User talk:Extraordinary Writ/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi Extraordinary Writ! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Christian Braut — deletion

Hello,

I totally agree.

When this article was first published it was quite complete.

But as the biography was unsourced which I perfectly undestand the whole text was removed.

Sorry for my poor english.

--ChristianBraut (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, ChristianBraut - that makes sense. If you can find any reliable, independent sources, feel free to include them, even if they are in French. That would be enough to keep the article from being deleted. Let me know if you want some time to work on it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Calendar (New Style) Act 1750

Thank you for the wikiproject Law rating. If I may ask a favour, would you let me know (at talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750) if you notice[d] any errors or omissions that might affect its GA candidacy, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Gladly. Hopefully, I shall be able to attend to it shortly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

• News and notes: Year-end legal surprises cause concern, but Public Domain Day is imminent

• In the media: Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds

• Arbitration report: 2020 election results

• Opinion: How to make your factory's safety and labor issues disappear

• Featured content: Very nearly ringing in the New Year with "Blank Space" – but we got there in time.

• Traffic report: 2020 wraps up

• News from the WMF: What Wikipedia saw during election week in the U.S., and what we’re doing next

• Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions

• Essay: Subjective importance

• Op-Ed: An unforgettable year we might wish to forget

• Gallery: Angels in the architecture

• Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Doing boring, repetitive tasks is never fun, but someone's gotta do it. Thanks! Thanoscar21talkcontributions 17:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

That "someone" was me. Ugh. Embarrassing. Thanks for catching that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it - it was taken down within thirty minutes and probably wasn't even noticed by the vast majority of main-page visitors. Considering the number of times the main page has been deleted, I wouldn't consider your mistake too egregious. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... It's cold comfort to know I'm slightly less disruptive than a half dozen other admins. But I'll take it. -Floquenbeam (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lucy Burwell Page Saunders

Please see note on your DYK review. In addition to the hook issue, we try not to mention names on the main page that have no Wikipedia article, like this book title. Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mazurek v. Armstrong

On 8 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mazurek v. Armstrong, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Montana abortion law in Mazurek v. Armstrong, state courts struck down the law as a violation of the Montana Constitution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mazurek v. Armstrong. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mazurek v. Armstrong), 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, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for William Johnson (judge)

On 21 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Johnson (judge), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that associate justice William Johnson was the first member of the U.S. Supreme Court who was not a member of the Federalist Party? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Johnson (judge). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Johnson (judge)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Always check drafts for copyright violations

Thank you for pitching in at Articles for creation. Please remember to always, always follow the reviewing workflow and check for copyright violations first. Many reviewers find it convenient to have importScript('User:The Earwig/copyvios.js'); in their common.js file so they can launch a check with one click as they start to review a draft. Draft:Ryohei Yanagi infringed copyright of [1]. Although not irreparable, the violating text should have been removed promptly, and violating revisions deleted (for which importScript( 'User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js' ); is handy). Never assume that a prior reviewer has done this, because everyone forgets sometimes. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I respect you even if disagree with you

I only came here because writing about it further there only exacerbates the situation but Phil and others most definitely insulted me and cast aspersions rather than kept on topic. We can disagree on principle but can you objectively tell me that no one in that DRV meant insult by anything they said? No one? I do not take lightly and processes here and I genuinely want what is best for the encyclopedia and it is an entirely lonely feeling when you are being told, when you follow the process, that you are wasting everyone's time, simply casting aspersions by speaking up and must capitulate and surrender your basic dignity simply because another editor believes you are a lying about the placement of a comment. The placement of a comment? I had an editor, just today, place a comment and for some reason it split mine in half and made it look weird. I wrote them and pointed it out to them. They said that they did not see it the way it posted on their end when they did it and asked me to fix it if I needed to. I did not call them a liar because I don't believe they did lie. I believe it happened exactly as they said. A glitch in software or some algorithm inside Wikipedia code allowed for it. I don't know what happened but I didn't immediately believe the worst. I will say nothing more but I felt explaining things here to someone who I think is reasonable would be better than making the situation worse there. You can respond to this or not. It is your talk page. --ARoseWolf 20:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So many problems, both on Wikipedia and in life, are the results of simple misunderstandings. I think that this is one of them. The closer used an admittedly inartful turn of phrase ("experienced editors"), leading you to believe that he had closed the discussion illegitimately. (In reality, I think he was just trying to say that the consensus found the sources sufficient.) You then took it to DRV, where a number of editors were displeased by what they viewed as an unnecessary challenge to a clearly correct close. Their perhaps poor choice of words ("wasting everyone's time" and "ridiculous") raised your hackles, and you responded somewhat forcefully ("shameful and uncivil"). Things continued to go downhill, with both sides understandably accusing the other of failing to assume good faith. The discussion between you and Phil was particularly unpleasant, complete with straw men, heated (to put it mildly) rhetoric, accusations of personal attacks, and a truly bizarre exchange over a colon that he found instructive and that you found insulting. What started out as a reasonable notability dispute (on which I probably would have agreed with you) has now snowballed into a flaming wreck. (Yes, that's definitely a mixed metaphor.)

Who is "right" in all of this? Nobody, of course. Both sides erred, although I don't think anyone did so deliberately. But what is the lesson? The first is of course to assume good faith. The closer's comments could and should have been read in the best light, not the worst light. If good faith had been assumed from the beginning, none of this would have happened. But the second lesson in just as important: assume that others are assuming good faith. Nobody — neither you nor anyone else — meant to make personal attacks. But both sides assumed that the other was assuming bad faith, and so the situation unsurprisingly escalated. In the vast majority of cases, what one person thinks was a personal attack was really intended to be frank or sarcastic or even funny. Luther was right: we must "interpret everything...in the best possible light."

I have one final comment, which I very much hope you will take in the spirit in which it was intended. Aside from ArbCom, the "drama boards," and articles under discretionary sanctions, deletion discussions are probably the most stressful place to contribute. I would probably go bonkers if I spent as much time there as you do. I would encourage you (and everyone else, for that matter) to spend at least half of their Wikipedia time on less stressful things, like writing good and featured articles, reverting vandalism, helping out at AFC, and (one of my favorites) adding short descriptions. I say that solely because I know that people who get mired in stress-producing issues get burned out quickly and often end up leaving the project under unpleasant circumstances. And I don't want that to happen to you! You're a great contributor who has a lot to offer Wikipedia, and I want you to be able to use your talent to its fullest potential. After all, we're here to enlighten the world, not to squabble among ourselves. Here's to hoping that the future holds much more enlightenment and much less squabbling. I hope that you have found my assessment sober-minded, and do let me know if I may be of further assistance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I do and have worked on articles, even writing several since coming here. I wrote four articles, re-wrote over a dozen and improved another ten in my first month on the English version of Wiki. Before that I was a member of the Cherokee Wiki improving articles there and actively involved in discussions. I even vastly improved the Cherokee template here on Wikipedia English. I removed almost all of that from my talk page with the exception of articles I have written or improved on Landmarks, rivers, lakes and National/State Parks due to a family request not to edit further any articles here on my heritage. The community simply doesn't trust Wikipedia. So I honor them. It removed a huge part of my reason for being here. I haven't rediscovered my place yet. And you are right. No one wins with discussions like what we had at DRV. I had to take a step back and realized it and tried to bring it back to the discussion but I have decided not to go back to that DRV. It is what it is and I don't expect it made any impact whatsoever. --ARoseWolf 17:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Hi Extraordinary Writ, You recently reviewed the draft for Andrekos_Varnava. I have made changes to it, including independent references. It is now resubmitted. Just would like to thank you for your help on this article. Best, Yiannic2020

Yiannic2020 (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

• News and notes: 1,000,000,000 edits, board elections, virtual Wikimania 2021

• Special report: Wiki reporting on the United States insurrection

• In focus: From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades

• Opinion: Wikipedia's war against scientific disinformation

• In the media: The world's press says "Happy Birthday!" with a few twists

• Technology report: The people who built Wikipedia, technically

• Videos and podcasts: Celebrating 20 years

• News from the WMF: Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world

• Recent research: Students still have a better opinion of Wikipedia than teachers

• Humour: Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia

• Featured content: New Year, same Featured Content report!

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2020

• Obituary: Flyer22 Frozen

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pings

Extraordinary Writ Thanks for edit just now on the Help Desk. Is there a substantive difference between these, or are they interchangeable? (There might be other ones I don't know about.)

[[re|Extraordinary Writ]] [[u|Extraordinary Writ]] [[ping|Extraordinary Writ]]

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Brackets - [[ ]] - are for wikilinks. So, those three "pings" actually correspond to the articles re, u, and ping, respectively. Braces - {{ }} - are for templates, such as these. Make sure to use braces for pings, or else they won't get delivered. (That's what I fixed at the Help Desk.) I don't believe there's any difference between @Fredlesaltique: (re), Fredlesaltique (u), and @Fredlesaltique: (ping). As long as braces and not brackets are used, it's a matter of personal choice. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Correction: the "u" template doesn't add a colon after the username, whereas the others do. Aside from that, they're identical. "Ping" and "re" actually are the same template, which is found at Template:Reply to. The "u" template is found at Template:User link. The "shortcut" boxes show other identical forms. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Ah, it was the braces! Totally missed that; I thought it was using re v. u. Thanks for clearing that up, and explaining re v. ping v. u. Appreciate the help. Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Extraordinary Writ. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If you want to improve something...

If you want to improve something, but don't have the time, just leave a request in a section here using ==text==, then wait. I will inform you on your talk page with "Re: Article". Thanks! AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 16:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks for helping me and making contributions to me on Wikipedia! The complete thanks list is here. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 21:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Trouted

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

You have been trouted for: Why did you accuse me at WP:ANI? I have no associations. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 18:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This user has since been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, showing that my "accusations" weren't too far off the mark. See this block log entry. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

• News and notes: Maher stepping down

• Disinformation report: A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video

• Opinion: The call for feedback on community seats is a distraction

• In the media: Corporate influence at OSM, Fox watching the hen house

• News from the WMF: Who tells your story on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Take an AI-generated flashcard quiz about Wikipedia; Wikipedia's anti-feudalism

• Featured content: A Love of Knowledge, for Valentine's Day

• Traffic report: Does it almost feel like you've been here before?

• Gallery: What is Black history and culture?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Disable

Hello! Just wanted to gain the knowledge on what was done to my Draft? I’m new to Wikipedia and want to gain all the facts and information I can!  Thanks Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elvisisalive95: Gladly. You put your draft into various categories. Because drafts aren't allowed to be in categories (see WP:DRAFTNOCAT), I used an automated program to temporarily "disable" the categories. (It does this by putting a colon in front of the category name.) You can still see them at the bottom of the page, but now the draft isn't cluttering up the categories. When you move your draft into mainspace, you can remove the colons to restore the categories. (Usually, the AfC reviewer does this for you). If this is confusing, don't worry about it too much - most of it happens more-or-less automatically. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me User:Extraordinary Writ , makes perfect sense and I learned something! Thank you! I hope you have a great rest of your week! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Extraordinary Writ. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

• News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments

• In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan

• News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond

• Recent research: 10%-30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise

• From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• Essay: Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia

• Obituary: Yoninah

• From the editor: What else can we say?

• Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees

• Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for State v. Linkhaw

On 7 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article State v. Linkhaw, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in State v. Linkhaw, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a man who sang so badly in church that a jury had found him guilty of "disturbing a religious congregation"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/State v. Linkhaw. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, State v. Linkhaw), 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.

—valereee (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Extraordinary Writ. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 GAN Backlog drive

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thank you for completing 5 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusation

Can you do an IP check to prove my innocence?

(I apologize in advance for how rushed and odd this will be written, because I am being accused of sockpuppetry)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_duck_test I am into econ, they are not. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place by looking for sock/meat puppetry, but it is a false positive, and in the future, I will try to think a bit more about things like this.

[[User:BasedMises|F. A. Hayek]] (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I've responded on the SPI page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Even-numbered common year

Hi, I came across this article Even-numbered common year, and then saw that you had opened an AfD on two other similar articles by the same creator. I don't know if it's possible/appropriate to add this to your AfD bundle now that there are already several !votes there, and in any case I didn't want to mess around with an AfD that I'm not otherwise party to. But if you have any views on whether that can be done or, if not, whether I should just open a separate AfD for this third article, please let me know. To me they all seem equally meritless. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: I don't think there's any formal policy on this, but it would probably be easier to just file a second AfD. That way, all articles will get the full 168 hours of discussion. Checking the contributions, I see the same user also created Leap year starting on Tuesday, which is similarly indiscriminate. If you start a second AfD, you might want to bundle it in also. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start a new AfD; makes more sense that way. I won't include the leap year article, though — that's been around for almost 20 (!) years, and while I agree it looks equally crazy, there may well be some strange rationale as to why it has survived this long. (The same editor only made the latest edits to it, didn't create it.) Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I just misread the contributions page. (It appears there's a "Leap year starting on x day" for every day of the week. Perhaps there's some reason, although it escapes me.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

• From the editor: A change is gonna come

• Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise

• In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby

• Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct

• Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way

• Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles

• Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty

• News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

• From the editor: A change is gonna come

• Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise

• In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby

• Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct

• Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way

• Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles

• Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty

• News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Cruz Reynoso

On 10 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cruz Reynoso, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 17:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding an article

Hi, I just wanted to requests you that if possible, kindly take a look at "George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign" created by me, and suggest some points helping me in improving the article in its peer review. I have already requested it to be copy-edited. Thank-you!

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at it sometime in the next few days, Kavyansh.Singh. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey

We had a heated exchange in the AFD of Kevin L Tan and you said I was being uncivil, it was never my intention to be uncivil & im sorry if what I said came off as rude. Once again, I’m sorry that I made you feel uncomfortable, it was never my intention to do so. Celestina007 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about it, Celestina007: I'm sure it was meant in good faith. The difficulties of digital communication inevitably lead to misunderstandings. In any event, your ceaseless crusade against the never-ending tide of paid editing is always appreciated, even when we occasionally disagree. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my apology. I’ve made more enemies than friends since I began fighting undisclosed paid editing, thus far I have received three death threats because of my work here. In the past I got a little sloppy, I made a grave error by putting my place of work in my userpage. I’m 6'6” and wear a 5 inch heel when I go to my place of work which roughly puts me at 6'10” issh making me by far the tallest in my office and the most easy to recognize and identify, unbeknown to me, some hired thugs posing as contractors came to my office discovered my true identity waited for me to close from work, stalked and trailed me. They physically assaulted me badly as a warning and threatened to kill me if I messed with their articles(from my observation they appeared to be a PR firm) Honestly speaking, this, alongside protecting the integrity of Wikipedia is the predominant reason I have eternal hated for undisclosed paid editing. In any case i have the Nigerian police and personal security guards guarding me round the clock thus I’m unfazed and have peace of mind and would continue to fight and frustrate UPE editors. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How awful. Your decision to persevere in spite of such danger demonstrates considerable fortitude on your part, and it so powerfully demonstrates how insignificant the rest of our on-wiki "problems" really are. Carry on! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Very true! Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)