User talk:Armadillopteryx/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

MOS:LEAD

I agree with you about MOS:LEAD. Is there a way to address this at case study example, [1]? (e.g. [2] [3]) Is there a way that lede could be expanded, so as to avoid it being a two-sentence-long-introduction-section? Is the lede for that article too short? Thank you, Right cite (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Right cite, thanks for asking! I definitely think the lead there does not adequately summarize the article text. I agree that adding minor details isn't the way to expand it, though. I would suggest adding things like when her career began and what some of her career highlights or best known works are. Definitely mention that she is also a director and has her own company. A reasonable rule of thumb to get you started would be to aim for a sentence or two in the lead for each subheading of the body text. It looks like the edit summary in the first diff you provided indicates concerns about some issues that were apparently discussed at the AfD; normally, mentioning the first notable work of any actor/actress is a common thing to put in the lead. I skimmed the lengthy discussion on he talk page, and my takeaway is that the editor who removed some details from the lead did not do so because they want a shorter lead, but rather because there was an issue with the specific info that was there. Armadillopteryx 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, thank you very much, I agree with your input -- perhaps you could give a case study example for that particular one, and show us how you would expand the lead so as to satisfy MOS:LEAD? Right cite (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: Thanks for asking. To be honest, my time is quite limited right now. I don't think I can commit to familiarizing myself with all the open issues that article apparently has, which I would need to do in order to write a good lead. I see the extensive ongoing talk page discussions, recent AfD, and issues related to sourcing, among other things, and I wouldn't feel comfortable throwing together a lead without going through it all.

I would still be happy to answer questions if you have them, of course, and I would also gladly give you feedback if you make some changes of your own. You can also take a look at some of my GAs to get a sense for how I write leads, if you like. Armadillopteryx 13:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, okay not a problem. What about if you want to write up a draft lede, and put it here on this user talk page, for now? Right cite (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: Maybe. I have a few things on my to-do list already. If I have a bit of extra time in the next couple of days, I can draft something and ping you here. Armadillopteryx 13:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, take your time! That would be most appreciated, thank you!!! Right cite (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you think

What do you think, of the current lede, at article I worked on and expanded and improved [4], Jiz Lee? Right cite (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: I will try to take a look later today or tomorrow :-) Armadillopteryx 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, thank you. Unfortunately the user is following me around to articles they have never been at before -- literally seconds after I make improvements there. Please see also, Talk:Deborah Anderson. Thank you! Right cite (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: I just left a comment over at Talk:Deborah Anderson. I think you've got the structure right; a good next step would be to discern which specific details are most lead-worthy and refine the language to be more neutral. I'm happy to help with those things. Armadillopteryx 21:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, agree with your suggestions. Thank you for saying my sentence was an improvement. Notice the one or two-sentence-long leads in some other places. I agree with you about MOS:LEAD. I do not think we should have two-sentence-long leads that violate MOS:LEAD. Right cite (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

More stalking and following me around from the user. Creepy. Your comments would be appreciated, at Talk:Deborah_Anderson#Recent_expansion_of_lede. Right cite (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Left you a question at DIFF. Right cite (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you think we can compromise modify this edit DIFF, so as not to wholesale remove all examples? Would you agree with me that after that edit DIFF, the lede again feels a bit too short? How would you suggest we expand the lede a bit more? Right cite (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: This is somewhat subjective, but as I've mentioned, I don't think names like that are really WP:DUE in the lead. If the subject did a massive solo project for a hugely famous person, it might make sense to leave the name. (In fact, in this diff, I notice that Hipal kept Pink's name, presumably because Pink's fame is a part of the reason that project was notable—I would have done the same.) But names of publications that Anderson's work has appeared in and names of people who appeared in her book or film are not major points of the article, and I think that including them in the lead does shift the focus away from the subject and her notability. Those names all belong in the body text, sure; don't cut the info out of the article, but do leave it out of the lead. (Edit: I also like this suggestion to name only the two biggest magazines and then say "and other magazines")

I understand why all this has been very frustrating for you, as I can tell you edit in good faith and learn very quickly—you've done a lot of good for the encyclopedia so far. I think you might be assuming bad faith about Hipal, who, to me, seems to be trying to improve the articles. Not everyone edits the same way; some people would prefer to reword and replace things that should be improved, while others may look at the same things and think they should just be deleted. If you feel frustrated by someone's edits, it can really help to take a step back, go do something else for a few hours or a day, and then engage with them on the talk page once your feelings have had time to settle down a little. It can sometimes make it easier to engage productively with someone you disagree with and to come to a mutual agreement on how to edit an article. Armadillopteryx 10:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, they've been following me around. To articles they have never been to before. Seconds later. It is creepy. And unnerving. As far as your comments about the article itself, again, thank you for your specific suggestions, and again, I love all your specific feedback and I agree with all of your input about how to improve the article. Right cite (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at contribution histories to see for myself, but if you feel you're being Wikihounded, I would recommend first calmly asking the user to stop (in case it's a misunderstanding or something). They have been pretty civil on the talk page. If they continue to follow you around, you can ask for outside help. Armadillopteryx 13:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I have asked them to stop on their user talk page. Multiple times. They have said to the effect of they will not do that. Right cite (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: I think that maybe WP:Dispute resolution could help. Armadillopteryx 13:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, will it result in them leaving me alone and avoiding going to pages they have never been at before where I start working on improvements? Then having them not show up, seconds later? Right cite (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: I can't say anything for sure, but WP:DRN might be a good place to post and have editors experienced in dispute resolution weigh in. Armadillopteryx 13:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, okay well what remedy might be proposed? What usually happens in this process? Does it usually result in an outcome, or nothing? Right cite (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've never used DRN myself, but my understanding is that if a user is found to have some something wrong, they may be sanctioned. There are other possibilities, such as a WP:IBAN. If no wrongdoing is found, some remedy will still probably be proposed to quiet the conflict. Armadillopteryx 14:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I have started the dispute resolution process with the polite request part DIFF. What do you think? Right cite (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, You've filed your complaint. Let others handle at this point. I don't recommend attempting to get other people involved on your behalf. (I say this with empathy, having been targeted here on Wikipedia before, which resulted in an interaction ban.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, okay thank you I will wait to see if the user agrees to the polite request. I hope they will disengage from the wikihounding. Right cite (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, unfortunately, their response was DIFF. That seems like WP:IDHT, from them, unfortunately. Thoughts? Right cite (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: Going by what they replied in their next edit, it sounds like they're willing to talk but didn't feel that your message assumed good faith. But: I don't think my personal guesses about anyone's intentions is what will help this situation. It would be better to go to WP:DRN if you can't resolve this between the two of you on a talk page. Armadillopteryx 17:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I hope you are right. So far, not making much progress in discussion with the user in question. I am sincerely trying here. Right cite (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, refusal to answer a yes or no polite request at DIFF. Armadillopteryx, would you be able to serve as a third-party mediator, to help discuss with the user to cease the WP:WIKIHOUNDING? Right cite (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: In principle I'd like to, but I have no experience as a mediator and don't feel confident going it alone off the bat. As I mentioned to you yesterday, I don't really have much time right now, either, so I don't know if I could give such a discussion the care and attention needed to do it properly. I would again recommend WP:DRN, because there you would get multiple editors experienced in dispute resolution to give their input and help out. Armadillopteryx 19:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, thank you. Any other insight or ideas or suggestions to get through to the user to stop the WP:WIKIHOUNDING before going to WP:DRN? Anything at all? Right cite (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Moderated discussions would be a good way forward. We need to get past the basic WP:TALK and WP:AGF concerns that I have. --Hipal (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArmadillopteryxI also have concerns about WP:IDHT with regards to the WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Therefore, I too agree moderated discussion would help with regards to the ignoring of my requests to stop the WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Right cite (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it would be useful to address the accusations without agreement that we'll follow behavioral policies and guidelines while doing so. Sorry that I've delayed addressing your concerns because of this.

Armadillopteryx, sorry to be using your talk page for this. I wasn't notified of the discussion, but I'm glad to see it's creating some progress. --Hipal (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArmadillopteryxYes, sorry to be on your talk page here with now the back and forth with this user, again. I'm sorry the user has engaged in WP:IDHT with regards to not even addressing the requests to stop the WP:WIKIHOUNDING and now following me, here, with a yes or no answer. I made a direct request. A polite request. And the user chose to engage in page blanking instead. That does not facilitate discussion. Right cite (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Moderated discussion

Hi Right cite and Hipal,

I don't mind if you want to use my talk page as neutral ground to talk through your situation. Hipal, I should have pinged you at first mention above; sorry for not doing so.

I don't have time to go through contribution histories and talk pages since I'm just on my phone, but if each of you would like to comment below with the main things you would like to discuss, we could start there. From what I gather so far, we should talk about Right cite's concerns that Hipal is following them to different pages, and we should address Hipal's concerns that Right cite is not assuming good faith or following talk page etiquette.

Would you both like to comment your feelings on those two things? Providing diffs and examples would help. Please try to focus on observations of one another's actions rather than on assuming intentions.

I'm not near the computer today, so my responses may be sporadic, but I will answer when I can. Armadillopteryx 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I would like Hipal to stop following me to pages where they have not previously contributed. Right cite (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a nice way of stating it. I appreciate it.

I've already declined to limit my editing around whatever Rite cite may be doing per User_talk:Hipal#1RR_request. --Hipal (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArmadillopteryxThe user has repeatedly refused to stop the WP:WIKIHOUNDING, DIFF. Not sure what progress can be made here if they persist in continuing to follow me around to pages they have never contributed before, seconds or minutes after I start making improvements to those pages. Right cite (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite and Hipal: I have read User talk:Hipal#1RR request, the history and diffs from User talk:Hipal#Collaboration, and all your comments here. I have a couple of questions and comments:

1. WP:WIKIHOUNDING means that an editor is following another around with the specific intention of being disruptive. Right cite, you said that Hipal has appeared at several articles right after you. I have not seen the diffs, but assuming this is true: did you first ask Hipal simply why they seem to be showing up at the articles you edit? I wonder if Hipal would tell you if you asked that question without starting with the assumption of Wikihounding (that assumption is not one of good faith).
2. At User talk:Hipal#Can we agree to mutually disengage?, I think that Right cite made a good-faith attempt to diffuse the situation by suggesting a way to mutually disengage. Hipal respectfully declined the offer, which is an acceptable response. Right cite then asked why Hipal declined the offer, which I take as a good-faith attempt to understand the situation better. Hipal respectfully requested that the conversation end. I think it may have helped clear things up to answer, but a user is not required to do so if they don't want to. I do think it was a breach of etiquette for Right cite to continue the conversation thread after Hipal made a polite request to end it.
3. At User talk:Hipal#How did you come by new article?, I think Right cite asked a polite question that could have helped them understand whether they were being followed deliberately. I think it would have been very helpful for Hipal to answer that question, but Hipal's response did not provide the answer. Hipal, could you share why you declined to answer the question?

Armadillopteryx 01:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated.

I was concerned that the content problems documented on the talk pages of all the articles that Right cite has since walked away from per our agreement, especially the BLP articles, are being continued. The content problems at the subsequent BLPs are exactly what I feared. All the behavioral problems and accusations seem to be an attempt to detract from improving the articles. --Hipal (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, user fails to answer your question. The articles I have worked on have all been out of a sincere effort to improve them. Armadillopteryx, in answer to your question posed to me, as you note, yes, I did ask the user how they came by these articles I have tried to improve -- that they previously never edited before. Armadillopteryx, you asked the user why they refused to answer my question. Armadillopteryx, you should note here, again, the user refused to answer your question, namely, how they came by these articles they never edited before? Right cite (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume the "how" is that Hipal was looking at Right cite's contributions; those are public for good reasons, as mentioned in various places, including at WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I was more interested in the "why", which Hipal has now answered. Hipal says that there have been BLP problems in some of Right cite's articles that may have needed attention. That does not sound like a bad-faith reason to check up on someone's articles, though it might have avoided some confusion if that had been stated up front on a talk page.

I do not think it is a good-faith assumption to say that Right cite's talk page behavior is an attempt to detract from improving the articles. Right cite is a new editor who has dived right in and taken on some big projects. They are in the middle of a steep learning curve, and they are just getting started absorbing Wikipedia's massive web of policies and guidelines. I can understand why their talk page comments may come on very strong. That said, I think Right cite should be more mindful of keeping calm and assuming good faith even when they feel their hard work is being undone; you get to answers and resolutions much faster that way. To that end, I also think it might be nice of Hipal to perhaps propose big changes to Right cite's work on the talk page first. This is not a requirement, as editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, but it can be a lot easier to work through a major undo/redo of someone's edits if everyone is on the same page beforehand. Armadillopteryx 01:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, case study of spurious arguments by user = Superman vs. Spider-Man XXX: An Axel Braun Parody = NOT a BLP. I edit to make a copy edit in an attempt to start to improve the page copy edit. User shows up, a total of twelve minutes later, to tag the page at the top and question whether the entire page should exist at all. Again, NOT a BLP. My edits were improvements. See user's WP:WIKIHOUNDING edit at DIFF. Right cite (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that labeling this edit Wikihounding is not assuming good faith. You made a copy edit to the article, and then Hipal tagged the article as having a sourcing problem. That tag doesn't relate to the specific edits you made, unless I'm missing something? Armadillopteryx 02:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, he showed up 12 minutes later. To a page he never edited before. I later significantly improved the page. He's following me around. Showing up minutes later. Right cite (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Can you explain why you went to this article right after Right cite? Armadillopteryx 02:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I wrote, especially the BLP articles. I didn't exclude other articles. The answer is the same, it's just more of the same content problems and pointed out in the talk page discussions.

I've never encountered editor whose behavior was similar to Right cite's that wasn't blocked or banned for it. I've no idea what the intention is, but the effect is to detract from improving articles. The other effect is to harass me. There are no assumptions here. This is what has been happening, and continues in this very discussion. --Hipal (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, user fails to answer your question. User showed up 12 minutes after my edit. My edit was a very minor copy edit. There was not yet any chance for any "problem" with my edit. It was simply following and harassment. Nothing more, nothing less. Just continuing to follow me around. copy edit, followed immediately by DIFF. Right cite (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, Hipal was checking your contribs for the reason they said, and they saw this article in the process of doing it. And as it turns out, in this case, it wasn't your edit (rather, a larger, separate issue) that they saw a problem with. Armadillopteryx 02:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, right. Checking my contribs. To a non BLP article. To follow me. They have continued doing so. They refuse to stop. It is the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Right cite (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hipal has been following Right cite's contributions to screen for content problems, because they encountered some in Right cite's earlier work (especially but not exclusively BLPs). In my opinion, this is not Wikihounding, because it is not being done to harass Right cite or impede their work.

Either way, I would probably also feel suffocated if I were Right cite and noticed I were being constantly followed. Does one editor really need to make some sort of edit at most of another's pages, even if it's not to fix a serious issue? In principle, I don't think edits that improve Wikipedia should be discouraged. However, because Right cite feels harassed from being followed, I think it would be collegial if Hipal could limit their editing of articles from Right cite's contribs to only those where they see a serious issue.

Now, there is a second matter to address, which is that Right cite's talk page etiquette has made Hipal feel harassed as well. Right cite, I want to say that I acknowledge why you have been upset and perhaps overwhelmed by this situation. However, it is important to not forget to assume good faith and to refrain from making assertions about other users. Specifically, we have to focus on content, not contributor. You have made presumptive comments about Hipal and have ignored their requests to follow talk page etiquette and assume good faith. This does not foster productive discussion, even in a hypothetical where one user is clearly "right" and the other is clearly "wrong". I think it would be appropriate to ask Right cite to stop making accusations toward Hipal and instead focus on asking questions to find out why things are being done.

I want to note that I find both of you to be good-faith editors who are generally willing to work collaboratively. I wonder if a brief cool-down period (e.g. one week of no interaction) would be helpful.

I am curious to hear your thoughts on the above. Please note that as I mentioned in the previous subsection, I haven't moderated a discussion like this before, so there may be better solutions that I simply haven't thought of. I'm open to hearing what suggestions you both may have. Armadillopteryx 11:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, yes, I do feel suffocated. Yes, I do feel followed. Yes, I do feel harassed. Yes, Hipal has even refused to acknowledge multiple times that they were even following me or checking my contribs. Yes, I do believe they should stop this behavior. I also can gladly modify my talk page demeanor, for sure. But I would also ask Hipal to STOP following me. They have not even acknowledged they are doing so. Right cite (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: Try to take a deep breath. We are having a good discussion here, and everything will be addressed. Above, Hipal did acknowledge they were following you and explained why. And we can still talk about this. I don't think Hipal is hiding anything just because they didn't explicitly say they're checking your contribs; that is obviously the place you go if you feel the need to follow someone's edits for any reason. In fact, I can't think of any other way to do it.

I think Hipal is trying to help you, not hurt you. Maybe they will agree to make some changes to their editing to make you feel less followed; I think that would be nice. But we have to be able to talk about it all calmly, and part of that will require a commitment from you.

If you jump straight to giving someone an ultimatum (e.g. "Stop following me!") without first calmly addressing what's going on, it can make the other person feel cornered or attacked and less willing to talk about it. If I had to guess (maybe I'm wrong), this is why Hipal declined some of your requests on their talk page. A lot of your comments led with an assumption or accusation based in how Hipal's actions felt to you, but you didn't give them a chance to tell you what it looked like from their side first.

I really appreciate how you started this comment by expressing how this situation has made you feel so we can understand your perspective. Let's give Hipal a chance to do the same to see if we can start to understand their perspective better, too. Armadillopteryx 13:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I hear you. I don't feel helped. I feel like I'm being followed. Hipal had refused to acknowledge following me until apparently your user talk page itself. And, as you rightly pointed out, I feel suffocated, and harassed. You correctly interpreted how this situation made me feel. I do indeed wish for the behavior of following me to stop. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, I'm sorry we're still at this after the excellent help from Armadillopteryx.

I should have pointed you to the second paragraph of WP:HOUND when you first expressed concern, if not sooner. My apologies for not doing so. --Hipal (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, WP:WIKIHOUNDING 2nd paragraph states, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress. Armadillopteryx, as you wisely pointed out, above, it is causing me distress. It is suffocating. It is harassment. It is following. Especially when the user was refusing to admit they were doing it. Especially seconds or minutes after I show up to a page -- Hipal follows me over there to a page they've never been at before. Especially when Hipal refuses to stop. Right cite (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your replies. I appreciate Right cite's second-most recent comment, as it clearly and concisely expresses what they are feeling without any bad-faith assumptions or comments about anyone else. We have established that Hipal is checking Right cite's contribs to monitor for content issues, but Right cite feels the following is too extensive and feels harassed regardless of the reason for it. Right cite has stated that the solution they would like is for Hipal to stop following them. Hipal, I would like to ask you: what do you think a good solution would be? Armadillopteryx 23:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

For Right cite to follow WP:HA#NOT and let it be, and to stop harassing and attacking me.--Hipal (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, it appears we both feel we are being harassed. I agree with you, Armadillopteryx, that I feel the solution is for Hipal to stop following me. Clearly we each feel the other is harassing the other. Future interactions are therefore unlikely to be helpful towards positive collaboration, most unfortunately. For my part, I feel it is due to the environment created by the continued pattern of following me around. Right cite (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And to stop disrupting discussions and editing. --Hipal (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I would agree here with this problem with Hipal. Hipal consistently uses the "undo this edit" function, over and over again, many times prior to discussing on the talk page. On pages where they follow me. So the following is followed by disruption from Hipal. If the following were to stop, the disruption from Hipal would stop as well. That is another good reason why I wish for the following to stop. Right cite (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, thank you for this excellent work moderating. Right cite has been blocked as a sock of Cirt. Hopefully we'll catch him much quicker next time. Thanks again for your help. --Hipal (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Glad I was able to help. So sorry for all you had to deal with, and happy to see it's been resolved in one way or another. Armadillopteryx 19:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The Roxy (Portland, Oregon)

I just published The Roxy (Portland, Oregon) and nominated for Good article status. Would you happen to have a moment to see if there's any room for improvement (copy editing, etc) before the nom gets picked up? Either way, happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Sure, I'll take a look! Armadillopteryx 21:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Thanks! Seems somewhat similar to articles you've been creating lately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are very helpful, and I see you even caught a few of my clumsy errors. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Glad to help! It's a really nice article that I enjoyed reading. I think it should pass easily at GAN. Armadillopteryx 22:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Thanks, this one was super quick and easy to throw together (my fave!). I know we're already set to collaborate on Chi Chi DeVayne, but just FYI, I am interested in seeing the articles about The Duplex, Eagle NYC, Industry Bar, and Therapy promoted to GA status as well. I see you've already started expanding a couple. I don't want to step on toes, but if there are ones you'd like to tackle together at some point, just holler! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I'd like that. Sorry I still haven't gotten around to expanding Chi Chi's article; I will try to get on that sooner rather than later. As for the others, I'm interested in all of them. Want to start with Industry? Armadillopteryx 22:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Sure! I'll try to take a look soon. (No need to apologize re: Chi Chi article.) Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Industry! When you feel you're ready, you should nom this on yourself. I didn't contribute much because I got too distracted completing a series of new articles and GA noms about Portland restaurants, as evidence by the bottom of my talk page. We can still co-nom the Chi Chi entry when you're ready, though! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thanks! I think I'm almost done now; might just add a couple more things. I'll go ahead and nominate it when I'm done with those. Are you sure you don't want to stay on as co-nom for this one? You did start the article, after all, and my expansion was off of your base. Either way, happy to continue with Chi Chi next! Armadillopteryx 22:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, If you feel inclined to add my add as a co-nominator, by all means I will help as possible! If you prefer to go solo no prob whatsoever. I'm less concerned with credit and just happy to see LGBT culture articles promoted. Keep on truckin'! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I've nominated the article now. Armadillopteryx 23:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Great! We sure are dominating the "Agriculture, food and drink" category over at WP:GAN right now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yep, we're 8 for 8! :-D Speaking of which, do you have any input on this? Between us and others, I feel like there are enough GAs this applies to that it would be good to do something about it.

Also, for future reference, is there a way to add a co-nom in the same edit as the initial nomination, or does that have to be added post-transclusion? Armadillopteryx 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I always add the GAN template to the article's talk page, then tag on the additional co-nominators name in a subsequent edit. The transclusion gets updated on the GAN page, and method has always worked well in my experience. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Stopping by

Hi Armadillo, since you were interested in the John W. Beschter article, I thought you might be interested to know that I've nominated William Feiner for FAC. The two are rather closely related, since they were both German Jesuit missionaries and one succeeded the other as president. If you're interested at all in leaving some comments at FAC, please feel welcome to do so. Ergo Sum 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Thanks for your message! I just read through the article and think it's really nicely done. I have never been through the FAC process before, so let me take a look at some examples to get a feel for the sort of input that would be appropriate and useful. I'll start by reading Beschter's candidate page :-) Armadillopteryx 03:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: I left some comments to the best of my ability; they're just prose suggestions. I checked the image licenses and sources and could not find any changes or improvements to suggest, but I will continue to watch the FAC page to see what others say in case I have missed something. Good luck with the FAC! It should be a nice addition to your collection. Armadillopteryx 05:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll attend to your comments tomorrow. Ergo Sum 06:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Georgies

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Georgies you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Danielyng -- Danielyng (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Georgies

The article Georgies you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Georgies for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Danielyng -- Danielyng (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Industry Bar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Industry Bar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gerald Waldo Luis -- Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Club Feathers

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Club Feathers you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Danielyng -- Danielyng (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your great work in your contributions to several articles! Danielyng (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Danielyng! Armadillopteryx 02:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The LGBT Barnstar
		For your voluminous contributions to articles about LGBTQ establishments Danielyng (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Danielyng: Aww, thank you! These are my first-ever barnstars :-) Armadillopteryx 02:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Industry Bar

The article Industry Bar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Industry Bar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gerald Waldo Luis -- Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, in case you were wondering, the reason that Talk:Industry Bar/GA1 kept showing up on the WP:GAN edit summaries was because the "|note=" parameter had been removed entirely (in this edit), instead of just the text of the note. If the bot sees an incomplete {{GA nominee}} template at the time that a review page is created, it runs into trouble and can't complete the transaction (in this case, adding "onreview" to the "|status=" parameter). If an edit summary keeps repeating like that, it's typically because there's something wrong with the GA nominee template. (The more usual cause is that there's something wrong in the "|subtopic=" field, typically an invalid or incorrectly capitalized subtopic value.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Oh! I didn't know that; thank you for explaining, and sorry for messing up the template. Armadillopteryx 03:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Club Feathers

The article Club Feathers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Club Feathers for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Danielyng -- Danielyng (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of DTM (nightclub)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article DTM (nightclub) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gerald Waldo Luis -- Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of DTM (nightclub)

The article DTM (nightclub) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:DTM (nightclub) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gerald Waldo Luis -- Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for DTM (nightclub)

On 7 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article DTM (nightclub), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that DTM is the largest gay club in Northern Europe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/DTM (nightclub). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, DTM (nightclub)), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Industry Bar

On 10 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Industry Bar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Industry faces Therapy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Industry Bar. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Industry Bar), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations! With 6,487 page views, your hook on the Helsinki gay club, DTM, is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of January. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS January. All the more impressive since it was part of a 12-hour queue and was not a lead/photo hook. Keep up the great work. Cbl62 (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Cbl62! Armadillopteryx 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boxers NYC Washington Heights

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boxers NYC Washington Heights you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gerald Waldo Luis -- Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

February flowers

... for what you said to Flyer22 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boxers NYC Washington Heights

The article Boxers NYC Washington Heights you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boxers NYC Washington Heights for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gerald Waldo Luis -- Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kameron Michaels

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kameron Michaels you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HickoryOughtShirt?4 -- HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lady Red Couture

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lady Red Couture you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lady Red Couture

The article Lady Red Couture 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:Lady Red Couture for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lady Red Couture

The article Lady Red Couture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lady Red Couture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sammi Brie, If you're interested, this editor and I have co-nominated Chi Chi DeVayne, which is not too long if you're looking for another review. Either way, happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Duplex Cabaret Theatre

Only if you're curious and interested, I noticed Duplex Cabaret Theatre has been overhauled recently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thanks for the heads-up! I'm definitely interested but am too swamped to take on a new project atm. I've been trying to get User:Armadillopteryx/Hercules ready for the mainspace for months and just haven't had the time. If I do get a free moment, I want to focus on that. I will add Duplex Cabaret Theatre to my watchlist, though, and try to pitch in with gnomish things if I can :-) Armadillopteryx 22:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Cool, and never a problem. I'm not here to dump work on your plate, just wanted to extend an invite in case you're interested. Good luck finishing Hercules! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer, thanks! Always appreciate an invite to collaborate. Armadillopteryx 23:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Boxers NYC Washington Heights

On 3 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boxers NYC Washington Heights, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that people thought Boxers would gentrify Washington Heights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boxers NYC Washington Heights. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Boxers NYC Washington Heights), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kameron Michaels

The article Kameron Michaels you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kameron Michaels for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HickoryOughtShirt?4 -- HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thanks for encouraging me to nominate this! Armadillopteryx 22:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Kameron Michaels

On 22 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kameron Michaels, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kameron Michaels has been described as a "lip sync assassin"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kameron Michaels. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kameron Michaels), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Chi Chi DeVayne

On 29 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chi Chi DeVayne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the BBC described Chi Chi DeVayne's lip sync to "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" as "iconic in Drag Race history"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chi Chi DeVayne. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chi Chi DeVayne), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Goof?

Sorry here! I don't know how I could have known that. Not too experienced with that kind of thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: It's no problem! Happens to all of us. Armadillopteryx 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hercules (nightclub)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hercules (nightclub) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Uness232 -- Uness232 (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hercules (nightclub)

The article Hercules (nightclub) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hercules (nightclub) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Uness232 -- Uness232 (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Barracuda Lounge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Barracuda Lounge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PinkElixir -- PinkElixir (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)