User talk:Thebiguglyalien

Welcome to the alien's nest.

• If you seek wisdom, you have likely come to the wrong place, but I will do my best.
• If you come with insults or put-downs, at least make them clever.
• If I haven't replied in 48 hours, either I forgot or I assumed you didn't want a reply.
• I review good article nominations on request, but only if it's about a country where I've never done a review before (see the last column in my articles per country) and if you've reviewed more articles than you've nominated.
• Talk page stalkers are welcome. The vast majority are not abducted or eaten.

1016 days since the last alien abduction.

---

Your GA nomination of Thor (Marvel Comics)

The article Thor (Marvel Comics) 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:Thor (Marvel Comics) and Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cambalachero -- Cambalachero (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thor (Marvel Comics)

The article Thor (Marvel Comics) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics) for comments about the article, and Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cambalachero -- Cambalachero (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kgari Sechele II

The article Kgari Sechele II 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:Kgari Sechele II and Talk:Kgari Sechele II/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kgari Sechele II

The article Kgari Sechele II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kgari Sechele II for comments about the article, and Talk:Kgari Sechele II/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1978 Gilbertese Chief Minister election

The article 1978 Gilbertese Chief Minister election 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:1978 Gilbertese Chief Minister election and Talk:1978 Gilbertese Chief Minister election/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1978 Gilbertese Chief Minister election

The article 1978 Gilbertese Chief Minister election you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1978 Gilbertese Chief Minister election for comments about the article, and Talk:1978 Gilbertese Chief Minister election/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Iron Man

Congratulations, Thebiguglyalien! The article you nominated, Iron Man, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Congratulations on getting this article promoted to FA status. I know how much work you have put in it, and you have done a great job. Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! I'm just glad that we now have a starting point proving that comic book characters can have articles that are in-depth but still well-sourced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Hopefully, this means that more comic book characters (and characters in general) will be nominated for FACs in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Congrats on getting Iron Man to FA status! You have done an amazing job with it, and it's so nice to finally have another comics character article besides Anarky that has FA status. I agree with Aoba in hoping that Iron Man's success helps prompt the reworking and promotion of other character articles in the future. I also hope that my nitpicky comments didn't get too annoying. I really wanted the article to succeed and be promoted to FA, but I also wanted to ensure I did an actual review of its content, rather than half-assing it, and help make it better. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Great job on this one! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1987 Kiribati presidential election

The article 1987 Kiribati presidential election you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1987 Kiribati presidential election for comments about the article, and Talk:1987 Kiribati presidential election/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1983 Kiribati presidential election

The article 1983 Kiribati presidential election you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1983 Kiribati presidential election for comments about the article, and Talk:1983 Kiribati presidential election/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Melania Trump

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Melania Trump 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 Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Literature of Botswana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Motswana.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Term limits in Russia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Term limits in Russia 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 Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Term limits in Russia

The article Term limits in Russia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Term limits in Russia for comments about the article, and Talk:Term limits in Russia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1991 Kiribati presidential election

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1991 Kiribati presidential election 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 Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Close at Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars

Thanks for closing that discussion - it was getting a bit stale, and was past the 30-day length for an RFC for a while.

I have a couple of questions for you:

• You mentioned the count before discarding votes was 12-11; I counted 12-12. Did you consider 2601:600:817F:16F0:DDAC:53F8:F543:7659's comments? They made an unbolded vote, with improper threading (sticking theirs up top, later than other replies)
• After discarding votes that "show no understanding of the matter of issue" or provided no rationale whatsoever, the count I get is 8-10, whereas you came up with 11-8. Whose votes did you discard in this manner to get this count?
• Now the most subjective question: after throwing out votes that "flatly contradict established policy" - like applying WP:SIGCOV to a question of verifiability (when it's a notability test, for making a standalone article on a topic), or simply claiming inserting would fail WP:NPOV without seriously engaging in the substance of discussion on why - the count I get is 5-10. This would certainly seem like a stronger consensus of editors who supported inclusion.

Thanks. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I did count 2601's unbolded !vote. It was a rough count by hand, so it's possible I was slightly off in either direction, but certainly not enough that it would have moved the needle on consensus. Here's the list I wrote out in my scratchwork:

• Macaddct1984: 1
• 2601:600:817F:16F0: 2
• PerseusMeredith: 2
• Muboshgu: 1
• M.boli: 1
• Objective3000: 1
• Rhododendrites: 4 > 1 or bad RfC
• AjaxSmack: N/A
• XavierItzm: 2
• Chaptagai: 2 or 4
• GordonGlottal: 1
• Bob the Cannibal: 2
• Garnet Moss: 2
• 74.64.100.109: 2
• Killuminator: 2
• PhotogenicScientist: 2
• 193.115.85.154: 3
• MelbourneStar: 1 or 4
• NE Ent: 2 or 4
• SPECIFICO: 1
• 24.90.253.80: N/A
• JSwift49: 2
• Locke Cole: 1
• Nfitz: 1
• SarekOfVulcan: 4 > 1
• AusLondonder: N/A
• Gamaliel: 1

Do let me know if you happen to notice anyone I missed. The !votes that didn't have a substantial rationale or focused on procedural issues instead of the subject were:

• Option 2 is the right choice. Even with the Wikipedia liberal bias, Option 2 should be approved.
• I would support either Option 2 or Option 4 with no preference between the two. I also think the article should be frozen in Option 2 so as to not endorse either of the sides while the debate is ongoing.
• Option 2 Seems to be the most reasonable, omitting it entirely is partisan hackery.
• Option 4 first choice, option 1 second choice. And AfD might work, as the criteria are so fuzzy, but probably not, because of the sourcing.

Again, giving those !votes full weight or no weight wouldn't be quite enough to sway consensus in my opinion, so my focus was not on exactly how much weight should be given to these four. I was reserved in which !votes I weighed down so long as they gave some sort of rationale. There was support for these interpretations of coverage and POV, even if they didn't invoke the policy or guideline I would have applied. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The missing !vote was AjaxSmack. Though they declined to participate in the discussion (which, in AP2, can you blame them?), they were the original proposer of the content into the article, so I notched them as a general 2/4 vote.

I also struck 3 of those 4 you did. Though, Chaptagai cited TE(æ)A,ea. (which I read as a "per TE(æ)A,ea." vote) and had participated extensively in the BEFORE discussion which hasn't even been archived yet. It's not fair to discount their vote as "no rationale." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked over the other discussions, but I limited the actual counting to what was in the RfC itself. I agree it can be a little subjective in whether mentioning someone counts as a "per" !vote, so like I said, I wouldn't object if someone found the actual !votes to be one or two different from my count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

ok... so the vote count might be a little fuzzy.

What do you have to say to further discounting votes that flatly contradict established policy - like applying WP:SIGCOV to a question of verifiability (when it's a notability test, for making a standalone article on a topic), or simply claiming inserting would fail WP:NPOV without seriously engaging in the substance of discussion on why. I feel that one can't simply cite a policy to give their !vote weight, and that such !votes should be weighted on the merits of how closely that policy applies - especially if such policy contradictions were noted by other discussion participants. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I say that a different interpretation isn't necessary wrong, or at least not so egregiously wrong in this case that the !voters should be chastised or ignored. The point of the RfC was to determine which policies applied, and they argued it was those policies. Others disagreed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that sits quite right with me... that an editor can obstinately cite policy in a way that doesn't really apply, yet in the end their !vote (which, in the absence of a policy-based prohibition on content, is starting to feel an awful lot more like a vote) carries the same weight as one more closely aligned to policy? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

They don't apply, in your opinion. You're welcome to disagree with their rationales, but that's the point of the RfC. It's still relevant, and that's the argument they put forward. You disagreed with it. That's part of the process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh. And so it is. "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it." When it comes down to it, RFCs are really just a vote. A vote of responsible people, sure. But a vote nonetheless.

That's a disappointing conclusion, considering how much I see WP:NOTVOTE cited around the site... but I suppose that's how it is. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1991 Kiribati presidential election

The article 1991 Kiribati presidential election 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:1991 Kiribati presidential election and Talk:1991 Kiribati presidential election/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1991 Kiribati presidential election

The article 1991 Kiribati presidential election you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1991 Kiribati presidential election for comments about the article, and Talk:1991 Kiribati presidential election/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

2001 article

I like what you did with the 2001 article; can you also do the same for 2020, my year of birth? Thanks, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI So... you're four years old? BorgQueen (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to act my age because I've never been this age before. And to answer your question, yes, I am four. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd love to get more articles about years fleshed out, and I've been making slow progress on it. But there's just so much to go through for each year! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but 2020 is one of the worst years in human history, so I was hoping for that article to be improved to GA-status. No matter how long that will take, I'm sure the end result will be great! Can't wait to see what you have in store for year articles in general. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

2020 is one of the worst years in human history, [...] That's not true. The Black Death era was much worse. BorgQueen (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also the question of what sources would be used, because there are three series that have been crucial and they might not help here. By far the most useful source, Britannica Year in Review, was retired in 2018. There's a Time yearbook for 2020, but I can only see the preview and it's unclear how much information it has in a global context (would be great for 2020 in the United States though). Presumably there's an Annual Register for 2020, but I can't find anything about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe 2020 is too recent. How about working on older years before moving to more recent ones? That seems like the best solution, as far as access to useful sources is concerned. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Maria Stromberger

I've updated her ID photo image on Commons to a more natural looking one, with less contrast and saturation. Hope you like it better. BorgQueen (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This one looks much better. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Melania Trump

The article Melania Trump you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Melania Trump for comments about the article, and Talk:Melania Trump/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

Hello Thebiguglyalien:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis) 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 Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ieremia Tabai

The article Ieremia Tabai you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ieremia Tabai for comments about the article, and Talk:Ieremia Tabai/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TheNuggeteer -- TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Literature of Botswana

The article Literature of Botswana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Literature of Botswana for comments about the article, and Talk:Literature of Botswana/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis)

The article Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis) for comments about the article, and Talk:Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry what, it's named Booby island for pelicans instead of an actual Booby species?? CMD (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I know! I felt betrayed! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Alt-right pipeline for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alt-right pipeline is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

Jtrainor (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

A Bronze Belt-buckle for you!

The Developing Countries

WikiContest Bronze Belt Buckle

Thanks so much for your admirable work, especially on Kiribati and Botswana articles! You've received 608 points, placing in 3rd. :)

... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

DCWC closing update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has come to a close! After a thrilling finish to the event with a slew of submissions on the final day, we have our winners. With 608 points, Thebiguglyalien (submissions) comes in third with his series of Kiribati and Botswanan submissions; BeanieFan11 (submissions) flies into second place at the last second with 771 points after a string of good articles about sportspersons; and after leading for much of contest's three months, Generalissima (submissions) finishes with a whopping 798 points to take home the Gold Belt Buckle. Congratulations to our winners!

In addition to his spot in the top three, BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins the special awards for submitting under the most countries (44 countries) and for writing the most articles about women (15 Did you know? nominations)! Magentic Manifestations (submissions), after making 16 submissions under the Indian flag—15 of them good articles—receives the awards for most submissions for a single country and most featured or good articles promoted. For their submission of one FAC review, five FLC reviews, and 20 GAN reviews, Simongraham (submissions) wins for most article reviews.

The results of the contest have far exceeded any expectations the coordinators had for it at the beginning: among the submissions to the event were 3 FAs, 10 FLs, 88 GAs, dozens of article reviews of every kind, and more Did you know? submissions than we can count! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that...

We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn't participate!) and help us make it better.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Systemic Bias Barnstar

		The Anti-Systemic Bias Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in the Developing Countries WikiContest! You've received 608 points, and here's a special award for your contributions.

... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't ping me

Don't ping me back into the discussion. I do not want to participate as it has been made clear that my participation is not appreciated.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page jaguar) Having read that discussion, I want to make it clear that that is only your interpretation of events: everyone else has assumed good faith in you, and frankly this interpretation on your part is if anything a sign that you are not doing likewise. If you were to take people at their word, there wouldn't be a problem here. Remsense ‥ 论 14:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Thebiguglyalien for accumulating at least 50 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis)

On 9 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the search for mammals on Booby Island was a bust? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Edith Roosevelt

Congratulations, Thebiguglyalien! The article you nominated, Edith Roosevelt, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Edith Roosevelt scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for19 November 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Congratulations on the new FAC and appearance soon, but today we thank you for Iron Man, introduced: "When engineering genius Tony Stark was kidnapped and forced to build a weapon, he turned the tables on his kidnappers by designing a powered suit of armor and fighting his way out. With this new armor, he pledged to fight evil as the superhero Iron Man! First created by Marvel Comics in 1963, Iron Man has since become one of the company's most popular characters, in no small part because of his central role in Marvel's films. In the 60 years since Iron Man was first created, the character has appeared in countless comic book stories and other media, commenting on issues like Cold War politics, alcoholism, and technological progress."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for the close, and for the advice on too much PEPPER DN (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Graph close

I don't care enough to challenge the close, but I wanted to a) thank you for closing it b) point out I don't think there's a consensus. There's no real policy compelling policy argument to include and MOS:USEPROSE should apply. Many of the exclude votes touched on the confusing nature of the graph and how prose would be better. That wasn't mentioned in your summary and those arguments should have received more weight than the simple "I want it" votes that ignored the issues with the graph. Thanks for pointing out the bludgeoning issues that are inherent with articles like that, but I feel you've missed the mark on this one. Thanks for your time. Nemov (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:USEPROSE is unrelated to image use. It's about not overusing lists. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not just an image. It's a graph timeline. Which falls into WP:LISTTYPES, a timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events. Nemov (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wondering on your opinion

When I was getting into reviewing GANs my main activity for a while was reading the reviews of GANs as they passed/failed. I learnt a lot from the process, in particular the practice of editors performing an independent search for sources when they suspected a failure of 3a, but also the habit of separating reviewing the criteria from suggestions and what a spot check could look like. I saw your comment on WT:GAN about your how to review guide gathering dust and was curious how feasible/ideal you thought integrating exemplar reviews would be. Perhaps in a gamified way, "reviewing the reviews" to see what they're missing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This is something that the community has endorsed (Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 4: Proposed model reviews and Wikipedia:Exceptional reviews), but actually deciding on how to find the reviews has not worked. I've also considered adding some review examples to the reviewing guide, but I encountered the same problem where there are so many different ways to approach a review and so many different circumstances that it's hard to define what a model example is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I read that a while ago and have apparently forgotten, thankyou for the links. I might just start collating reviews I read that I appreciate on my UP and see if anything emerges. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You interested?

I have a couple of GA nominations up for Mongol women right now; I remember you reviewed Oghul Qaimish, also for a WP:WIG drive, a few months back. Would you be interested in reviewing? (I wouldn't normally ask, but the WP:CUP is nearing its close). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look soon, but no promises unless there's one that can fill a slot in User:Thebiguglyalien/Articles per country (where Oghul Qaimish has taken the slot for the Mongol Empire). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Normal Mongolia not an option? Pity, but no worries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit tenuous ... but I see you list Hong Kong and Macau as subdivisions of China. Why not list the autonomous regions as well? Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, and Xinjiang. Xinjiang is where the Uyghurs live. Al-Altan was a queen of the Uyghurs. You see? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 9

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 9 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 Czar -- Czar (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

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) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 9

The article Federalist No. 9 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:Federalist No. 9 and Talk:Federalist No. 9/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I'm very pleased to present the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown to Thebiguglyalien, for your work on the good and featured article processes! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
• MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
• Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The New Mutants (graphic novel)

The article The New Mutants (graphic novel) 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:The New Mutants (graphic novel) and Talk:The New Mutants (graphic novel)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The New Mutants (graphic novel)

The article The New Mutants (graphic novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The New Mutants (graphic novel) for comments about the article, and Talk:The New Mutants (graphic novel)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

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) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Centre-right politics

The centre-right commonly supports ideas such as [[small government]], [[law and order (politics)|law and order]], [[freedom of religion]], and strong [[national security]]. It has historically stood in opposition to [[radical politics]], [[redistributive policies]], [[multiculturalism]], [[immigration]], and [[LGBT]] acceptance. Economically, the centre-right supports [[free market]]s and the [[social market economy]], with [[market liberalism]] and [[neoliberalism]] being common centre-right economic positions. It typically seeks to preserve the cultural and socioeconomic ''[[status quo]]'' and believes that changes should be [[gradualism|implemented gradually]].

Where is the link there??? Johnymin (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In the Right wing wiki there's nothong about lgbt or immigration, why if the centre right that is more moderate has to have that clause. And why you don't search abput left wing homophobia. Ypu are only trying to impose your opinion. If there's information about democratic politicians in the USA opposing LGBT rights, or social democrats and socialists with homophobe trends, I acept what you're saying, but there's not. It's only a clause traying to show the centre right people as the devil. Totally biased. Johnymin (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources that you are listimg are personal opinions, they are only seeing one side, ask those people what they know about left wing homophobia. LGBT acceptance is not an ideological issue, stop trying to show the right as the devil, and the left as the angels, because the sources that you are saying are only trying to criticize one side, and not to improve the left amd the mistakes they have. Homophobes and transphobes and traditional people are both rightwingers and leftwingers. The wiki has to be independent, not left wing biased. Johnymin (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

listing* Johnymin (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Johnymin you've just pinged me four times. This discussion should be taking place at Talk:Centre-right politics. Please do not leave any further messages on my user talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sayimg that I respct your postion but changed the part that says Right wing opposed to a great part. The same part on social issues says that the centre right have taken other positions and evolved, read it. Bye Johnymin (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Edith Roosevelt, introduced as "a lifelong companion to President Theodore Roosevelt, from childhood until Theodore's death. Shying from the spotlight as her husband became increasingly famous, she found herself thrown into the role of first lady over a matter of days when Theodore unexpectedly became president of the United States. As first lady, she ruled Washington's social life with an iron fist, holding meetings with the wives of Theodore's cabinetmembers to determine when and how they were to hold events—and who they weren't allowed to invite. Edith took charge of the White House's first major renovation, and she was the first of the first ladies to hire her own employee. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ACCT, etc

Excellent point, and well made. I've often thought whenever the cry of "we need more admins" goes up that quality rather than quantity might be a useful watchword. There's no point in just adding more of the same. Of course, it should theoretically be possible to have both, but... SerialNumber54129 17:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your comment at RFA

Please withdraw that comment. I have not "kicked" any dogs, but your wording accuses me of doing that very thing. I get that we disagree on the value that Graham87 brings to the project; that's fine. Your perspective is likely to prevail. On the other hand, berating those with whom you disagree is exactly the behaviour on the part of the candidate with which you take issue.

I was asked why I don't often participate at RFA a while ago. You are why, or at least the type of comment you made to me is why. The reason RFA is failing is exactly these kinds of comments, whether they are directed to opposers or supporters. None of you had any reason at all to comment in any way about my vote. You were just doing it to be nasty. It does not reflect well on any of you as editors, and seriously makes me wonder how you behave with newbies, yourselves. (No, I'm not going to go digging through your contributions.) You are obviously a talented editor. We both know you don't have any reason to be uncivil toward me. My vote wasn't even worth a comment, and you know it.

I hope you will take on board that newbies are far more likely to see the way you treat others than they will how any given admin treats others. You're much more prolific than am I (yes, most of my work is in areas away from content), and you encounter many more people in a typical editing day. I hope that you will consider why you consider civility so important, and why it is more beneficial to you, and to the project, that you model the behaviour you expect of fellow Wikipedians. Risker (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how I'm supposed to respond to this. You cast your vote to overlook one of the most vile, repulsive patterns of behavior ever directed toward newbies on this site by an admin. You chose to stand by an admin who routinely blocks newbies and tells them they're not welcome here because they're still learning the Manual of Style. You threw your support toward an admin who once found a newbie, blocked them, rolled back their hundreds of edits, called them incompetent, removed talk page access, and removed email access because they were copyediting too quickly and he got a bad vibe. And then hardly a few hours later, you have the nerve to leave a three-paragraph lecture on my talk page about setting a good example for newbies because I used a common analogy to refer to said behavior. You were the scolder in this scenario, by the way, not the kicker. Otherwise the analogy doesn't make sense. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Center-right politics

Right-wing politics has historically opposed social acceptance of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, but the European centre-right has come to support protections on the basis of sexual orientation.[54] Some centre-right groups have taken the position that gay marriage and adoption by gay couples are an extension of the traditional nuclear family.[55] Such support has not been widely extended to transgender people.[56]

This is below. This is saying that Center right accepted gay people, and it's based on the authors You are citing Johnymin (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, please discuss this at Talk:Centre-right politics, not here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Federalist No. 9

The article Federalist No. 9 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 9 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 9/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to provide feedback

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my recall process. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)