based on your sources, it appears to have been a mine, and the railroad siding was named after it, and if there was a mining camp set up it didn't last long. I'd go with delete, and welcome to the project! Reywas92^Talk 03:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I suspected as much, because no source I found gave any indication that there was ever a formal residential locale at Nadeau - just a mine, presumably a mining camp, and possibly a train stop. Vielen Dank, as the Germans say! Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 04:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Durham request: if you could tell me what he says about Wallace Center, California. The topos are really weird: they show a bunch of houses or something on both sides of the road; them, abruptly, everything on the east side of road just disappears. The aerials don't go back far enough, and I can't find anything at all in searches. Help me Obi-wan.... Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durham just cites the 1950 Taft topo as a locality. May the Force be with you. Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also with you. (Episcopalian joke there) Mangoe (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions

@Hog Farm:, @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI:, @Mangoe:, @TimothyBlue:, @Johnpacklambert:, @Dofftoubab: :Greetings all, if I have missed anyone please feel free to add them.

I have been involved in !voting delete in these many mass creations of gazetteer dictionary entries on a case-by-case level. There has been comments that the creator, an Admin, could help but there has apparently been no offer of help there and maybe no communication period.

I also notice that it is very time consuming to either prod or nominate and follow through. The one very noticeable thing is that there does not seem to be any controversy. With that in mind, I was wondering if there was another way to deal with these uncontroversial attempted deletions and solve another problem at the same time. These articles came from a list and mostly have two gazetteer type sources. The ones I have looked at are usually listed under the appropriate county article. Would it not be easier to transfer the sources to those county article listings and simply place a redirect where the article is now at? If someone objects then that would become obvious with a reverting but otherwise the dictionary listing would not take up article space and the name listed in the county article would have one or more sources. I have never done this but I would think it would be a faster solution than what is happening now. The actions would certainly be policy based since the ones I have crossed are part of a mass created indiscriminate listing that is even covered in the "Five pillars. I suppose an option would be to create a list somewhere that could be checked off when completed. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500, thanks for trying to find a better solution. I have no objection to BOLDLY creating redirects for this type of article and bypassing AfD and saving time and effort. Even if these were marginally notable, it doesn't mean they should have a stand alone article. Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 16:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some points in response to Otr500's suggestion

redirecting as suggested is the recommended process per WP:GEOLAND which states, "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it."
redirecting as suggested is efficient in both time and space. Deletion processes are comparatively inefficient because they tend to occupy more space and energy. Note that deletion does not actually cause any space to be recovered -- the pages are just flagged so that only admins can see them
all such such deletions are controversial in my view as the places are typically documented in at least two sources and so are valid place names which we should accommodate to satisfy Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer. The PROD process should therefore not be used.

So, I endorse Otr500's suggestion and thank them for their effort in making it and so hopefully saving us all lots of time.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Otr500! Yes, I fully support a bulk redirection (we also had a bulk deletion supported at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinsmores, California but it wasn't executed properly). There is already a List of places in California (split out by letter) that is an optimal redirect target that includes most all of these. I don't think the county articles are necessarily appropriate targets since few should be listed there in the first place, most of these being points on railroads or small neighborhoods that that would remain incorrect or undue. This would be easy to do with AWB with a list of pages; we can prepare one at Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force. As you saw many other states also have pages bulk-created from GNIS, Virginia likely being the most egregious. Reywas92^Talk 21:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks to all.

@ Timothy: I have just been considering easier ways to solve what appears to be a monumental problem. I do agree with you.

@Reywas92: I have never actually supported bulk deletions, because a baby might get thrown out with the bath water, but I weighed in with support on two after looking at all of them, plus the time it took to look at all the ones I did !vote "Delete". As far as the county issue: That would require consideration. One the one hand, a single primary source may acceptable for content, while not advancing notability at all, and at least unsourced content would then be sourced. On the other hand (in many instances), we would be sourcing "a GNIS coordinate only" as a "community" that would be supporting incorrect or undue additions.

@Andrew: While I am in full support of Wikipedia's roll as a gazetteer I think more is needed than two sources when one is likely, in whole or part, derived from the other, to advance notability. While it may be found that some of these were historical communities I don't see a net gain from dictionary entries or blatant errors as a result of not being able to fact check because there is no reliable sources. In these cases I think a redirect more harm than good as it has been established there are GNIS errors.

One thing is for sure, an editor has been using an "official" source to create some actually hoax (for lack of a better word) dictionary entries because we are self-considered a gazetteer. I suppose that is why we need reliable sources to back up primary ones and if that is not possible Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject.

I will agree with any plan that will rid Wikipedia of junk entries so just let me know what plan is being proposed or implemented. There should not be much controversy when a solution is multiple policy based and at least four editors agreeing there is a problem. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these do need deletion, not redirection, though. A few are just false entries. We shouldn't perpetuate the stuff deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluff, Kentucky or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Log, Kentucky as those even really failed WP:V. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But if all links to the page are removed, no one will come across it and nothing is perpetuated so it's effectively deleted. Your time is worth more than this. Reywas92^Talk 21:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point your attention to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 25#Algodon, California. It is unhelpful and misleading to redirect something somewhere that has no content on the subject, so all your redirections to List of places in California will need to be reverted, and then preferably prodded, as Hog Farm has done for Algodon. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in Texas v. Pennsylvania

I see you strongly felt that the list of participants shouldn't be in a subarticle. I agree, however we have an editor at Texas v. Pennsylvania who has, repeated, removed it from the article, the times just today. Would you take a peek and see if you can get it restored? Feoffer (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple AfDs

Hi Reywas92. Just dropping a quick note from a previous discussion:

Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations",

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Algodon, California

If it can't be an article, it shouldn't be in Template:Yuba County, California either, agree? Geschichte (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I was meaning to get around to updating the county template(s) as a batch. Thanks so much for your work cleaning up dab pages and such after deletion! Reywas92^Talk 06:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yia Yia Mary's

I've asked you questions on the Yia Yia Mary's AfD and Good article nomination pages, and I'd appreciate responses. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Memorials

Regarding the Fallen Journalists Memorial, I can cite more than three dozen sources saying that it is a "national memorial" and therefore should belong in the future memorial section. The authorizing legislation for the Fallen Journalists Memorial is also the same as that of other national memorials. The National Park Service will also be responsible for maintaining the memorial with the use of funds provided by the Fallen Journalists Memorial Foundation, which is the procedure for national memorials.

According to the Congressional Research Service, some congressionally designated memorials (e.g., the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.) do not include the word "national" in the title, even though they may have national commemorative significance. The National Park Service, which administers many congressionally established memorials as units of the National Park System, categorizes such units as "national memorials" whether or not the word "national" is present in the title. Because the NPS will be administering the Fallen Journalists Memorial, it will become a unit of the NPS, just as the Adams Memorial, the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial, and others will be once they are completed.

Mediaexpert3 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaexpert3 (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be an official government source or else the list will be flooded with self-appellations like this and would inherently incomplete. Again, Congress has given permission to many organizations to place a memorial under the Commemorative Works Act, but they are not all legally national memorials and therefore not listed in the article. Those currently in this section have had Congress include this terminology. Reywas92^Talk 06:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Adams Memorial is a national memorial and Congress does not use the term "national memorial" in the authorizing legislation. The National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial is a national memorial and Congress does not use the term "national memorial" in the authorizing legislation other than in the name of the memorial.

Mediaexpert3 (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the World War II Memorial does not include the word "national" at all in its authorizing legislation. However, it is a national memorial because it is deemed historically significant and because the National Park Service administers the memorial. My understanding is that while you are right that there are probably many memorials approved nationally every year and most are not considered "national memorials," none of the other future national memorials on the list currently include anything different in their authorizing legislation than is included in the Fallen Journalists Memorial legislation.

Mediaexpert3 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The National Park Service considers the Adams, Global War on Terrorism, and Desert Storm/Desert Shield Memorials as "Authorized Units Not Yet Established". I'm not certain why these are expected to become new units without explicit mention in the legislation (I have sent an email to the NPS asking what the process here is; the Eisenhower and MLK memorials likewise had somewhat similar legislation), but if they include the Fallen Journalists Memorial there, I'd be happy to include it in the article. I'm not sure why these news sites repeat this phrase when not even the FJM Foundation uses it on their website. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021
I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind.
Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk

Mass prod of populated places in California

I notice you have done a mass prod of small communities in California because you feel they fail WP:GEOLAND (which essentially insists they be populated places). The first of these communities to appear in my watchlist was Waddington, California, and I must say it really had me scratching my head because the first thing I noticed when I looked at the article was a photo by User:Ellin Beltz showing houses (which people presumably live in). I looked at Google street view and it also showed houses in Waddington, some old and some new, which suggests people do live there.

As you can see from my comments at Talk:Waddington, California#Populated place, this certainly appears to be a populated place, so I'm wondering why you inferred this would be an "uncontroversial deletion" per WP:PROD? Did you take any reasonable step to search for reliable sources on all of these places you want to mass delete, per WP:BEFORE? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you read the second part of the prod statement, excellent! Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46:

You also proded Pecwan, California, which in two minutes of searching on Google appears to have been a Yurok village, see: [1][2][3]. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings: Pecwan, California was a Yurok village prior to the massacres at time of settlement by whites. Removing Native American content and heritage pages from en:Wiki is not a good look for anyone. Sincerely yours, Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol "Pecwan is a locality" is hardly Native American content. Actual substance related to the place (among many other villages) is more than welcome, but soft deletion of this page as it is, without mention, discussion, or even a link from any other article about the Yurok, is not removal of "heritage pages". Reywas92^Talk 00:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

I am writing regarding four proposed deletions you initiated:Bethel, California, Elliott Springs, California, Hoppins Springs, California, and Borax Springs, California. Within each of those proposed deletions was a personal attack against another editor, and I am requesting you strike through those parts of the PROD. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly reworded. It is factual that these articles are misrepresentation of their source; that is not a personal attack. It is in fact negligent and irresponsible to create hundreds of articles that do not accurately convey what the source states; that is not a personal attack to say adding false or misleading content is negligent and irresponsible. Reywas92^Talk 01:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge information from Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

Hi Reywas92, would you be able to merge most of the "Background" section of Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud into the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election page? I believe the "reactions" page should just focus on the reactions and not have a timeline of events. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed the other discussion as a non-participant and that was a simple cut-and-paste. Both articles are fairly long here so I'm not sure the best way combine these parts while limiting duplication but you're welcome to do so wherever you feel would be the best place for this. Reywas92^Talk 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 United States Capitol protests

Hi, please self-revert your edit here. Nobody is saying the events are only a demonstration, but we are using neutral terms to introduce sections with headings. The body of the article calls the events riots, so there is no need to edit war over neutral headings. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "nobody is saying the events are only a demonstration", then do not use a disingenous euphemism that does not accurately describe what happened in the header! It is a neutral term to report what actually happened with what pretty much every major reliable source is using! Or how about we use "extremists" "mob" or "insurrectionists"? "Demonstration". Absurd. That would be blatantly non-neutral to describe storming through officers, breaking in though windows, and defacing the hallowed halls of Congress as mere "entering". Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral terms as in encyclopaedic. "Demonstration" is not a euphemism. It was indeed a demonstration, as it was a riot, a protest, and a storming. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my "Support?"

Dear Reywas92, in this edit you removed my support of a rename. Please tell me why you did this? Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 07:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew nyr, Oh goodness, my apologies! This was unintentional and may have occurred as I switched between editing sections after I accidentally clicked the wrong one. I don't know why the rest of the paragraphs got switched up too, I just meant to add my own vote. Reywas92^Talk 07:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, Oh, I'm glad it was a mistake... in this day and age it is so hard to AGF, thanks for being honest! Thanks, Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 08:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, I need to apologize for the edit above, which inadvertently removed the header "Move survey: riots" and some votes. I do not know why this happened, but this may have obscured some votes for this name. I hope this didn't impact the closure, and thank you for doing that! Reywas92^Talk 08:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still have Durham ...

Can you look up what it says about Kasson, California? I'm really doubting that there was much of anything there, as my searches have only been able to turn up a July 1879 listing in a list of new post offices, and a November 1879 one in a list of closed offices. I have a suspicision this is another one of those where the source doesn't call it a community, but the article does. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, this is yet another lie. Under entry for Tecopa: "Postal authorities established Kasson post office 12 miles northwest of the first site of TEcopa in 1879 and discontinued it the same year. The name 'Kasson' recalls Amasa C. Kason, a Milwaukee investor who was swindled by the promoters of a fake mining venture at the place." Nothing about a settlement or "honoring" Kasson. Reywas92^Talk 04:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about three more, all in Kern County, and all starting with C. Only sourced to Durham, had very short-lived post offices, and quick newspapers.com searches don't bring up anything of significance. Clarkson, California, Craft, California, and Cuttens, California. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all three cases, they are passing mentions about the PO within the entry of the noted nearby place. No discussion of a settlement. I've been systematically prodding the articles like this, which don't show up in GNIS. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must remind you that doing a PROD should not be labelled as a minor edit. Mangoe (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch - Echo, Mendocino County, California (nothing significant turns up), Eightmile, California (two buildings on topos, appears to have been a stage station), Elevenmile, California (ditto as Eightmile), and Emory, California (no obvious signs of settlement, PROD candidate). Hog Farm _Bacon 04:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, mentioned within other entries with the same descriptions as in the articles: Elevenmile and Eightmile are called "a stage stop" and "a place", not settlements or communities. Echo is called "a place" and that another map has Echo ranch. Emory is also "a place". Reywas92^Talk 05:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but I got a kick out of the true explanation as to what Blue Hole, Kentucky really is. PRODded, of course. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Durham request: Silsbee, California If it was a town I have to think it was taken out in the Salton Sea creation but not getting much here. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says what the article says under the entry for El Centro, except "shows a place called Silsbee" and "overflow from Colorado River destroyed the place" was miscontrued to be "The town..." Reywas92^Talk 20:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, this one is a mess. I think this actually was a town, maybe; OTOH the Seeley, California article says it it was the same place as Silsbee, which I somewhat doubt. I may deprod this after looking into it more over the weekend. Mangoe (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com brings up results with both names on the same page. I've removed the prod and the unsourced statement. Reywas92^Talk 05:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another: Martendale, California. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1909 Harry J. Marten promoted a colony called Martendale that was located a short distance south of Cawelo and made up of 109 Mennonite and Adventist families." then the usual line about the post office. Perhaps notable though we don't know if the colony lasted any longer than the PO did. This is the sole newspapers result but I supposed that's expected for a Mennonite group... Reywas92^Talk 22:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it took a lot of searching but I've found the truth: "Despite his claims, Martens, it seems, had arranged to purchase 5,120 acres in California, and he ex-changed them for farmers’ acres in the Midwest. He brought these families in by train and ensured that they were well treated.43 It was the beginning of Martensdale. Martens’s scheme developed to such proportions that some of the Mennonites who moved to Martensdale began meetings—with Martens—to start a Bible college. A college board was formed; Martens donated land and pledged to meet any fiscal shortfall—up to three thousand dollars. The board set March 1, 1910, as their “no later” date by which to begin construction. However, before any construction began, Martensdale col-lapsed as the scheme became apparent. After they arrived, Martens gave the Mennonites maps to their land. By Christmas 1909, the newly arrived Mennonites learned they were living on someone else’s property. In many cases, Mennonites had built houses that now needed to be transferred onto wagons as they looked for new place to live. A victim of the scandal reported: “Our joy had turned to sorrow—we could not stay here. Every day the little homes were set on wagons and taken to Rosedale or Bakersfield by the owners . . . The land deal was unsatisfactory, so in June we moved the house with all its contents, including the family, to a lot not far from the present Beardsley School, in northern Bakersfield.”

So maybe it's a notable land scam? But it wasn't a real town. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semitropic, California seems to be a water district named after a school that's still there, but..... Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one has its own entry as a locality and but just mentions the post office and fruit company. Reywas92^Talk 03:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you could tell me what Durham says about Robles Del Rio, California, I'm trying to figure out whether this is a notable old subdivision or what. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"district, part of the town of Carmel Valley south of Carmel River....Robles del Rio post office in 1941 and changed the name to Carmel Valley in 1952. Frank Porter laid out the place in 1926." A typical carlos misrepresentation, was a PO name change, not transfer to a separate place. It is part of the CDP and sure looks like a mountain subdivision on the map, so I'd say merge. Reywas92^Talk 03:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harris's Missouri Battery (1862)

Should Harris's Missouri Battery (1862) redirect to 6th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)? — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 12:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of both the incorrectly punctuated Harris' Missouri Battery (1862) redirect and the 6th Mo. Infantry article, I can answer that it should. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio House of Representatives districts

I saw you merged a couple of the districts to the Ohio House of Representatives. Is their a reason why you did that? I didn't see the reason in the logs. Dillon251992 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They duplicated content in Ohio House of Representatives. There's no need for separate pages just to restate the county and an out-of-date representative. This was unsourced and provided no basis for why it should be a separate article. Restoration is certainly welcome if there's legitimate content like your Texas House of Representatives, District 65 but we shouldn't have articles merely for the sake of having articles. I'm a big fan of pages like List of Representatives and Senators of Arizona Legislature by Districts (2013–2023) that consolidate content. Reywas92^Talk 01:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see their was lack of references for some of the districts which I can add some reference if you can restore the ones you merged such as 52 58 80 82. While I can't make Ohio districts look like Texas House of Representatives, District 65. (That's only because Texas has a good library) I can try to improve the articles. Which is why I'm asking if you can restore them and I'll work on them. Dillon251992 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, you don't have to ask me to do this. You're more than welcome to improve these beyond what they were before as you like. I just don't like having substubs just for the sake of it – when there's a lot more content (not just sources) beyond a level that could reasonably be merged, that's great. Also good can be a general article like a List of Ohio legislative districts that covers location and statistics and whatnot. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured out how to fix it. That's why I asked you since I didn't know how to do it. I know it's Wikipedia, but I wanted to make sure I didn't mess up anything. Thank you for responding. Dillon251992 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Virginia ones

Apparently the editor who created all of those California ones was also active in adding questionable stubs to other states, as I ran across Milton Hills, Virginia, another questionable one of his. The normal articles created stats won't run for that user because they've made too many contributions. Do you know of another way to find all pages created by a single user besides the standard xtools one? I have a fear that the California ones may only be the tip of the iceberg from that user. Hog Farm _Talk 04:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, only by looking at the contributions page and filtering by mainspace and checking page creations only, and even with it showing 1,000 articles at a time it's hard to get through them since there's so many redirects! I do know that the vast majority of them were made by Ser Amantio di Nicolao in 2008 from GNIS (over 2,000), and the few carlos made there the next year aren't any more or less questionable. Best option would be to just treat any page with the just the GNIS and no added content the same and redirect those questionable. Reywas92^Talk 04:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been PRODding. For many, the GNIS entry is sourced to a subdivision-level map, and a quick newspapers.com check easily confirms it's just a subdivision. Anything with "Landing" in the title also appears to be generally false. Hog Farm _Talk 06:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to add another level to the mess caused by this mass creation, a lot of the ones listed in {{Richmond County, Virginia}} are actually suburbs of the city of Richmond and are a good deal away from the county itself I've found out. Yet more proof that not a whole lot of time went into creating those. Hog Farm _Talk 01:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions for Criollo (rabbit)] and Big Silver Marten

To respond to your messages to the deletion pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criollo_(rabbit), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_Silver_Marten):

The links for American Rabbit Breeders Association and British Rabbit Council were meant to go to their pages about the Criollo and Big Silver Martin rabbits. I'm not sure why it went to the homepage.

Your first message on my talk page:

The 1906 and 1930 dates came from the table on the side, labeled "Table 2", where it says the years the rabbit was created.

Your second message:

I labeled the source Czech White Rabbit because that was the sub-heading I got the information from, I can understand how that would be confusing. The cottontail was also probably brought from North America and was breeded to create a new type of the Czech White Rabbit.

I have also responded to your messages on my talk page. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galipeau Island

I created that wikipedia article when I was far less exepierenced on this site as an editor, so if it doesn't meet the criteria, I wouldn't mind you deleting the article at all. X-Editor (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you recommend?

Hello, Reywas92. I don't think we've interacted before this, but you seem to be more experienced in Redirects and such, and I'd appreciate your opinion on how to proceed.
I'm mostly and art and architecture guy, and was interested in Birdsboro station (Reading Railroad) because its design is attributed to my favorite 19th century architect, Frank Furness. The article was a mess a couple weeks ago, repeatedly conflating the Reading's Wilmington & Northern station with the Pennsylvania Railroad station. And in looking at old maps I found that there was another Reading station directly across the Schuylkill River from the town. THAT station was the one taken over by SEPTA in the 1960s.
Does it make sense to group all 3 under a different article title, something like Birdsboro, Pennsylvania railway stations? On the Commons, Category:Birdsboro station contains images of the 2 of the stations and the PRR freight house. And I don't know that any of the stations is notable, individually.
The article also has a half dozen Redirects, that I don't know how to deal with. What would you recommend?
Thank you. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a cute little station! I'd guess the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains might have suggestions for it, but I think what you have there looks quite nice and Birdsboro station would work as a title grouping them as sort of WP:SIA, noting the succession of related buildings together rather than split with some duplication. The redirects can be pointed to a section like Birdsboro station#Main Line station if necessary. Cheers, Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that all of them were American-standards notable, I would have three articles. The now-SEPTA station probably already has an article (because it's an active station) and I would put info on its predecessors there and hatnote it in the RDG station article. I can assist with this if you would like. Mangoe (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, guys. Grouping the 3 stations under a single Birdsboro station article, with a lede that differentiates them, also struck me as a good solution.

@Mangoe: The Reading Railroad Bridge at Birdsboro is still there, but I don't think the Main Line station north of the river is extant, at least it's not visible on Google Maps (unless it is UNDER the Route 345 viaduct). SEPTA replaced passenger rail service to Reading with busses in 1981, so if the station survives it only services freight.

I appreciate the help of both of you. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass PRODs

Hello, Reywas92,

While I admire your productivity, do you think you could pace yourself on PRODing articles? There are 101 PROD'd articles today, most, but not all, PROD'd by you, and each one needs to be individually checked by an admin, to see if it has been PROD'd or been to AFD before, to delete red links and article redirects and today, that admin is me. I'm used to 20-40 PRODs but 101 is quite a lot of work.

Maybe you could limit yourself to a dozen PRODs a day? By the way, you aren't the only editor who is going on a mass PRODding spree right now although you are all working with different subjects. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your administrative work! Yes, I have finished my first batch of California places so there shouldn't be many new ones for a bit once the current ones get to their 7 days. I've tried to space them out a little but I know with time zones too many may end up on a date at once. I've advocated for just redirecting them to preserve the history and save you admins some work, but others have undone that and pushed for full deletion since these aren't discussed elsewhere, so I will see about going back to that. To what extent do you have automated tools for the checks and unlinks? Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz - Just to back up Reywas here (and get ahead of any issues my own PRODing might cause), I guess we should explain that we're dealing with a massive issue caused primarily by an editor going on an article-creation spree back in 2009 creating articles for supposed California communities. Probably 9/10ths of the articles they created during that time rely on only two sources at most (GNIS and Durham). GNIS is known to be inaccurate, and Durham has proved in practically every case checked to have been misquoted by the article-creator. Because all these articles suffer from essentially the same issues the PRODs end up looking a bit repetitive.

We've tried to handle these in bulk in a group AFDs (there's thousands of them) but for various reasons these always get turned down even where there was a clear consensus to delete. Instead we're stuck taking them down one-by-one, either by PRODs or AFDs - it's not worth doing all the work to do a bulk AFD if it then gets turned down for bureaucratic reasons. FOARP (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States Electoral College

This edit caught my eye, and led me to this edit by you. I just thought I would mention it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You may wish to comment at WP:AN#Dealing with an Undproductive Moderator. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More Durham

Simmler, California: Gudde explains the name source but doesn't say what it is. Mangoe (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out this week but can let you know when I get back. If it's there it's likely just called a locality with reference to Gudde or the topo map, as consistent as this book is, but since this wasn't one of carlos's that cites Durham it might not even be there at all. Topo has the same structures still there today, which are certainly not a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 00:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kévin Parsemain

In my opinion, the table of goals scored should be removed because I created his page and also proposed it for the appointment of Good Article. I created this page because many other users have created the list of international goals of other players and many of them have even less than 25 goals in national teams. Dr Salvus (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Sergio Ramos. This is not remotely a Good Article. There is no reason whatsoever this info should be chopped off of the main article and put in a separate one. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the page List of international goals scored by Kévin Parsemain, not that about Sergio Ramos Dr Salvus (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that... The same reasoning applies. Do not split content to separate articles merely for the sake of making a separate article, especially if the main article does not pass the thresholds at WP:LENGTH. Reywas92^Talk 21:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving page for 1997 Cambodian coup

You are encouraged to join the discussion on moving the page 1997 armed clashes in Cambodia to 1997 Cambodian coup d'état. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baffling present for the future

a) Sorry if you find it baffling it is a baffling edit to some.

b) It was a baffling editors to others and I'm sorry if you didnt get it first time.

I prefer the latter because (b) will make sense in the future when at some point you may get what I'm on about ;)

Victuallers (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was baffling because you said she "was a nominee" and this is false. She is a nominee. You changed it from an accurate statement to an inaccurate statement that implies she is no longer a nominee and this description was in the past. We don't say "Joe Biden was president in 2021" either because he is presently president. When McReynolds is no longer a nominee, the article will be updated; there is lots of information on Wikipedia that could conceivably become out of date in the future and that generally isn't a problem. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, Reywas92. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Amber McReynolds

On 13 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amber McReynolds, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Amber McReynolds's advocacy for vote-by-mail supported US states' expansion of absentee balloting during the COVID-19 pandemic so millions of people could vote from home in the 2020 elections? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amber McReynolds. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Amber McReynolds), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your archiving of the trump whitehouse made things much worse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump#Incorrect_archive_changes AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eutropia

Hi, you thanked me the other day for prod-ing the article *Eutropia (sister of Constantine I)*, but it was later removed w/o explanation and I cannot add it back. Could you give a comment in the AfD discussion? Thank you for your time. Avilich (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially of interest

User:Hog Farm/C46. Carlos did not just mass-create in California, there is mass creations in other US states, at least one Mexican province, ancient Turkey, Iran, Armenia, and Sweden. Yikes. Hog Farm _Talk 05:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you were able to make a list without redirects?! Christ that's a lot... I know the Iranian places are the generally reliable since they're from census results (even as the census is in Farsi and many have <100 people) but I wonder how many of those 70k have gotten a single non-bot edit... The Azerbaijan ones are questionable since they give a population but the only source is GEOnet which doesn't verify that. Reywas92^Talk 06:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I take that back, the Iranian places are full of crap too! See User_talk:Carlossuarez46#Places_in_Iran. Chah-e Shomareh Yek Amalzadeh is one of 7,000+ that says "At the 2006 census, its existence was noted, but its population was not reported", which are mainly isolated farms, not villages. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the discovery of the Iranian problems is what led me to request this list being made at WP:VPT. So, essentially, I have no idea how it was made, since I got someone else to do it. Hog Farm _Talk 02:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll be seeing a lot more PRODs in the days to come. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I hope we can figure out a solution that doesn't put so much work on you! Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I have created User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported as part of that set, and linked to it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi. Reywas92^Talk 07:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hi Reywas92! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use inappropriate or abusive edit summaries. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Deb (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to make a request for unblocking so that you can contribute at ANI, please do so, but I recommend you don't use any further automated edit summaries of an abusive nature until that's resolved. Deb (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deb I'm not clear how the edit summary constituted a violation of the "harassment" policy? Can that be explained? As far as I can tell it wasn't aimed at anyone specific and the edits were fine, we don't need to use numbers AND words do we? Did this editor get a request to change the edit summary before being summarily blocked? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You mean after they had already posted about 300 of them? I agree with you that the edits are good, there's absolutely no need for both words and numerals, but I see two (2) problems: a needlessly abusive edit summary, not directly specifically at anyone, but if seen by the editor who made the edit in question they would obviously know it was directed at them; and using a script to make mass changes without getting BAG approval. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, someone is bound to be able to find someone who is offended by it, I'm certain of it. But it was a bad block and shouldn't be how we deal with such things. The warnings appeared here nearly two hours after Reywas had stopped. A little communication was in order, not a punitive block. The wider issue of BAG abuse etc is also something that should be discussed not blocked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's "abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases", "repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings", and I've already said at ANI that I'll lift the block as long as it stops. Deb (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bad block so I'm glad you've fixed that. Did anyone consider asking them to change the edit summary before handing out a punitive block? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS. See the two warnings at the start of this section. Deb (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those warnings were placed after Reywas stopped, right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that Reywas has stopped, do we? Deb (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. They haven't edited for more than two hours. You just punitively blocked him without checking that he'd even received the warnings or notification at ANI. That's not how to do things and you know it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to check whether someone has received the warnings. The block was preventative. Don't assume bad faith. Deb (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of assuming bad faith, a punitive block issued after the warnings and ANI notice was made two hours after Reywas' last edit? Stop digging. It was a bad block, you should apologise. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I think the edit summary (while doubtless not particularly appropriate) could only be perceived as "offensive" by someone whose brain was only capable of string matching. It does not accuse any participant in the editing process of being stupid, but merely suggests that a reader would need to be stupid to need both a (1) numeral and a (1) spelled-out word. It is the idea that the mere mention of the word "stupid" is offensive that I find stupid. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

but merely suggests that a reader would need to be stupid to need both a (1) numeral and a (1) spelled-out word. Which is the whole problem, especially when written with such a snarky tone. I find the summary doesn't assume good faith. Not an issue of being offended. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look hard enough, you'll always be able to find someone offended by anything. I agree with your sentiments totally. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From now on, I'm going to take the advice on this page. Deb (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Nowhere there does it mention punitive blocking or refusing to admit one's mistakes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, I'm repeating here what I have written at ANI, for the benefit of history. Thank you for being willing to meet me halfway. I acknowledge that my actions yesterday were an error of judgment. I've explained the thinking behind it. All admins make mistakes; the only way I know of to avoid doing so is never to do anything at all, and that's not my way. The suggestion that you could be penalised in future because of the existence of the block record is misleading; it's far more likely to count against me, and a few people will be queueing up to make sure it does.

It's quite surprising, with us both having been here such a long time, that our paths haven't crossed previously. In the future, I trust, we'll work together constructively. Deb (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deb, I'm sure we will. Well I'm across the pond and not in the music and arts space so much! Reywas92^Talk 06:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting here to associate myself with the statement that though the edit summary was perhaps not wisely worded, it did not at all justify the block directed against it and it is good that this was recognised. If this is cited at a future RFA (or other such proceeding) as a mark against Reywas92 I urge any person doing so to read above to see what actually happened. FOARP (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day!
I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations.
Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk

Carlossuarez46 articles

I agree that something more has to be done to clean up these stubs. At this point it is clear that PRODing/AFDing them just isn't working. It will take years to do at the present rate, and we're likely to get (very reasonably) pushback from admins whose time is consumed checking the PRODs or carrying out the AFDs. My suggestion is an RFC on deleting them in bulk at WP:GEOGRAPHY, or at the village pump or another suitable forum. The 7000+ (!) Iranian articles that literally state that the source he was using doesn't even say they were populated should make a good test-case for doing this. FOARP (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reywas92 - Carlos's response is pretty unreasonable but if I were you I'd tone down that response to him. I really get how angry being accused like that can make you, but an AN discussion is not the place to cut loose. Completely agree with the substance of what you've said, though. EDIT: see you've already done it, no problemo. FOARP (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually some random IP removed it but I toned it down a bit. God his gall...good riddance. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not going to grave dance, but yes, some front to talk like that after all the times we tried to engage with him. FOARP (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe

Saying that something used by native English speakers is "incorrect" is not NPOV. That is how language works - the native speakers of a language are the ones who determine how it works. It's that simple. Why would it be "incorrect"? When did it become that way, and how? In addition, Merriam-Webster may be usually descriptivist but that statement really wasn't. It's a dogma that's that strong. Ffrrrrgus is imaginary (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you putting "incorrect" in quotation marks when the article does not use this word? YOU put this word in the article. The article is not wrong, you are. Reywas92^Talk 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was confusing your edit summary with a different one. Whatever the word is, the same idea is implied in the article. I am not wrong because prescriptivism is dogma. How is it that it "isn't" correct English if English speakers use it? Who gets to decide what's correct and what isn't? Ffrrrrgus is imaginary (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Edits

Hi Reywas92

I appreciate you commenting in my RFC. I will admit I was hasty in some situations and removed things that could have been saved and simply reformatted to be more encylopedic, but most of my edits I stand by. Airport articles often have too much information in them that really doesn't need to be there, and I am simply trying to clean up the articles to make them more encyclopedic and less like a travel guide. Yes, I did remove cited information in a lot of cases, but the question is does some of that info really need to be there per WP:NOTEVERYTHING? Another problem is even if the info is cited, in some cases, the links are broken and it is difficult to find new ones to replace them, so it's just easier to remove as we cannot verify the information. I'm not perfect and I will admit I made mistakes, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

There are a lot more issues with airport articles that need to be addressed as well, such as the mainline/regional consolidation and the history sections of a lot of airport articles, but I haven't touched those very much because doing so will cause a firestorm. Blissfield101 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Canebrake (former town), California" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Canebrake (former town), California. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#Canebrake (former town), California until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Springs eternal

I found Alpine, Los Angeles County, California (AfD discussion) for you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, Reywas92,

You are an experienced editor but I wanted to remind you that any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/TFD/CFD/etc.), you need to notify the page creator on their talk page. This wasn't done with Bush rain poncho meme. This concerns me because you PROD a lot of articles and I don't always check to see if the notification was done. Please remember to do so in the future every time and it's easy you use Twinkle for your page tagging because the program will do the notifications for you once you set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator if possible". Thank you for your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Crest Bicycle Trail

What are your reasons for merging Pacific Crest Bicycle Trail and Pacific Crest Trail? They are different in almost every aspect except that both follow very approximately the same route. Thanks, c36b9 (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability and quality sources to pass GNG. Merging is an WP:ATD. The blog links are inadequate for significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 05:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It seams odd that Pacific Crest Bicycle Trail now redirects to Pacific Crest Trail. -- c36b9 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_cycleways#United_States may be a better destination! That would be a nice list that could be converted to a table or otherwise expanded to have further content there since there's a mix of notable and non-notable routes. Several other links on it have the same issue of not having very good sourcing to establish notability unfortunately, but this one in particular I don't see since the Adventure Cycling Association uses a different name for the route they designed. Reywas92^Talk 05:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK geography

It's highly likely that odd things like that will turn out to have hundreds of years of history. The second one was a 17th century listed building draft article in userspace. The U.K.'s equivalent to the GNIS problem is not those. It is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#New articles on built-up areas, where someone has created a bunch of articles sourced to an idiosyncratic government database. Who would do that, eh? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your non-admin closure of AfD

Hi, please notice that you are not eligible to close an AfD Discussion which you initiated like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preshaw - you need to withdraw your nomination (aka speed keep) but you are not allowed to close it as keep, please see WP:NACAFD. Please mark the Afd Discussion correctly as withdrawn/speedy keep. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I reverted the AfD Close. You can close it as speedy keep (=withdraw) but closing it as a nominator is not allowed AFAIS. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of descriptive plant epithets from Stearn (A–H)

Not ignoring this proposed name ... I just can't do everything at once, and I really don't know how things will play out yet with the new structure and name (if any) for the genus lists. After we get some clarity there, I'm open to taking another look at the species epithet lists. (Of course, "clarity" might not come for a while ... you never know.) Your comments are always welcome, I don't think you're off the mark, I just think it's going to take some time to tie up all the loose ends. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for National preserve

On 25 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National preserve, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the United States' 21 national preserves are in 11 states and protect vast areas of scenic public land similar to national parks, but where hunting is permitted? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National preserve. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, National preserve), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazhar-ul-Islam

Hi. I hope you are well. You are invited to participate at this AFD discussion as you are active in these type of discussions. If there are more participants, then it will be easier to get clear consensus. Hope, you will participate. Thanks and Have a nice day. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 11:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ review

Hi there! Can you please return to Template:Did you know nominations/Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg and indicate whether you're happy that the nomination is now complete? It's been waiting for your okay for more than two weeks now. Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to 2018 Iowa attorney general election

I saw you changed the title of the nationwide attorney general elections — I agree with those edits. Although, the individual attorney general election pages are different because they describe proper nouns. For example, "Iowa Attorney General" is a proper noun because it describes a specific attorney general.

Sorry if I'm missing something here, but I don't think that's the grammatically correct way of doing it. MrOinkingPig (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people but it's used both ways. Reywas92^Talk 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS

Enjoy Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data/Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection. I'm going to do one for Rennick, too. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is terrific, thank you! Reywas92^Talk 04:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pločnik (Prokuplje)

Just to say thanks for closing the AfD and doing the merge. The duplication had existed for >11 years, so I wanted a second person to have a look at it at least! :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations \| July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. 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 conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, Reywas92. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Vidal Rock

I am leaving this message to let you know that the article Vidal Rock that you tagged for Proposed Deletion was removed by another user, and they failed to leave a note on your talk page about it. They also appear to not have given any reason for doing so (see the articles edit history). This was a few weeks ago but it seems to have gone unnoticed. As you were not informed, I have taken it upon myself to leave this here so you may consider perusing Articles for Deletion instead, as adding a new PROD is not permitted. Kind regards, --Tautomers_{(T C)} 08:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

You turned a couple of articles about the Rockies into section redirects; I followed on by removing the hatnotes at the top of the sections that pointed to the redirect pointing back to section itself. Perhaps you were going to get around to doing that eventually.

Thank you for adding pics to the table in Silver Falls State Park. I have edited that article, which happens to be about one of my very favorite spots on the face of the planet.

I recall our collaboration on List of U.S. state and territory abbreviations when we were both relative newbies.

YBG (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, I was removing hatnotes and see alsos in a quite a few articles that linked to such redundant pages but must have missed a few. I will double-check others.

Wow that was so long ago! I was at Silver Falls for the 2017 eclipse and would love to visit again. Hope you're doing well. Reywas92^Talk 04:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, doing well, thank you! YBG (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

Hi, Reywas92. I'm just posting to let you know that National recreation area – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bezos

A redirect was my first idea but I somehow managed to miss the article about the flight - thanks for finding it! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 17:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi, sorry to bother you with this yet again, but is 'merge' your final verdict on that Sulla's civil wars discussion? I ask because, as of now, the two articles in question are likely to be kept due to no consensus on a merge target, and you're probably the only participant who can be convinced to change his mind. The concept and content of the two articles are really nothing more than misleading original research, and I think the encyclopedia would be better served if editors didn't build upon their defective foundations, but rather contributed to other existing articles or created better ones. Your vote there gives the impression that this is simply a matter of too many articles for a smaller amount of subjects, for which a merge would indeed be appropriate; but neither is the content worth merging nor are the titles appropriate redirects. The policies del-reason and don't preserve by all rights apply here, and a straghtforward delete would avoid all the bureaucratic and procedural complications of a merge that would be pointless anyhow.

Thank you for your time. Avilich (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National preserve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River otter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths through alcohol

List of deaths through alcohol is sorted by the "Death date" column. Why did you remove the exclamation mark from the entries that is used to indicate this? I had to restore it. --Bawanio (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DTAB: Row & column headers ( ! )

Like the caption, these help present the information in a logical structure to visitors. The headers help screen readers render header information about data cells. For example, header information is spoken prior to the cell data, or header information is provided on request. Because the row header and column header may be spoken before the data in each cell when navigating in table mode, it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively.

The rows are identified by the name of the person, not the date. The person is the key information with respect to the deaths, not the date. It makes no sense for the date to be in bold, centered, and highlighted with a shaded cell. Moveover, a list of people should be sorted by the people's name, and there's no logical reason why it would be sorted in reverse chronological order. Moreover, the row headers with exclamation marks identify the head of the row – here the person's name – NOT how the table is initially sorted. I've fixed this again. Reywas92^Talk 02:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of presidents of the United States by age for deletion

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

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

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also iffy sources

Kirpichli, Turkmenistan - book about China and an opera, Sansy, Turkmenistan - book about birds and an opera, Kirpili, Turkmenistan - book about birds and an opera. Can't tell if this is a set of hoaxes with simulated referencing, or a set of original research with iffy sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 14:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these do exist in some form on maps or other links, but this person should absolutely not be writing articles (like this or at all really). I'm wondering if the book on birds behind a paywall has maps or some other description but with their pattern of editing probably not. I've left notes on their talk page. Reywas92^Talk 14:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this to ANI, as I see on their talk page that they've been warned about dubious referencing earlier this month, but made no effort to reply to it. I think WP:CIR may be an issue here and inaction will likely lead to further issues. Hog Farm _Talk 14:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question

Hello Reywas92, I noticed an edit of yours from a lifetime ago, and wanted to know if this was still the rule for possessive proper nouns such as Arkansas, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Didn't know if this needed reexamining, or if there was a specific guideline to follow. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat Yes, these should all always have the 's, per MOS:POSS. For Arkansas and Illinois the s is silent, so it would be preposterous to leave off the possessive s that is in fact pronounced. Some people might not pronounce an additional syllable in Massachusetts's so leaving it off is plausible, but it should still be included for consistency. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 I'm not disputing the use of apostrophes in this case. I'm disputing whether the apostrophe should follow standard English MOS when it comes to the inclusion of an additional "s" after the apostrophe, as we don't do in English. Like Charles' apples, or Travis' oranges... as I was reading further into MOS:POSS, it seems to check out, regarding U.S. geography. Also saw this which sheds some light on this topic too. You learn something new everyday! Appreciate your help. --PerpetuityGrat (talk)

We do do that that in English, and it would be Charles's apples and Travis's oranges. Being a place doesn't have anything to do with it. Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_"s"_or_"z"_sound says that most style guides do recommend it, especially when it follows pronunciation. Reywas92^Talk 00:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I feel stupid haha. I really did learn something today! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Ride Edit

Hello. I noticed you made an edit to the Sally Ride article stating that, "She will be the first gay or lesbian person to appear on US currency." Do you have a source for this comment? One reason I ask is that, if you look on the talk page for that article, you'll see a pretty thorough discussion of wording both concerning her sexuality (according to the Lynn Sherr bio and to separate interviews with Tam O'Shaughnessy, she never called herself a lesbian), and in addition the statement that she is definitely the first makes a somewhat unprovable assumption that no one else featured on US currency would identify as gay or lesbian where they living today. If you can come up with a citation, that would be great. I might also propose changing the wording to something like "She will be the first person known to be LGBT to appear on US currency."

If you'd like I can move this to the talk page for the Sally Ride article. If I don't hear back in a few days, I'll probably revert the edit as unsourced, and then you can add it back when you've sourced it out. Let me know! Sevey13 (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sevey13, Yes, I think your proposed wording is better, thanks! I don't have a source proving the negative that every other person is not LGBT, but this is clear from what is known about the small set of people that have been on currency. Reywas92^Talk 02:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 Awesome! Happy editing. Sevey13 (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency with articles about ethnic groups

Hello! I have no problem with the title change to Hispanics and Latinos in Portland, Oregon, but I've observed, there's quite a bit of inconsistency with article titles about ethnic groups in the United States. Based on the titles of similar articles (more specific subcategory), options could be Hispanics and Latinos in Portland, Oregon, History of Hispanics and Latinos in Portland, Oregon, or Hispanic and Latino culture in Portland, Oregon.

I'm not sure if this is worth flagging to a wider community for discussion. Perhaps an RfC? Ideally, there'd be consistency across these entries on Wikipedia, especially since there are so many state- and city-specific entries. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that could be a good idea. Few of these articles are particularly high quality but those with "History of" tend to have a greater emphasis on history, like History of the Japanese in Metro Detroit and History of Korean Americans in Greater Los Angeles. But since none of these are really actually constrained to history, simpler titles would be better. Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas about the best single place to post an RfC? WikiProject United States talk page? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes the most sense to me. Reywas92^Talk 13:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done See here! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please slow down?

Can you please slow down on the AfDs? I cannot possibly keep up! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's also a bit hard to keep up with all your one-line stubs with little to no significant coverage. Add Forest Lawn Cemetery (Gresham, Oregon), White Birch Cemetery, and Mt. Angel Pioneer Cemetery to the list. These aren't even years-old pages, and you do so much great work, but you know better than this: a Find-A-Grave link is not good enough for an article. Reywas92^Talk 15:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but sometimes stubs are helpful for getting the ball rolling and just because an entry currently only has one source doesn't mean there aren't others to add. Consider adding "notability" tags to give editors time to research and expand. There's no way I can rush to 'save' all of these articles by dropping what I'm doing to research and expand each, especially when there's limited online sourcing but possibly sufficient documentation elsewhere. We're both acting in good faith here, I'm just saying the onslaught of AfDs make me want to give up instead of actually rolling up my sleeves. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if there's a serious expectation that there are in fact significant sources available that's plausible, but these are just small, generic cemeteries. What is the basis for an assumption that that there's notable, encyclopedic information in the first place other than that you went there and took pictures? A very small percentage of cemeteries are notable, so I can't tell what would be any different about these. When "dropping what I'm doing" is just more generic restaurants with routine, local newpaper reviews, I don't feel like three AFDs, which are easily extendable beyond a week, is an "onslaught". Reywas92^Talk 16:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count 5 entries about historic cemeteries in Oregon flagged for deletion, but not all by you. I've promoted ~30 of those "generic" Portland restaurant articles to Good status, so I don't think that's a very fair comment. Regardless, I may or may not roll up my sleeves for the cemetery entries but I don't get the impression you're too concerned. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've created over 7,000 articles. Sure most are fine, but why is it too much to ask you to actually put significant coverage and content in them? If you're so busy with restaurants, don't make rapid-fire one-liners in the first place if you're not going to go back and improve them so they actually meet our notability guidelines – so that they're more useful than a mere statement of existence. Add Immaculate Conception Cemetery (Oklahoma City) too. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I have a habit of visiting a city and creating a group of stubs in the moment because that's what my schedule allows. I figure a stub is better than nothing and the community will help determine appropriateness over time. I'm familiar with notability criteria enough that most of the stubs I create are about notable topics, even if subpar in terms of quality. Of course, sometimes I create stubs for topics which are later deemed non-notable, but I don't think this is my M.O. I see you and User:MB appear to be frustrated by my stub creation. This comes up now and then, but at the same time, I can't tell you how often I am 'thanked' for creating new entries or other editors expand on my stubs. I hear you both and I'll try to be better about this. I mean well; I think we all do. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now seeing this after my comment on MB's at DGG's page and I'm getting angry because this is absolutely your M.O. It's completely unacceptable to make more than a dozen substubs at once with zero sources. Your schedule allows you to write another few dozen articles about Portland restaurants so why can't your schedule allow you to go back and improve these? There's been so many times you've complained ("sigh") about having to "rush to save" articles but little introspection about what the concerns are. I think very few editors nowadays believe a one-line statement of existence with zero sources or even one source is better than nothing. But it doesn't have to be nothing vs. standalone articles either! I also enjoy public art and think we can accomodate coverage of it, but the thing is that you could make List of public art in Guadalajara a table or other sort of improved list with the pictures there and it could be a perfectly good and informative list (with sources) that could have higher readership itself rather than spread across individual articles of questionable notability. Or something like March to Freedom can be written about at Williamson County Courthouse (Tennessee) because again, sculptures do not necessarily need their own articles even if there's an article in the local paper about the unveiling, because they can be covered with the context of their location like parks or buildings. Reywas92^Talk 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC) Reywas92^Talk 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Ok, again, I hear you and I don't know what else to say. You're getting angry (your words, not mine), so I am going to back away for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm about to go out for lunch but there are other ways to cover these than innumerable separate pages. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back from the gym, where I had a bit more time to think about recent discussions. Listen, when I'm editing Wikipedia, my goal is never to make anyone angry. I'm sorry you're frustrated by some of my edits. User:MB seems to be as well. I hear you both and I'm not sure what else you want me to say at this time. I've spent a ton of time contributing to Wikipedia and I'd like to think my edits are a tremendous net benefit to the project, but certainly there's room for improvement. I will try to avoid substub creation and I will try to revisit some of the unsourced and poorly-sourced stubs you've identified. I admit to being guilty of 'blitzing' a group of articles, intending to revisit when time and interest allow but getting distracted. I often edit Wikipedia in 'blitzes' -- right now, as you've observed, I'm focused on Portland restaurants. I'm quite proud of my work documenting the local restaurant industry (~30 Good articles to date), so I can't help but find your comments a bit dismissive. Perhaps having autopatrol rights has enabled me to lower the standard a bit too much and I need the reminder, which you've done and I appreciate.

I don't want there to be tension between us. I think we're both working to improve Wikipedia and I'd like for us to be able to edit and interact in a friendly way. If you have concerns about my edits, I invite you to post on my user talk page, or start article talk page discussions. I don't take personal offense to article tagging but it can be difficult to rescue multiple articles sent to AfD at the same time, especially when the topics require database diving and/or library visits.

If you don't care to respond to this, I understand. I just wanted to acknowledge your concerns and frustration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and I certainly want to work on good terms as well (though I no longer live in the Pacific Northwest there's certainly some shared interests). You're very prolific and of course you've been a tremendous net benefit in many areas. But yes, I and others would appreciate it if you could review your past creations for sourcing and completeness and consider doing new articles in userspace until ready or putting content in existing or consolidated pages. I'm one to often merge things because I think it's good content, but it's less duplicative and likelier to get more views and attention in a main article! Reywas92^Talk 21:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a similar situation with another editor, and the eventual result was that they were asked to make all new articles in draft space, which has made everything more complicated--and as I'm possibly the most sympathetic and posibly knowledgable regular reviewer for the subject they are editing, it ends up being work for me in particular. Technically, making the stubs is permissible. In terms of helping WP, it would be a very much better to always made an article with at least one reference at the initial edit. This will avoid people questioning the edits. It will avoid confusing the NPP people, some of whom may not realize that there are always going to be sources. It will avoid the erosion of one of our long-standing practices, that such statues are notable. (this is based on the fact that previous encyclopedias try to cover such monuments in considerable detail, though older encyclopedia tend to put all the information on a city into one enormously long article, which doesn't work very well on computers.) And it will avoid other people having to feel they need to get into arguments .

The simplest way to ensure this is to make sure one has a reference or two in hand before one starts--whcih is the advice I've given many people. (For example, beginners at editathons tend to pick their subject first, and only then look for references; it is much simpler and safer to work the other way round. ) Another good method, as was suggested, is to start making a referenced list, and then go down that list page and expand each item into the individual articles. I p DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Acts of UK Parliament

Hi - I've noticed that you've removed all of the lists of Acts of the UK Parliament which were organised by session, on the basis that Acts are cited by year. This is in fact incorrect - Acts passed prior to 1963 are cited by session (i.e. how I had organised things on these lists), and the reason for having both was that they served two different purposes: Acts by year are easy to find (and also assist with 1963 citations onwards), while Acts by session show the legislative calendar of a particular Parliament (and also explain citations pre-1963). From 1902 and earlier, Acts are also assigned a "Tower number" (index number), which is also dependent on the session - obviously pages that early don't yet exist, but I intend to create them in the coming months as I work backwards. As such, wholesale deleting these lists is manifestly unhelpful, particulaly pre-1963, though I am open to ideas in avoiding duplication. I have reversed these edits for the time being. Theknightwho (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps pre-1963, they should be organized by Parliament sessions and post-1963 by year? Or all of them by whole Parliament? While lists by decade did get long, lists by year can be short so in ~5-year increments for each Parliament would work well too. Either way can easily state the session of Parliament and their dates, so it's easy for anyone to find it, duplication not being necessary. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different systems for different years would be confusing, and wouldn't help anyone who is just trying to find an Act that they already know they're looking for (who would want the annual list). Sessional lists are more to give a sense of coherence to how a particular Parliament has behaved, and will assist anyone looking for all of the legislation passed by a particular Parliament (rather than someone who is looking for any given Act in advance). Ultimately, they serve two different purposes and are to be used in different ways, and any casual reader will immediately be drawn to the annual lists in any event. In an ideal world, it would be an interactive app that could list Acts based on given criteria, but in the absence of that I picked the two that are guaranteed to be useful but can't really be folded into each other.

For context, I'm a practising solicitor (lawyer) who did a degree in philosophy and politics; as a practitioner, I'd be using the annual list if I were looking for an unusual piece of legislation not really available online, whereas as an academic studying political history I would definitely find the sessional lists useful. In fact, personal use is one of the reasons I created them in the first place, and I won't be the only person in one or other of those positions who'll come across them.

I'm also not sure that anything other than annual/sessional lists are workable - the pages are already long enough when you get pre-1980, and in the 19th century there are several years with 400+ Acts (1845 has nearly 700). It would be unworkable to try anything else. Most of these are local or private Acts that no-one has got around to listing yet on Wikipedia, but you can see the list of them here. They come up in practice surprisingly often, and they're always annoying to deal with because no-one ever knows anything about them!

Theknightwho (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but List of Acts of the 2nd Session of the 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom and List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 2016/List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 2017, etc. are identical except the start and end dates differ, right? This isn't appropriate. If you're looking for all of the legislation passed by a particular Parliament then it's very easy to say that Parliament X corresponds to Y dates and with that years A, B, C, D. Has this system been discussed somewhere? These are WP:REDUNDANT and WP:DUPLICATE and this overlap isn't the way to go. Reywas92^Talk 12:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure that a single example that just happens to create a duplicate is particularly helpful when the others do not, particularly given the points I’ve outlined above. Saying that Parliament X corresponds to Y dates isn’t very helpful if you’re searching for an overview or only wanting to look at legislation passed in that session, which is the point. Taken in the context of the others lists, it isn’t redundant. Theknightwho (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled by your statement that this is just a single example. Every item on List of Acts of the 2nd Session of the 43rd Parliament of the United Kingdom is also on List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1965 and List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1966 without one word changed, same for the rest of the years and sessions. If you're "only wanting to look at legislation passed in that session", any idiot, when told that it "ran from 9 November 1965 until 10 March 1966", would be capable of looking at the laws passed between those dates, even if on 1965 and 1966 articles instead of a session-specific one (or vice versa if told there were certain sessions during a year). It's the SAME laws, redundantly listed twice, just segmented differently. There are many ways people can organize different things, but Wikipedia does not need such blatantly overlapping duplication. Can your point to a discussion supporting this duplication, or should I start one, or an AFD? Reywas92^Talk 13:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can start one, but you haven’t addressed any of my points at all other than to say it doesn’t matter because anyone can cross-compare, which is obviously true and completely misses the point of why they’re segmented differently and the different purposes they serve. WP:DUPLICATE only applies if the articles of of the same scope, which these are not, and WP:REDUNDANT explicitly gives an exception for list articles which contain similar information if formatted differently. This applies directly. Quite honestly, this seems to be applying rules to the extreme at the expense of Wikipedia itself: you are actively reducing the quality of information (remember: just because something is there doesn’t mean it is in a useful format to anyone who would make use of it). Theknightwho (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Formatted differently" lololol, no they're formatted identically, just with different start and end dates. "of the same scope" Yes indeed, they are exactly the same laws, just segmented by slightly different timespans. "actively reducing the quality of information" If List of Acts of the 3rd Session of the 49th Parliament of the United Kingdom is removed, the exact same laws are STILL at List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1985 and List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1986, with no loss information or its quality whatsoever. Bonkers. Reywas92^Talk 14:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They quite literally are different ways of formatting the same information. Are you seriously arguing that having information summarised in different ways is pointless? I am also telling you, as someone who understands this subject in depth, that what you are proposing would actively reduce the quality of information available, and quite honestly by the fact that you’ve repeatedly ignored my reasoning that there is no adequate way to replicate this on a single form of list, it just seems to be pointless rules lawyering. Theknightwho (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15 June 1983–31 October 1984, 6 November 1984–30 October 1985, 6 November 1985–7 November 1986, 12 November 1986–18 May 1987 vs. 1 January 1983–31 December 1983, 1 January 1984–31 December 1984, 1 January 1985–31 December 1985, 1 January 1986–31 December 1986, 1 January 1987–31 December 1987. Same content, just different dates. Yeah, that's pretty pointless. Only breaking these down by one date divider type instead of two is not a reduction of the information available, its quality, or its accessibility. Reywas92^Talk 15:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How information is structured matters in addition to the content, and you’ve provided literally no explanation for your position other than the fact that you personally wouldn’t find it useful, completely ignoring the fact that I’ve given examples of when one or the other is preferable. If that’s the case, no-one is forcing you to use a format you don’t want to, but if you won’t address my reasoning at all then this is once again just pointless rules lawyering. Theknightwho (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone completely uninvolved in this dispute (who came across this since I look at all edits to the module namespace as a matter of course), I likewise fail to see the point of having duplicate lists containing the same information. Given that, the dispute over the word "the year" becomes moot since Theknightwho's sole argument in favor of it seems to be consistency with session lists. As for bolding of citations, it feels wrong to pass markup to citation templates (because that is saying you know better than established consensus), but I don't have a strong opinion about it myself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of bolding in citations, that part of the module merely replicates the pre-existing style of volume numbers in Template:Citation. That template does not cover situations where a single "volume" is split into two physical volumes, which occasionally happens with extremely long series such as Hansard or the Journals of the House of Commons/Lords. Compare the citation of vol. 267 pt. I on 55th Parliament Session 1 with vol. 268 on 55th Parliament Session 2. Removing the bolding as Reywas92 did meant that all of "267 pt. I" became unbolded, which is definitely inconsistent as "268" remained bolded as per the default in the template. I'm open to considering that "267" should be in bold but "pt. I" should not, but the reason I decided against this is because I wanted to acknowledge the fact that the two parts are separate volumes, and not subsections of the same volume (which is what "part" often refers to).

On the matter of bolding in the first line, I disagree that Reywas92 is correctly interpreting WP:BOLDLEAD: it doesn't say that you should only use bold if it's a formal or widely accepted name - it says that you should include it in bold as early as possible if it's a formal or widely accepted name. The second example states that you should include the title if it can be included in a natural way (and gives an example showing it in bold), and while the opening sentence is arguably superfluous on the annual lists (and is phrased slightly different so would need amending), it definitely isn't superfluous on the sessional lists, where it feels like the easiest way to convey the dates (and is totally identical to the title anyway). It would feel odd not to be consistent across the two forms by omitting the opening sentence, however, so I'll consider how this should be worded.

I'm not sure reiterating yet again why the separate lists serve different purposes would be helpful given that debate died on the vine, so I won't. My main concern is in ensuring that they can't diverge from each other through casual editing, but that is a separate question and is definitely possible through transclusion - I just haven't got around to doing it yet. I am open to discussing alternatives to this, but ignoring my reasoning, calling it pointless and saying that "any idiot ... would be capable of looking at the laws passed between those dates" as Reywas92 has done is just insulting.

Theknightwho (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to remove the bolding in citations, but to remove that from "which ran from date to date" so thanks Pppery for fixing that. The problem with your interpretation is that the second example (United States presidential line of succession) is the specific thing, a name that would be used by others anywhere, not a contrieved "list of..." title that's only used once as part of Wikipedia's naming schemes this is not a recognized standard name. The need to avoid divergence is a key reason to avoid duplication, but if they're intended to have identical content they don't need to be duplicated in the first place. An alternative would be undoing the split of the longer time periods, or going by Parliament: I linked nine articles above that could be covered by a single List of Acts of the 49th Parliament of the United Kingdom, not needing to be divided by two sets of dates.

Not insulting, but true. While that would divide 1987's acts with a List of Acts of the 50th Parliament of the United Kingdom, anyone looking specifically for acts passed in 1987 could just look at both of them. I mean, if I want to look specifically for U.S. bills passed in 2021, I'm smart enough to access both List of acts of the 116th United States Congress and List of acts of the 117th United States Congress, I don't need a List of acts of the United States Congress from 2021 too, just duplicating them. Reywas92^Talk 16:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to solve the issue of divergence is to enter each Act as a Wikidata item and then to transclude the relevant fields over onto any given list; this allows the greatest amount of flexibility, and also enables a bunch of other use cases in other scenarios. This is something that has been on my radar, but will be time-consuming to port over and I haven't got around to it yet.

I also completely disagree with undoing the split - each annual is consistently around 100 Acts long pre-1980, and they'll only get longer as I continue adding them (1845 has almost 700 iirc, and pre-1900 most are 2-400). Anything else becomes absurdly unwieldy to use on mobile. Worse than that, when you enter more than around 800 or so items you start to hit the post-expand include size limit of 2MB and further Acts stop displaying. I spent quite a long time maximising the effiency of the template to increase this from around 400 as it was when I first wrote the module, but I think it's at about the limit of what I can do. I'm sure Pppery will be able to offer further improvements, but I don't think having lists in the 19th century that are thousands of Acts long would be of any use to anyone, and it's unsatisfactory to have them cover arbitrarily different lengths of time. (The current situation is obviously temporary - I just haven't started the 1950s yet.)

I have to emphasise here that I don't think you're appreciating the issues that caused me to create parallel lists: annual lists are absolutely necessary, because the short titles (e.g. Offences Against the Person Act 1861) contain the year, whenever passed. This is how most people refer to Acts in a casual sense, and are necessary for the average person to be able to actually find them as a huge number use stock short titles that will only differ by year. The average person will have no idea what sessions correspond to what years, or possibly even what Parliamentary sessions even are. However, for Acts before 1963, the Act citations don't make any sense without understanding Parliamentary sessions, as that determines how they're numbered. It's also how all Parliamentary records group them, how Acts pre-dating citations refer to other Acts ("... amend an Act passed in the session commencing in the Xth year of the reign of Y ..."), the groupings by which they were published together (and how you'll need to search for them if you want the printed edition); together I feel this definitely passes the notability test in and of its own right. Although you could switch systems for the lists from 1963 in the same way citations did, that creates confusion and still doesn't help the average person who may have no idea when a particular Parliamentary session occurred if scanning the side template.

At the end of the day, I accept that the current solution is not ideal, but I think you should at least try to understand where I'm coming from and why I feel that both of these groupings are important. There are definitely improvements that can be made, but simply declaring it pointless because someone could spend a few minutes putting together their own list misses the point that you are dealing with a system that is not itself particularly logical or intuitive to the average person in the first place. I am trying to mitigate that.

Theknightwho (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was surprised I couldn't find a list of Parliamentary session dates similar to List of United States Congresses and Template:United States Congresses, which would help with the correspondence of sessions/Parliaments to years. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only complete list is here, which I spent about 40 hours compiling from the Journals of the House of Commons, Journals of the House of Lords (the official journals of each house), and where not yet available Hansard (the official transcript of the House). Occasionally, sessions are not formally ended through prorogation, but are instead adjourned, only for the relevant Parliament to be dissolved before reconvening - this is recorded in the Journals but not Hansard, so where the Journals are not yet available I've used the proclamation in The London Gazette (the official paper of record). I took it as self-evident that this ends a session, but if you think this is a WP:OR issue I could probably track down something.

That database also auto-generates pre-1963 citations based on date, as well as the Parliamentary archives URL. Theknightwho (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of List of wineries in Missouri

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from List of wineries in Missouri, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mission

Wanted to stop by and thank you for not ivoting for my ouster. I have great respect for you, and it would not have changed even if you had. Hope to see you around the project! Lightburst (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it turned out that way, I didn't see the whole thing until it was a way in and wanted to stay out of most of the drama. Unfortunate that there were a few people who made it more vitriolic than it should have been but I know you can contribute well in other areas. Reywas92^Talk 15:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. I just got taken back to ANI this am. I think because of a post I made on JW's page complaining about ANI. I was railing against the culture of an organization that feels volunteers should be taken out to the wood shed and harangued with an airing of the grievances. Cheers! Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, can you take a look at two Geo Lake articles I started and let me know your thoughts? Presque Isle Lake, North Twin Lake (Phelps, Wisconsin). Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem fine, I don't see any edits I'd make. Reywas92^Talk 16:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Readding

The adding was in 2016 which was self-reverted. As the sentence is used in the nutshell at the top of the page surely it should be included within the body of the guideline, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lolol so one person added it unilaterally and promptly deleted it, so you think you can add a presumption of notability – a BS supposed exemption from signification coverage – unilaterally? That's obscenely vague and has no basis in a consensus or precedent whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 04:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its already covered Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ASTM standards

I saw you have prodded many of the articles about ASTM standards; I would keep these. Yes, there are many standards by ASTM (and many other organizations) and yes these articles tend to be light on references, but the way standards work is they tend to be used and referenced by designs that use the standardized material or object, rather than discussed in their own right by external sources (a bridge will use standardized fasteners, and there will be articles about the bridge, but not necessarily about the fastener standard itself), so references will be a bit light. And I find in many cases as an engineering librarian that articles about deprecated standards to be the most useful, since you may be chasing down information on how the standards have been used in the past, or their history. Standards are important for all fields of engineering, each covering unique subjects, and while I haven't gone through all of the standard articles that you have tagged, I don't think these are appropriate for general prodding. Thanks, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reywas92, I wonder if I can convince you to write an apology to PMD for the hostile tone in some of your comments? (I mean: substantively you are obviously & totally correct, and I understand why the behavior was so frustrating and infuriating (per my recent AfD comment); but also you could have made the same substantive points in a less aggravated manner.) I do note that PMD has tried to remove the most inflammatory part of their comments at the AfD. --JBL (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for taking on the task of non-notable football coaches

Thankyou for taking on the task of articles on non-notable football coaches. We have a significant problem with creating articles on people who coached for just a few games, often when the sport was less centrally organized than it is now, so trying to say they were coaching at a significant level is not really showable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of content from articles for New Jersey legislators

Your edit to the article for Parker Space was reverted in this edit. I'm not sure that anything in Wikipedia is "necessary" and a claim of "unnecessary" would justify deletion of the entire existence of Wikipedia. As I indicated in the edit summary of my edit, the legislators who serve together with him in the same district are specifically relevant, which is why there are alongside parameters in infoboxes and templates, and the fact that the material should be included in the body of the article (with appropriate sources) seems appropriately encyclopedic to me. I am curious to hear your justification for removal of this sourced content that goes far beyond "unnecessary". If we are unable to reach agreement, I suggest that you bring this to WT:NJ to see if there is consensus for your position. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems great to include them in the infobox! Excessive to have a section dedicated to it. The body of the article should stick to biographical information, and just being from the same district isn't pertinent. Reywas92^Talk 16:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could even be a sentence/paragraph in the New Jersey Assembly section: "Space serves the 24th District along with Senator Steve Oroho Assemblyman Hal Wirths." but a section to itself is just a bit much. Reywas92^Talk 16:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Wikipedia guideline at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says it best: "... keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below)." Your mass removal of the sourced content seems to contradict this principle, deleting the content and the sources that support the details in the infobox. Articles are not in competition with their infoboxes, which means that any material that belongs in the infobox should also appear in the article. There appears to be strong justification to support restoring the material with the required sources and nothing based on policy that would support deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No policy supports deletion or inclusion of virtually any arbitrary fact anywhere in Wikipedia. I think the simple fact that other members of the legislature come from the same district is not such a major part of their biography that it needs to be a stand-alone section. It could be restored more concisely in the relevant section about service in the legislature! Legislators in Arizona, Washington, and other states that have overlapping or multimember districts do not have those colleagues listed in their articles – and certainly not as a separate section – because it's not necessarily directly relevant and is accessible through the district or legislature article. I mean, Bob Menendez has "Serving with Cory Booker" in the infobox, but it doesn't need to be in the body of the article (and definitely not a section) "Each state has two U.S. Senators. Also representing New Jersey is Cory Booker."

With respect to the infobox, every officeholder has "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" for each position, but these are not always in the body of the article either – they're just not relevant to their biography! For Parker Space, it's not pertinent to say that George F. Graham succeeded him on the Sussex County Board of Chosen Freeholders (and Wirths is only included because Space was appointed to the vacancy he created, otherwise that's often left out too). The precise dates he took/left the offices are not in the text of the article, nor are the name of his spouse and number of children, or his birthplace or current residence. While there is often a personal life section, I believe it's certainly neither unusual nor unacceptable that infobox items are not spelled out in the text (and again, I'm not opposed to mentioning it in context when relevant, but it's superfluous to have a full section like this). I would also note that the parentheticals in the MOS quotation were added entirely without discussion, and I'd say this is still a complete article without these names in the text. If you think the article not including these names in the body is a problem because now the infobox "supplants" it, or that the article does not "remain complete" if the infobox's "alongside" parameter is not repeated elsewhere, then this is perhaps a question for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes or the politics wikiproject. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insects in Japanese culture

Hi, I'm elemimele. I appreciate that you draftified Insects in Japanese culture in good faith, but can I just comment that I think it was inappropriate to do so, and inappropriate to close the AfD. There was no consensus for draftify (or any action whatsoever), and the AfD was not open for the correct length of time. The original editor who created the article had indeed asked for it to be draftified, but WP is collaborative: anyone is entitled to work on any draft, and indeed submit it for review or transfer it to main-space if they feel it's ready, not just the person who wrote it. This article was written to a fairly high standard by its original editor, with good referencing. Although I have sympathy with the original editor's role, they do not own the text they wrote, nor do they get a veto on its being used in WP. We now have the messy situation that this good article might never be submitted for review at all, or that its current creator will continue to work on it, only to find that someone else has written an article with the same name during the years it may take them to get round to submitting it. Elemimele (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator is explicitly asking for it to be returned to draft, I don't think AFD was the right forum (though of course that can be an outcome of one). Even if the article is well-sourced, I think is suffers from synthesis problems and could benefit from the author's intended overhaul. There was a reason it wasn't submitted for creation yet, and even if anyone is technically entitled to submit others' drafts, it was premature to do so, especially when not making other contributions. I'll keep an eye on it! Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Reywas92: I just want to know this for future reference since I was privy to this conversation and aware you brought up that AfD was not the right forum to do so. The rules on this site are quite complicated for how to draftify an article and in all honesty I was directed to put it through AfD (as per WP:DRAFTIFY as I recall). If this is not the best venue for this, what would be the proper venue potentially? Sorry for being a month late, I was taking a bit of a break from this site because of my health. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just moved it on my own and then awaited comment from the person who submitted it for AfC. They were also a new user and hopefully wouldn't have insisted your work be kept in mainspace before it was ready. Reywas92^Talk 02:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's a bit of a wobbly point. I posted a bit of a grumpy rant at Ornithoptera's talk-page where, rather kindly, the AfC reviewer chipped in with encouragement that it's mainspace-ready, but without any pressure on Ornithoptera to submit it. I've apologised there for being rather heavy about it. But I'd really hate to see it not make it to mainspace and stay there; it's not a bad article, and given the sheer quantity of dross on second-rate movies that gets plastered into mainspace with barely a pretence at being more than promotional fan-cruft, it just surprised me to see a decently-referenced article on an interesting and encyclopaedic subject at AfD. It gave me a strong knee-jerk keep-feel! I apologise. Best wishes! Elemimele (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of National preserve

Congratulations, Reywas92! The list you nominated, National preserve, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-Asia Power Link: Indonesia does not import electricity from Australia.

Regarding your revert of my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link

Please note that Indonesia does not import electricity from the AAPL. Your reference to the Reuters ^[1] dated 20 June 2020, which incorrectly stated that "Australia-ASEAN Power Link project, run by Singapore-based Sun Cable, plans to supply solar power to Singapore and eventually Indonesia via the world’s longest subsea high voltage cable" was superseded by another Reuters ^[2] report dated September 23, 2021 which correctly stated that "Sun Cable will not supply energy directly to Indonesia, but its $1 billion investment in procuring equipment and services will cover manufacturing and construction activities and operation facilities in Indonesia, including a marine repair base." The main contractor for the project itself said that "the electricity generated at the Solar / Storage facility will be transmitted 800km overhead to Darwin and then via a 4,200km undersea high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission network to Singapore It never stated Indonesia as a potential customer.." ^[3] Thanks.SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota

Hello, Reywas92,

When doing a page move of a longstanding articles, PLEASE leave a redirect. And if you are correcting a bad page move or fixing bad move vandalism, of a longstanding article, also please leave a redirect. Almost all of these articles have one or maybe many redirects to them. When you don't leave a redirect after a page move, those redirects are broken and are then deleted by one of our Wikipedia bots unless there is intervention by an admin or editor to correct them. So, this requires additional work and checking broken redirect lists to prevent the loss of these valid redirects.

When you do leave a redirect after a page move, then the bots can do good work and change the existing redirects to point to the new, correct location. They will also correct double redirects. It's probably a smart move to check "WhatLinksHere" before you do a page move to see if there are redirects. Then you can either correct them yourself or leave a redirect so the bots can do their work. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to do a round-robin move but missed the last step here, thanks for catching that! Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flags for Palmyra and Midway

Starting a topic here so we can keep our discussion in one place rather than trying to chase each other down in various articles using those flags. I don't think you and I have any disagreement over the facts surrounding the flags for Midway and Navassa, just whether those facts merit their inclusion in Wikipedia. Ultimately that's a subjective decision.

I see two ways out of this: (1) we compromise and leave those flags up in the body text of articles on those islands for people interested in such details but remove them from top-level infoboxes and flag icons used in other articles, so that nobody is misled into thinking they are used at the same level as, say, the flag of Puerto Rico. (2) we solicit the opinion of a third party with no skin in the game and abide by their decision

Obviously the other people who have been adding these flags won't necessarily abide by these, but there's nothing I can do about that. Let me know which you would prefer. Jbt89 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on the article's talk page. Again, there is no evidence ANYONE has used the Palmyra flag ANYWHERE since Skip Wheeler had it made for his event and then wrote up himself in the NAVA newsletter. We need independent, reliable sourcing discussing the status and use of this beyond a single event for it to be included. Same for Midway. It does actually have a fairly continuous and substantial research/conservation presence, but I can't find *anything* showing it being used there or having *any* use beyond the 2001 event, with all sources coming from Skip Wheeler as well. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - will follow up on the article's talk page Jbt89 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations \| January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Congratulations!

For the first edit of 2022! Happy new year! Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed!

Special:Diff/1063058807 2021-12-31T23:59:59 (UTC) by 86.10.138.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Special:Diff/1063058808 2022-01-01T00:00:00 (UTC) by Reywas92 (talk · contribs)

Nicely played! YBG (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little timing accident, thanks! Reywas92^Talk 22:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heinie Schultz

Heinie Schultz is the type of sub-stub that demonstrates IMO the bona fides of List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929). It was a sub-stub for a player who was a backup in one NFL game, and my searches came up with zero SIGCOV. It is now a redirect to the list article. Cbl62 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's why I voted keep – Nice work on this so far! Reywas92^Talk 22:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Ettenhaus is another example with, so far as I can find, zero SIGCOV, but I've asked BeanieFan as the creator for input before considering a redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies of the Garter

See talk page. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Laos relations

Stumbled across this while looking for something unrelated. What were you trying to do? I don't think you meant to redirect an article to an AFD discussion... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot thanks, I meant International recognition of Kosovo but pasted the link in my edit summary into the target field too. Reywas92^Talk 21:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of National Parks of Canada

Hello, Reywas92,

If you correct a redirect or move a page, can you check on the talk page as well? We had some broken redirects that needed to be fixed. And if you are correcting or moving the article page, it can be handy to just ensure that the talk page is taken care of as well.

In general, when doing a page move (or correcting a bad page move), it's good to leave a redirect behind if there are redirects that point to the page or talk page being moved, if you leave a redirect, then the helpful Wikipedia bots can change the redirect targets for you. Thank you for all of your work! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved closures and 3RR

You are right that WP:NACINV is an essay. However, WP:NACD is not, and it also states "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e. a page that you have edited heavily)." I realize that also primarily focuses on deletion discussions, but the principle applies to all formal discussions, including RFC's, RM's, merges, and splits.

Further, I believe that is your fourth revert; I would ask that you self-revert in order to bring yourself back into compliance with WP:3RR. If you believe the discussion needs to be closed now, you can take it to WP:ANRFC. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CR says "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." It's been over a month with no comments in the last week and it is exceedingly clear that there is no consensus to split the page. Reywas92^Talk 14:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there is probably no consensus to split the page. However, I believe there is also no consensus to not split the page as the arguments for splitting were stronger than the arguments against splitting; ~~if you are willing to adjust your close to state there is no consensus for either position, then I would withdraw my objection to your involved close.~~ BilledMammal (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was closed by an uninvolved editor as "no clear consensus". Striking relevant parts of previous comment. BilledMammal (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I said "After more than a month, there is no consensus to adopt the proposal" and "No action", so no adjustment would have been required. You began the simple falsehood that SIZESPLIT recommended split, even though prose length was <40kb, so get that BS notion that your argument was stronger out of your head. Even adding the text in the table, which is not prose, it still didn't meet the >50kb recommendation for "May need to be divided". Reywas92^Talk 15:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why it was not appropriate for you - or I - to close the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been perfectly appropriate for you to close it in line with how the votes went as I and SN54129 did. Reywas92^Talk 15:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TV

You are misinterpreting what the section says, ignoring my explanations, and trying to force a new guideline that says the premise of a series must be included in the first paragraph of TV leads. And that happens to be exactly what you are trying to do over at Moon Knight (TV series)! Wow. Please stop edit warring, stop trying to use the MOS to "win" an argument, and please start discussing the bold changes that you want to make that have clearly met resistance from multiple editors. WP:BRD. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph begins with "The lead paragraphs of an article..." which is plural and refers to the lead in general, so no, I am not saying something must be "in the first paragraph". Where does my edit say first paragraph??? I have no idea where your misinterpretation is coming from. I am not saying Moon Knight must have the premise in the first paragraph, but that it should be in the lead somewhere! I'll grant that it hasn't premiered yet so we don't know much of plot details, but the lead should absolutely touch on what the show's actually about, and we have sources describing that so the lead can summarize that. Reywas92^Talk 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92 Make sure that instead of edit-warring, you keep the content-related discussion to the relevant MOS talkpage. Happy editing!

-- Alex_21_TALK 01:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reywas92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

At no point did I make "more than three reverts on a single page...within a 24-hour period". There is no basis or need for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Really obvious edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

You've been here long enough to know that you don't have to exceed 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. When you make an edit that someone disagrees with, the next step is to discuss the edit on the talk page and gain consensus for it, not to simply make the same edit over and over again. This is highly disruptive behavior. I'll leave your unblock request for another admin to consider. Be sure to take a look at the histories of A Discovery of Witches (TV series) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Alex 21 reverted me FOUR times, are you going to block him? I did in fact create a discussion on the talk page, over a basic addition to the lead against which he has made zero actual argument. What's disruptive is removing legitmate article summary from the lead without reasoning. And agreement to my mundane change at MOSTV has been reached. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know (and don't care) who is right and who is wrong in the argument about the content. You made a change to an article. Alex21 disagreed with that change and reverted you. That's the point where the discussion should have started. The only reason someone else reverted 4 times is because you started an edit war over your preferred version of the article. So no, I won't be blocking anyone else. And you've done this on two different pages in the span of a week or two. I haven't dug back through your contributions further (and I won't), but I wouldn't be surprised to find more examples of this behavior in the past. You also seem to have a habit of rude edit summaries on your user talk page when people confront you about your disruptive behavior. [4][5][6] I don't know if this is your normal behavior or if you're particularly agitated about something right now. If it's the latter, maybe a short break from WP would be good for you. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD articles

Your recent edits concerning WP:LEAD have spread across a lot of articles! In a discussion concerning this, you also directly linked my user page (specifically User:Alex 21#Top Edited Pages, and apparently you visited every link there). I've noticed that out of the 16 articles you've added a premise to (according to your public contributions), the majority of these are articles listed on my aforementioned user page, including

Both film articles you've edited,
10 out of the 14 television articles you've edited,
The other 4 television ones not being articles I've got listed but definitely ones I've very recently edited,
Not a single article with a premise added to the lead has been an article that I've not interacted with.

Happy coincidence, I'm hoping? -- Alex_21_TALK 21:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been active since my message. Do you not have an answer? I can post a list of the exact articles you've edited, if you'd prefer. -- Alex_21_TALK 02:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article leads should summarize the article and the topic: as WP:LEAD says, "a summary of its most important contents". The plot is one of the most important contents for a TV show or movie. "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." The premise is part of the overview and the lead can't stand on its own without it: you wouldn't tell someone about your favorite TV show or movie without a plot introduction. "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The premise being an important section within the article (often the first), the lead should include a brief summary of it. MOS:TVLEAD also says "The lead should also summarize the major points of the rest of the article: premise..." Happy coincidence that more articles have better leads, just added several more! Reywas92^Talk 03:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer the question. I don't care why you're adding it; are you following my user page for articles to edit? -- Alex_21_TALK 11:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that as soon as I questioned you on this, you then proceeded to edit nine unrelated articles in the same manner, and then responded here three minutes later. Clearly a guilty conscious; I have the full list of articles from above saved if you choose continue to hound my userpage and contributions, as well as your direct reference to my userpage. Until then, happy editing! -- Alex_21_TALK 23:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to improve articles, why should I feel guilty about improving even more? That doesn't seem to be yours with your useless reverts. My edits are entirely constructive. Reywas92^Talk 16:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I have enough for a harassment/hounding case, that's all. All the best.

-- Alex_21_TALK 02:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To have a "case", you'd need to show how my edits would cause distress. Is it distressing to you to have lead sections do what they're supposed to do: summarize the article and topic? Or do you need to grow thicker skin? I have not inappropriately hounded you, and I will continue to improve incomplete lead sections, regardless of where they are linked. Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's distressing that you're hounding me, yes, and causing edit-wars by stalking my contributions. Doesn't matter what intent you're meaning it for, benign or detrimental; you've already been blocked for that intent. -- Alex_21_TALK 04:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I have made and will make to TV/movie pages have nothing at all to do with your particular contributions, which I have no interest in. Not once have you articulated what's wrong with improving lead sections by making them more adequate introductions to the topic. Maybe don't baselessly revert appropriate additions of material? The block was for an edit war in which you made even more reverts, not for "that intent" of filling in missing summarization. Here's a heads-up: The Shannara Chronicles, Penny Dreadful (TV series), Motive (TV series), Luther (TV series), Heroes Reborn (miniseries), and 11.22.63 all have leads that are not actually able to stand on their own as they should because by reading only the lead I have no idea what the shows are about to "get a quick familiarity with the subject, before deciding if I want to read further", as commented in the RFC. So please don't complain if I improve these in line with WP:LEAD/MOS:TVLEAD. Your having them linked on your user page does not ban me from making edits to them. Reywas92^Talk 04:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for explaining your edits without me even asking. Continue to hound me and cause edit-wars, and there'll be a case, promise. All the best. :) -- Alex_21_TALK 10:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncollegial editing

It is of vital importance that Wikipedia readers with one leg shorter than the other know where the 24-hour banking is in Canada.

Reywas, I ran into this while I was preparing to post here about another matter--that comment is a bit dickish, don't you think? Anyway, what's with the PRODding and AfDing of those London articles? First of all, it's probably high time to withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Lane, London. Second, yes, those articles you've been PRODding don't look great right now, but Philafrenzy can't work on all of them at the same time, and when they suggest most streets in a city as old as London are probably notable, they have a point. I'm hoping that the comments made on that AfD by User:Edwardx, User:Elemimele, User:Whispyhistory, and User:Bduke will convince you to be more hesitant in nominating such articles for deletion, and of course I hope that they will look at those articles, remove the PRODs, and expand them if they can. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may see that I've also recently PRODed several streets in Canada and the US and have also some elsewhere in the past. I generally do not think individual minor streets are notable and they don't inherit notability from buildings being on them unless there is broader coverage about the street as a whole. I maintain that the thousands of streets even in a historic city center are rarely individually notable and that places are perhaps better covered in a neighborhood article. Much of this article remains synthesis combining facts about entirely unrelated buildings that are or were just in the vicinity of each other. I was considering withdrawing due to the Slum improvement failure and Golden Land Mission sections that covers it more as a whole – that is, until Philafrenzy had his dickish comment about BEFORE. My before search results were mostly all about the Golden Lane Estate, not 1870s documents on ProQuest. But even if many old streets are in fact notable, that doesn't validate bulk-produced stubs with zero sources providing significant coverage of the topic and I will PROD when appropriate. Paddington Street and Scala Street are next. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- See User talk:Drmies#Did you know …. If you want to do this, one approach that I found worked well was Hog Farm's User:Hog Farm/springs User:Hog Farm/Kentucky lists, where xe made a list and we just went through it, finding documentation or nominating for deletion. User:Reywas92/London roads would work. Uncle G (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd also suggest going gently with it; Uncle G's approach sounds really quite sensible. Taking streets straight to AfD is likely to be a lot of work for you, Reywas92, because people are going to get irritated if you haven't done a full BEFORE. Many old streets in London will have an enormous amount of sources available, to those who look, so doing a convincing BEFORE is not trivial (and there will be a need to disentangle the primary from the secondary). Yes, AfD is one way to force the issue and make people go looking, but it's going to create a bit of resentment and potentially leave you with egg on your face on quite a lot of these streets. Uncle G's suggestion is an informal half-way to a sort of street-review project, which would be a very constructive way to weed out the streets for which there is little to say, and enrich those that are truly notable, without creating conflict or pressurising other editors. Elemimele (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that street in Hamilton that had everything but the fish and chip shop, by the way. My goodness! Amusingly, I looked it up on Bing Maps, and Bing Maps pointed me to its fish and chip shop. ☺ And the one in New York should really be the Tribeca East Historic District. Uncle G (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has long been accepted that while AfD can certainly work as a ultimate way of getting an article sourced by attracting others, it is counter-productive to do it with more than one or two related articles at a time. AfD can move much faster than editing, and though I myself have nominated an occasional article with this intent, it is abusing the system to do it in a way that makes it impossible to fix the articles.

There's another advantage in going slowly: When I have doubts about a large group of similar articles, I nominate a typical one and observe the reaction. If it gets easily kept, I know not to wast effort nominating the others. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noticable Spike of Un-needed and potentially unconstructive edits.

Hello. I took a look at your Edit History, and I noticed that you repeatidly remove the phrase "By the year" in what appears to be every article you see. I request that you cease this action. Using the phrase "By the year" is important to allow seperation between a count and a year. i.e "By the year 2006, Wiis were released to the public" and "2006 wiis were released to the public". PerryPerryD Talk To Me 00:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with common sense knows that 2006 is a year. No one actually thinks that's a count because of the context of the sentence. Moreover, in this example there is a comma – that provides separation! It's perfectly contructive to remove superfluous wording. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West 5th Street (Hamilton, Ontario)

Hello, Reywas92,

I was taking care of some PROD'd articles and unlinking them from this page and thought it might be worth you evaluating it for a future PROD tagging since you are so up-to-date on our geography notability criteria. Thanks for considering it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, thanks! I hadn't gotten to the upper city roads yet. Reywas92^Talk 17:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ship has come in

MOS being a bewildering maze of twisty passages, there's actually a problem with your comma solution viz., four-digit numbers either all do, or all do not, take commas in any given article (this is buried somewhere in MOS:DIGITS). But your change to the MOS example avoids the problem, so I'm all for it. E Eng 02:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think either way context should make years obvious without having to spell it out! Reywas92^Talk 03:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS

I've collected a whole bunch of stuff that still needs to get in to Geographic Names Information System. Here's one thing that I gave to Hog Farm that you may also enjoy.

The GNIS Names files do not differentiate between various types of populated places. A subdivision having one inhabitant is as significant as a major metropolitan centre such as New York City.
— Heard, Andrew M. (August 1986). Automatic correlation of USGS digital line graph geographic features to GNIS names data (PDF). United States Army Corps of Engineers. AD-A192-787.

Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I usually check the topo maps that are the source for GNIS entries, and most do use the typeface for settlements and have buildings marked, but this doesn't align with what constitutes a community – or a notable one warranting an article! Reywas92^Talk 13:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ProD on McKinnon Airpark

I removed the PROD tag on McKinnon Airpark. Prod was contested in 2015.[7] No opinion on an AfD deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST

You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd!

Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for:

2022 Earth Day Edit-a-thon 2pm - 4pm EST (April 22nd) online via Zoom and in person

This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

Parrita, Monteverde, Puerto Jiménez cantons/districts

@Reywas92: Hi, I understand where your edits and reverts come from, but now the articles that you merged to doesn't make sense, for example the cantons, as you well know, are the second administrative order, so it would be better to give precedence to that entity instead of the district of third administrative order, also, the Infoboxes lost a lot of the details of the newly created Monteverde and Puerto Jiménez cantons and cantons don't have postal codes (and they are now showing the old ones), please fix that. Thanks. --RoboQwezt0x7CB (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, please review. I reincorporated the contents of Monteverde and Puerto Jimenez to the canton version with mentions of being also a district, as some details of the previous canton they were part of were dangling around. Also pointed the canton Wikidata item to them instead of the district item, as other Wikipedia projects have articles for both canton and district (at least for Parrita which has been around for some years). --RoboQwezt0x7CB (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-renewables-idUSKCN24V0S7

[2] ttps://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/sun-cable-invest-25-bln-indonesia-solar-power-project-ceo-2021-09-23/

[3] ttps://suncable.sg/australia-asia-power-link/

[1]

[2]

[3]