User talk:Bryanrutherford0

Main

Talk

Works

Sandbox

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bryanrutherford0.

Bryanrutherford0, I think our digital paths may have crossed a few years ago when I was making some edits in the transportation sections of various Texas cities. However, most of my edits concern Texas history. WP Texas appears to be inactive. Do you think there is any interest in waking up the project? Do you have any insights about any of the subprojects? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe2: I've been periodically trying to go through and rate the articles piling up at WP:TX, and some years back I made some efforts to improve the articles on some significant Texas institutions and landmarks, but I agree that there doesn't seem to be any real activity through the WikiProject. I'm interested in trying to restart it in a more organized way, though I'm in the process of running a series of FACs right now that may take up a lot of my editing attention over the next couple of months. I'm also active at the subproject for Austin, where I've rated and categorized many articles and created others (and I've got one nominated at GAN currently, too), but I don't see many other editors there, either. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance, please let me know specifics about what you would like to see from the projects. I am rating unassessed articles at WP Hou, whittling down a list from about 500. The project is far behind in reassessing stub articles, too. Best wishes for your FACs, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any real interest in maintaining WikiProject Houston as an independent entity. I think the only way to save the project is through a merger with WikiProject Texas. Similarly with the other subprojects. Do you support a merger of the various sub projects with WikiProject Texas? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I at least do use and follow WP:Austin, because I like having a subset of the Texas topics marked as being relevant to Austin for me to comb through and try to improve, but I don't know how many others might be finding it useful, and AnotherBeliever seems to be the only one who responded to your post at the Austin project's talk page. Haha maybe there are only two editors using that project currently! I think I'd like to put together a draft to-do list for WP:Austin indicating my priorities for improving coverage of the city and add that to the project page, since the one there now hasn't been changed since 2010. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, WP Houston under my proposal would be reorganized as a task force, just as San Antonio is a task force under WP Texas. The task force does not assess articles under its own banner. But you are correct that if you want to keep distinct assessments for WP Austin, then this project should remain as is. But WP Houston, WP D-FW, and all of the university subs would still exist with their own pages and the ability to propose priorities as tasks forces.

After another week I will probably submit a proposal for a merger, unless you have an objection. We can keep the status quo for WP Austin. WP Houston has about 3800 articles and quality has suffered through many of its articles. I have seen a similar problem with WP D-FW articles, with a count of about 2700. There are articles with Texas content which are not yet carrying the US-TX banner. If there is a merger, I can help you with assessments and also look through the stubs for articles to promote. Please let me know what you need from me. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then I support that change completely. These projects certainly don't appear to be getting any support from WikiProject Cities; it makes sense to treat them as subprojects of WP:TX (including Austin). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more question before I write my proposal: do you want a WP Austin with distinct assessments, or are you ok with the separate assessments going away (like the San Antonio task force)? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely doesn't need to have its own quality asessments; I just want it to have its own importance ratings. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryanrutherford0, wondering if we might chip away at automating some of the tasks you are currently doing manually, as in Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches. For example it seems like in the latest diff the first section (line 3) was simply removing the {{good article}} template as in here. Would this always be the case, or does it require human determination? -- GreenC 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: It would be great to automate more of the maintenance, but it would take some programming beyond my abilities, since, as the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches points out, there are a variety of reasons that an article can end up in one of these lists, though some are certainly more common than others. The most common problems seem to be with articles that have been newly listed or delisted where the editor making the change didn't complete the process, but there are also out-of-process promotions, random deletions of chunks of the article or the talk page... I think the simplest thing to automate might be fixing the redirects in WP:GA/All when an article has been renamed, although non-simple cases crop up there, too, e.g. when an article has been renamed because editors decided that something different was a primary topic and made the original title a disambiguation page. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes won't be able to solve all problems with 100% automation. But to focus on those areas that can be automatically done safely to reduce the manual overhead which seems like a good idea where possible. The bot making the report is one step away from making a page correction edit. How the bot behaves would depend on your recommendation of rules to follow since you have gained expertise in this area. In your experience, have you ever seen a case where you did not remove the {{good article}} when it gets flagged in that section? Or could it automatically be removed every time? Noted about the redirects, though if the original title is now a dab page due to primary topic change it should not be flagged as a redirect in the report, since there is no # REDIRECT statement in the page. Unless you have seen differently. -- GreenC 16:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I should have read the resolving mismatches section since it answers the question that yes there could be cases where it should not be removed. -- GreenC 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it would help you or someone else with the necessary skill to attempt writing a bot, I could try to create a comprehensive list of the cases I've encountered and the proper editing response in each case, and we could try to think through criteria for identifying and distinguishing the cases. I could contribute at the pseudocode level, at least! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sounds good. Basically to encode your expert knowledge. -- 17:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks at Austin, Texas. I was actually hoping someone would revert my edit, as I'd like to start an RfC about promotional rankings in articles. The Canadians did it here and I wanted to get a broad consensus to do the same to US articles, similar to this RfC which prohibits "affluent" from the first line of city articles. Some articles are just heaped with rankings and promos. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryanrutherford0. I saw you didn't like my method of noting to readers which sources are open and limited access. I figured it was a 50/50 chance you'd appreciate its value. Its approach isn't as tied to the citation template, and I saw in the references you were fastidious about them. But, given that I like signalling levels of access for interested readers, I thought it was worth a try in case you were open to the idea. I saw you did let the within-template jstor addition stay. Unfortunately, there is no within-template way to designate that jstor too is limited access (via registration.) At present, you can only choose jstor-access=free, which is incorrect. and jstor-access. Worse yet, jstor-access often conflicts with doi-access, which is usually limited, often conflicts with doi-access, which is usually closed). But interested readers can at least click the jstor link and figure it out.

I also removed the article's most salient redlink. As you can tell from the lack of edit, I did this without touching the article. Instead, I created a (currently inadequate, but hopefully passable) article for the redlink. Unfortunately, there remains another problematic link I noted, which I did initially try to fix by edit. This is the link to the lesser-known Franco-German 1741 Treaty of Breslau, which I attempted to change but then reverted after noting I mixed up treaties. As it currently is when I first clicked it, it sends the reader into the War of Austrian Succession with no context or follow up. I'm not sure if you want to address this in some way, as it could be viewed as an issue external to the article. But I thought I'd make you aware of it in case you weren't. And, of course, I'll leave its solution (or not) to your discretion.

As a final note, I came to your article while trying to clean up another, messier First Silesian War-related article, and was impressed by the amount of work and apparent pleasure you put into this. It is a solid article! ( But then, looking at your FA discussion, I'm figuring you already know how good the article is.)
Cheers
Wtfiv (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, mate! I appreciate your obvious interest in building up the encyclopedia (Treaty of Nymphenburg and Battle of Mollwitz are coming along nicely!). I moved the information you added into the citation templates where possible, and then I removed some of it because that's what the documentation in the template advises. That documentation says that URLs in citations "are presumed to be free-to-read" and only require a note when they aren't free; by contrast, named identifiers (jstor, bibcode and the like) "are presumed to lie behind a paywall or registration barrier" and merit note only when they are freely available. I also like your idea to point out that the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie is in German, and I just moved that information into the parameter that already exists for that purpose in the citation template. The function of the citation templates is to help citations to follow a consistent format across millions of pages, which improves readability (and verifiability), and I think that a featured article should probably go with the recommendation of the documentation for the sake of consistency. I think the information you were looking to add is useful, but there's not (that I know of) a clear, standardized way of indicating in a citation that the full text of a book source is available for free through the given link. Maybe someone should start a discussion at Template talk:Citation (unless it's already been discussed in the archives)? Thanks for pitching in! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryanrutherford0: Thanks, and it's very cool you checked out the two articles! As you suggest, I'll probably drop my comments into the citation group. This particular side issue of mine is more about helping external readers see at a glance when they have access to the available open resources. The current situation is messy and for non-regular Wikipedians, I think the default is to not click references, whereas I'd like to encourage it. (e.g., How many incorrect citations have you encountered?)

Though the Wikipedia discussion may have rules for defaults, I think intermediate user default for both books and articles is that even if linked, there is no access. I know that is true for me. If I see a book citation, even with a link, I never assume its free. Usually, a well-made book citation has a url-links take readers to a Google book page that makes the cited point, sometimes with just a snippet. Readers can go no further. Sometimes we're limited to just the snip. Ironically url-access=limited denotes a higher level of access than no link. The free or open access key would the reader know the whole work is available. Yes, for articles, the default is closed access for sure. That is why I go with JSTOR when I can because it is better than nothing. It has limited access (registration and 6/articles per month; 100/month during the past year) instead of typical default doi-based articles, which almost always have completely closed access (though there's no template designation for JSTOR limited access).

As an aside, what started me attempting the edit on your page was seeing the lock icons in your citations. For some reason Chrome- but not Firefox- overlaps the icon with text in the url-access=limited designation,making the text and icon into a mashup. But I think this may be just my computer, as it worked when I tested it on another one later.

Anyway, I've gone too far afield, I think. Getting into the Wikinerd citation mode. It was fun to discuss and get your perspective. And definitely having all the Silesian wars FAed attests that your point has strong consensus! Thanks for your reply. Again, your work on the various articles is outstanding, and it looks like you really put in the time helping other articles get GA and FA ratings, which I'm sure is much appreciated.
Best
Wtfiv (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my good-faith and sourced improvement of this article and your insistence that I instead take part in an unnecessary and convoluted metadiscussion is a reason that I and many other qualified people who would like to improve Wikipedia are giving up on participating in the project. As a result of your reversion of my edit, the quality of the article is slightly diminished. The cumulative effect of actions like yours is to drive away capable and decent people and to gradually erode the quality of Wikipedia. Too bad. My time is better spent elsewhere. Marco polo (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Marco polo, you're talking about an interaction that happened over a year ago? It took me a couple of minutes just to find it. Are you just going around "telling off" every editor you've ever disagreed with, or something? As I said at the time, you were interjecting changes to an article that was in the middle of a Featured Article Candidate review, in which numerous editors were actively discussing the best ways to polish and improve that article, and your changes were undoing work that the group had just done. You were welcome to participate in that process, as I invited you to do at the time. When multiple writers with different opinions are trying to improve the same document, discussion actually is "necessary"; if you're unwilling to participate in that sort of discussion, then you're free to write a new article from scratch or expand and improve an article that no one else is actively working on. It's hard work reaching a consensus about the best version of an article among many editors, and it's common enough to get burned out. I hope you come back to the project when you're in a better mood. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sorry. I was used to thinking it was 2020 and misperceived an edit from 2019 as recent. I didn't know the context and apologize for jumping to the conclusion that I had fallen victim to one of Wikipedia's unfortunate power struggles, which I try to avoid. It does make sense that the featured article process would require more discussion than usual. Best wishes, Marco. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In working on trying to get the citations and structure of Frederick in a shape that seems more complete but steers close to what the community has constructed, I'm currently trying to clean up the Silesian War sections. For this work, I find that your Silesian Wars series has been incredibly useful as a guide toward correcting small issues, providing potential citations when needed, and as a guide I try to adhere to ensure a rough parallel in narrative sequencing. For this section of the clean up, it has been incredibly useful! So I figure a public thanks is in order. (Not to say that what I'm doing won't need further editing and correction, but at least you've helped point it in what seems like a good direction.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you! Yeah, I'm always glad when there's a solid existing article I can summarize for a section of one I'm writing or expanding. Thanks again for the massive work you're undertaking there! I tried to work myself up to overhauling Frederick's biography for years and never quite got ready. ;) -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Bryanrutherford0, I've put out the call to get Frederick to Good Article status. It's dicey as the article is just so long, and I don't feel comfortable paring it down. (I kind of like respecting all the various "Frederick's I see on the website) I was wondering, as you are into trying to the "Good Article" culture a little. Would it be possible to reach out to another editor you think is reasonable, perhaps knowledgeable in the era of history, who would be willing to do a Good Article edit? (I'm not asking you directly, as I see you as one of the more invested watchers of the site, though your editorial touch is actually quite light.) It'd be great if the article could get to Frederick the Good.

Thanks for your insight and even being available enough that I feel comfortable asking you for help!

As an aside, I'm not sure about Frederick (the article)'s ability to achieve "Great" (i.e., Featured Article) I think anybody who could edit the article to the level of Featured Article without treading on all the commitments would be a miracle worker. Wtfiv (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm so glad to see it nominated for GAN! Yeah, it's a beast of an article, but it probably needs to be pretty long just because there's been so, so much written about this guy's life. I'll try to make time over the next couple of days to read through it and make any contributions I see. Congrats on all the great work you've done on it! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bryan! By the way, I totally agree about it having to be long! Wtfiv (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtfiv: Okay, I've given the article a once-over, and here are my main pieces of feedback: first, it looks quite good! I think somewhere early on, maybe around the "Inheritance" section, it might be helpful to include File:Europe 1740 en.png, possibly in place of File:Acprussiamap2.gif that's already there, since the existing map lumps in acquisitions long before Frederick's time with his gains in the same color. I think it could stand a short section about Frederick's activities in the interbellum period, maybe borrowing some content from the corresponding section in "Silesian Wars". The sentence "Frederick undertook the exploitation of Polish territory under the pretext of an enlightened civilizing mission, given his disparagement of Poland and its ruling elite, all of which provided a convenient entree for the "sanguine meliorism" of the Enlightenment and heightened assurance in the "distinctive merits of the 'Prussian way'"." is hard to parse and sounds faintly plagiarized. One other more involved issue, which I haven't felt up to trying to raise in the article's talk page, is that "The Old Fritz" is (in my opinion) not the best translation of Der Alte Fritz. Articles work differently in different languages, and English tends to use them in fewer places than most European languages; I would translate the nickname just as "Old Fritz", and many sources agree with me. Beyond that, I've made a bunch of minor changes of a copyediting nature. Good luck at GAN! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Thanks! I'll scrounge around and look at the interbellum material and put in a brief transition. I haven't looked yet, but I'm sure you material is a great place to start. Working with the whole "First Partition" section in a way that respects it has been an incredible challenge, so I think that can be taken care of. Translating "Old Fritz" is a toughie. I think the nickname does not really translate, but at the same time, I can just imagine the kind of readers who would come to it. By all means, if there is a better translation, it would be good to tackle it. But as you have mentioned, putting anything in terms of actual content (as opposed to editing) is always a challenge! Wtfiv (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the GA template at the top, as the instructions suggest it is needed by the Bot to close the review, which remains open on the page. You are a pro at GA and FAs, so maybe what you did is sufficient. I just wanted to let you know I made the change, but if it is unneeded to close the review on the GA nominations page, please revert. I trust your expertise! Wtfiv (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yeah, at some point we need to update the GAN bot so that it knows how to work with Template:Article history. Good point! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...so I probably read the instructions correctly. Wtfiv (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I finished editing the citations to sfn per Tim Riley's suggestion, I'm thinking of putting Frederick the Great out there for Featured Article review, also per Tim Riley's suggestion. (I must say, Tim Riley had a point: the sea of blue citations does not look too bad.) As you know, the article is a tough beast because there are so many opinions and commitments about Frederick II amongst the editors. Do you think is ready for this move, or do you think I should be satisfied with Good Article? My concern sith going for Featured Article would be that they may require certain areas of cleanup that I like. (e.g., you know I like to note freely available resources.) I'm into the idea of trying to get such an article that has so many strong opinions to Featured Article, but if you think the process would be messy or the Fine Article criteria would create more problems, I rather not. I'm good either way, I'm just asking someone whose opinion, insight, and expertise with the process I respect Wtfiv (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtfiv: Hey, thanks, mate! Hah, it cheers me to see that some of the headings and organizational decisions I made way back when are still around in the current version of the article. Let's see... I think I'd retitle the section currently called "Wars" to something more like "Reign", since it also includes a summary of the First Partition of Poland. There's a one-sentence paragraph in that section that should probably be combined with another graph. Yeah, the article looks great! Haha I also like that sea of blue. I'd say go for it, and just be aware that the FAC process is pretty grueling; the reviewers are very exacting (and rightly so), and it can be very hard to square all the opinions and preferences with your own judgments about what's best for the piece. If you're willing to do the work, I think the article is definitely a credible candidate at this point. God speed, and thank you for all the hard work you've already put into this project! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response...I'll make your suggested changes, and toss the FA question into talk to see if there are concerns. Depending on the response, I'll risk the FA and let the editors decide. Thank you so much. Again, I very much respect your opinion! Wtfiv (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is very cool that it was your headings that structured this article in the first place. (And your maps are great!) My philosophy has been to let the more content-committed editors have their say, and then just see if it can be brought into a coherent tale (with reliability of citation being the key determinant for me). The emergence of the end product has been interesting. I must say, I like the Frederick that has emerged. Maybe that's why I've stuck at this project! Wtfiv (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to give you some kudos. To make sure that Frederick's major defeats were noted, one of the Feature Article reviewers insisted on prose on final years of the Seven Years War in the Frederick the Great article. To put together the prose, I had to get guidance. Can you guess where the foundation of the narrative structure came from? The The Silesian Wars article was my first choice. I immediately went there because I thought it was the cleanest summary I knew of. Because of the Frederick article's focus and the integration of other prose, it may not be as easy to see your work in it, but your work provided the skeletal structure, and the reviewer seems satisfied with the result. After that, I just had to add citations. After that the FA process continues, but I thought you should know that once more your good work- and your Wikipedia voice- continues to have an impact. Wtfiv (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thank you! I hope the community is doing enough to make you feel appreciated for taking the lead on this daunting project. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryan, I'm tossing out a request for help with Frederick the Great. In the Fine Article review, the latest reviewer would like a source for the maps. I can certainly dredge up something, but am heading out for the rest of the week. Would you be willing to toss an sfn citaton into each of the two excellent maps you created for Frederick II's before and after? In addition, would you be willing to add alt tags to the images. Also, it was reported that the battle of Rossbach.png has a broken link; is this something you could quickly fix? Would you be able to take care of these? If you don't have time, I understand. If you can, I can mark them as done when I get back. Or if you feel comfortable doing so, you can mark that as done as well on the FAR page. I can get back to this later. Appreciatively, Wtfiv (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added an archived URL source to that map of Rossbach, and I think I got alt text onto all the images. I don't believe it's usual to attach a citation to a map image in an article; the source information for the maps is on their Commons pages, where it at least names the German book of atlases that the original map was adapted from. Hope this helps! I'll try to weigh in and mark things done at the review page later today. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that last sign off. I'm on the road now and am not nimble with the mobile tools. Thank you so much! That's totally awesome (Even if Circassia is off a bit! I'm not sure that it is much of a deal- or so I hope! :-) )! You warned me: This is FAR is quite the process! Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan, Frederick is now indeed "Frederick the Featured" and worthy of standing amidst is fine "Silesian War" series of articles. I'm so glad you have been keeping an eye on this article for so many ages, and thank you for your help in so many ways- editing and of course, watching!

@Chariotsacha: Thank you too! I think you mentioned that this is your first major article commitment. You have been tremendously helpful in getting this to featured status, and as I said to Bryan, I'm so glad you are keeping an eye on this article! Hopefully, the experience will get you to try your hand at another article, and if I can help either of you out in anyway, let me know. It was great working with both of you to get it here. Wtfiv (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtfiv: I just about fell out of my chair! Frederick made it, and to think that only earlier this year he wasn't even at G.A.! I was about to post on your talk page but I see you've pinged me here. This has been an incredible experience, and I've learned so much. You're correct in saying this was my first major article contribution. This was such a brilliant effort on all ends, I want to say my thanks first to you @Wtfiv:, not only for always being bold and getting through the grotto of citations. But also for being exceptionally patient and kind when I was starting out helping, and encouraging me to try new stuff on here, such as creating new articles and helping with the F.A. review. I appreciate it immensely, especially as working on a big article like Frederick was very intimidating at the start. @Bryanrutherford0:, Bryan, you have been an incredibly active and wonderful contributor from the very beginning at B-quality all the way to featured, you contributed scripts, consensus and beautiful contributions left right and centre. It simply couldn't have been done without you! Finally, @Buidhe: always seemed to really want to see this project go far and really put in time to get it organized for G.A., although he went a bit silent on the F.A., I really think his points during the G.A. were exceptionally important to how far this article has become, and of course, thank you to everyone who contributed. It's been an an absolute treat working on this article and I couldn't have asked for better editors. I hope to work with you all again! Chariotsacha (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Buidhe (Buidhe|talk). It wouldn't have happened without Buidhe's jumping in. Wtfiv (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three hurrahs all around! Wtfiv: be sure to nominate Old Fritz at TFA requests; his promotion to FA also should entitle you to a Triple Crown (you nominate yourself). Congratulations! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another one! Why not? I'll request his 311 birthday in January. Now, I'll have to figure out a blurb... Wtfiv (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chariotsacha: Since the requests can only be for a month, I requested a random day. Frederick is slated be today's Featured Article on November 9. Thanks for the suggestion! Wtfiv (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

CMD submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Bryanrutherford0 to be Editor of the Week for their behind the scenes work maintaining the Wikipedia:Good articles lists. Among other tasks, they have been monitoring and fixing the Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches page since March 2020. Such a background task is hard to notice and almost never remarked upon, but is a key part in keeping everything ticking along. This is in addition to participation in the Featured and Good topics space, and of course to their splendid content contributions. This award was seconded by User:Eddie891.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Austin, Texas

Bryanrutherford0

Editor of the Week for the week beginning January 16, 2022

Does commendable "behind the scenes" work maintaining the Wikipedia:Good articles lists. Monitoring and fixing the Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches page since early 2020. Handles the hard to notice background tasks that allow everything to keep ticking along. Helps at Featured and Good topics space and contributes splendid content.

Recognized for

Good Article Monitoring

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 16:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! How totally unexpected! Thank you, to whomever this came from! :) -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bryan, hope you're well -- and congratulations on the Editor of the Week nomination! :) Just over a month ago now you reviewed Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication for DYK and had quite a bit of praise for its state; it's since passed GAN and been substantially expanded, and I was curious if you might be interested in participating in its pre-FAC peer review. No pressure of any kind, of course, but PR can be a slow process, and I thought you might have an interest. Thanks again for the DYK review, and best of luck with all your Wikipedia endeavours. Vaticidalprophet 08:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bryan. I am currently looking for a new active delegate to help with the project and I was recommended to you by my delegate Aza about your involvement with Featured Topics. I agree with their recommendation and I am asking if you would like the position. GamerPro64 05:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: Hey, thanks! I'm interested! If there are any written policies or guidelines for the job, I'd love to read through them, or to hear from you what it would consist of. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Have we written any policies or guidelines? I don't remember. GamerPro64 22:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: Haha okay, but, so, I would be closing and processing proposals after a sufficient time had passed and a clear consensus emerged? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. GamerPro64 02:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: Count me in! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Ill add you to the roster. Welcome aboard. GamerPro64 03:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the team Bryan! We don't have any formal policies or guidelines on nominating or the job but we have User:Aza24/FGTC coordination as well as User:Aza24/FTC/Promote Instructions and User:Spy-cicle/FTC/Demote Instructions. Aza24 (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the backlog! I've been juggling so many different things on WP that I didn't give FGTC a fair amount of my time lately. I glanced through your promotions and such and found no issues, did you come across any? Best – Aza24 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to knock out a few that were a month or more old. I did a couple by hand to get a sense of all the steps involved, and then I tried calling the bot for a couple more; it seemed to do its job successfully for simple first-time promotions. The guideline pages y'all linked here were very helpful. Glad to be involved! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryan, you did a great job merging the two articles (article and List) on Frederick the Great Statue and the list of names. Well done. auntieruth (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thank you! This summer I'm hoping to make the time to try to get a couple of those remaining articles on old Fritz to GA and see if a Good Topic can be assembled, but we'll see how things shake out. I appreciate your advice and feedback! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Bryanrutherford0! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to request the promotion of Title (album) to a featured topic. Provided everything is in order, of course. Sorry for bothering, I was considering doing it myself but this looks a bit complicated.--NØ 20:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it happen! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It is still displaying as a good topic on the respective article talk pages though so I'm unsure what code needs to be changed for it to be reflected.--NØ 05:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. After digging for a bit, I think it's a result of the fact that the topic's name seems to have been changed at some point, and that's confusing the functions. I've tried to clean up after the move a bit, and maybe now it will start displaying correctly at some point? I'll try to fix it if I can figure out how! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems to have worked and it's now fixed. Thanks a lot for your help with this!--NØ 13:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I was looking at Meghan Trainor's Billboard Hot 100 entries and wondering if there was consensus for promotion. One of the articles will appear as TFA soon and this topic could be appended to the blurb if promoted.--NØ 19:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryan, I had jumped into editing Joan of Arc as part of a Featured article review. What I thought would just be a quick clean-up of adding references and fixing citation integrity has evolved into a year-long odyssey of massively overhauling of an article that had been badly impacted by over 10 years of sockpuppeting. Anyway, I think we are close to done (Near the end, I've had excellent help from a veteran editor.) But it looks like we need to do a bit of peer review ala the FA process. (Ironically, I chose the Featured Article Review process to avoid having to go through the Featured article review. I thought it would just be clean up.) Anyway, I think it is pretty close to done, but it needs reviewers. The article has become a paradox: it is a much-read (~7000/day) that has been locked down and is almost pariah to touch, even in the review process. It'd be great to ensure the article remains featured.

I enjoyed working with you and trust your judgements, so would you be willing to look it over and comment? Anyway, if you are out there somewhere, do you have time to take a look at the Joan of Arc article and review it? If you do, I've linked the Review page where you would post your comments. If not, I get it. Joan is European history, but wanders a bit far from Texas or Brandenburg. Wtfiv (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look! I didn't end up getting much editing in this summer, and now the school year's ramping up again, but I'll see if I can contribute something. Keep up the great work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking a look at it! And yes, fall is a really busy time! I hope you get a chance to get back into Wikiediting soon. And, if you ever want me to take a look at anything, I'll do my best! Wtfiv (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many people found it the worst episode of the series, so I feel it doesn't deserve its own page. True to the Music (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! A work's quality as a piece of art has nothing to do with its notability to Wikipedia; on the contrary, if that's true, then the fact that it is considered to be the worst would be a point in favor of its notability (if people have written about how bad it is). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that you noted that the article "Neutron magnetic moment" had been demoted from "Good Article" status. I am not sure how to arrange things, but that article was merged with "Proton magnetic moment" to form the new Nucleon magnetic moment article. This new article is essentially the neutron article, with the proton bits incorporated. I anticipate putting it up for "Good Article" review at some point. But the notice you posted on the neutron talk page seems to me to serve no purpose, since that specific article is just a redirect now. Perhaps nothing needs to be done; perhaps you will know better how to configure the situation. (I don't account myself an expert on Wikipedia mechanics; it just seemed to me the two articles should be combined.) Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The merger is fine; I would have voted in support of it, if I'd happened to notice a proposal. As for updating the article history template, I just documented the thing that you had done: deleted that article by merging it into another. If a Good Article is merged into a different article, then the new article doesn't thereby become a GA without going through the GAN process itself. That said, if a GA is merely renamed, then it does continue to be a GA unless and until it fails a GAR. If you're saying that you feel this was more of a rename than a merge, then it would have been better to accomplish it by moving the article rather than copying and pasting, so as to preserve the original article's edit history. Also, questions as to the validity of preserving the GA rating are raised by the merging in of a significant amount of content about the proton. At this point, I think it should probably just run through GAN again under the new name; if most of the content is the same, then it should probably be a fairly easy GAN? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while the article is mostly the original neutron article, there are sufficient changes with the merge that I don't think the automatic Good Article can be claimed. I anticipated a re-review at some later date, giving the new article a chance to settle. Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I have not given you thanks for your help with Featured Topics. You have been a great help for the project and are much appreciated. GamerPro64 19:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that I have added some notes to the article on the sexuality of Frederick the Great. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 22:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panzer Dragoon Orta you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Juxlos -- Juxlos (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Panzer Dragoon Orta you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panzer Dragoon Orta for comments about the article, and Talk:Panzer Dragoon Orta/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Juxlos -- Juxlos (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		This is in appreciation of the work you did bringing Panzer Dragoon Orta to GA. I admit I left both that and Zwei in a bit of a state after I got burned (and needed to reevaluate my article writing), but seeing you take on the rest of the series is heartening. Fingers crossed that the others also pass. ProtoDrake (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panzer Dragoon II Zwei you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Panzer Dragoon II Zwei you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panzer Dragoon II Zwei for comments about the article, and Talk:Panzer Dragoon II Zwei/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panzer Dragoon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Panzer Dragoon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Panzer Dragoon and Talk:Panzer Dragoon/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Panzer Dragoon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Panzer Dragoon for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panzer Dragoon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 209.189.130.166 -- 209.189.130.166 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panzer Dragoon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Bryanrutherford0! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Please be careful working with the talk page banners; with this edit you removed the content rating and all associated categories from the article when you removed the class parameter from the WikiProject banner shell. I've fixed it though, so no harm done! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryan, sorry if I left you on your own at all at FTGC for a bit. For a while I was really the only active coordinator and had to do a lot of promotions (often with 20+ articles) by hand (before the bot) which was a really tedious and frustrating process—I guess I needed some time away from the project. This being said, I'm planning to resume my involvement and want to thank you again for keeping the project going! Aza24 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yes, the promotion bot is a lifesaver; now, if we only had one that could demote 20+ article topics automatically, too! Hey, no worries, thanks for all you've already done for that project. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Panzer Dragoon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panzer Dragoon for comments about the article, and Talk:Panzer Dragoon/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Bryan, Last month, you told me that to nominate an article to Good Article (GA) standards you have to go through the GA Nomination page. However, do you have to do the same thing if for example, I wanted to change a Start class article to B class or C class etc? Roads4117 (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great question! No, there are only formal nomination and review processes for the two highest content quality levels: "Good" (the green plus-sign) and "Featured" (the bronze star). All the levels below that can be assessed by anyone at any time and really just exist for the benefit of editors trying to decide where to spend their time, which articles are most in need of improvement, and so on. You should feel free to reassess any of the lower quality levels on articles' talk pages. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, thanks! Roads4117 (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the preview of the Texas Triangle page was showing a blank space. I don't know why it was doing that, and I wasn't sure how to fix it. It is most noticeable on the phone, because the infobox is showing on the top instead of the paragraph. See if you can fix it, and then get back to me ASAP. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't even know how to see whatever preview you're referring to. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I say preview, I mean when you hover your mouse over a link and it shows a brief wording of the page you're about to go to. That's the meaning of the preview. It's only available for computers, but hopefully you'll understand. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see; I don't use that feature. The preview of that page does indeed fail to display any text, and I have no idea why, but it's more important for the article to work properly than for the article preview to work properly, so we really can't mess up the layout of the actual article to try to fix the preview. Maybe ask someone on the technical staff? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a limit on the number of GT/FT nominations per user? I may have just missed it, but I didn't see anything mentioned about it. I have one topic currently nominated, but it's not looking good for it currently, but I have a few more I plan to nominate at some point once the GAN and FLC processes wrap up.

Hope your semi retirement is going well. I figured since you're involved with GT and FT nominations, I'd ask you. ZooBlazer 20:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, feel free to nominate as many as you like, and then please vote yes or no on any outstanding nominations to help them get processed. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I've been working on votes already, so good to know! ZooBlazer 21:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. I think I'm gonna juat withdraw my current GT nom, but is it like FLC, where the director or a delegate archives the nomination? Or do I just remove the nomination myself? ZooBlazer 22:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call! I don't know what's standard, but I'd say it would probably be better to archive it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe)/archive1 if you have a chance to do so.

I used {{@FTC}} yesterday, but I think all of you aren't super active currently, so I figured I would just leave a message here. ZooBlazer 23:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brian, hope all is well. I see you've now taken some step back from Wiki. I was wondering when you get a chance, I'm looking at the Overview of Angeline Quinto series and wondering if there was consensus for promotion? The main article will appear as TFA this Nov 26th and this topic could be included to the blurb if promoted. I could def reach out to other delegates but not sure if they are as active too. Thanks in advance. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it for the bot. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very much appreciated ;) Pseud 14 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Bryanrutherford0! Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.

RV (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, I was just wondering if there was some way to 'timestamp' featured and good topics to stop quick de-list rot. For example, say ChrisTheDude was to immediately stop contributing to Wikipedia one day and his topic:Wikipedia:Featured topics/Billboard number-one country songs, would eventually be delisted as nobody would FL the following year, it would be a huge shame to have the topic de listed as it is arguably the most impressive on the website. Could we possibly 'timestamp' the topic to be titled say: Billboard number-one country songs (1944–2023) or Billboard number-one country songs (20th century); that way, if its no longer being updated, there is no loss and the work remains recognised. I'm asking this question because EFL Championship play-offs, EFL League One play-offs and EFL League Two play-offs are all nominated for de-listing because nobody has started the process of improving the 2023 versions, all of which are hugely impressive and would be an absolute injustice to have all the work go unrecognised just because nobody has updated the following year, or maybe the regular contributor has left Wikipedia. If there was someway to have these topics exist through some compromise like a 'timestamp' or some other approach, I think not only could the topic system recognise and maintain a lot of impressive work, but also make people more inclined to collate topics that have rot potential, because all their effort won't just eventually rot away like it might do after they leave Wikipedia.

I hope this makes sense, I'm not any good at explaining stuff. It's just an idea that's probably been brought up before, I just can't stand to see topics like these disappear and I hope there'd be someway to save many of them. Kind Regards. Idiosincrático (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting idea! I think for those sorts of open-ended, annual topics something like that could definitely make sense, though I wouldn't support it for something like, say, studio albums by a particular artist or games in a particular series. Propose it at Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates or Wikipedia talk:Featured topics and see if you can build consensus for a policy change! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until all the FT leadership discussions are over, thanks for your interest. :) Idiosincrático (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the contributions you have made at the Featured and Good Topic Candidates Project. I am sure this has often felt like thankless work, but it is important to Wikipedia and it is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bus routes in the Boston area has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks for uploading File:Pacioli summa stamp.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Canals opened in 1398 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Bryanrutherford0! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am pleased to tell you I recently brought Vultures 1 to GA status and this is at addition for Kanye West's studio albums GT if you would be interested to comment? K. Peake 17:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]