User talk:GenQuest/Archives/ 1

Talk:Google Chrome guy

Hey there, just an update, I earlier blocked the Talk:Google Chrome IP editor for a month, but have adjusted the block to disallow them from editing that talk page in particular for a month. Felt that maybe a site-wide block was needlessly punitive. Hopefully they'll get the message and edit constructively. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

My merger proposal

I added my merger proposal at the bottom of Awaiting Consensus, Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers. Did I do it right? Apologies please arrange if need be.

The merger talk is here Talk:Army_2020#Merger_proposal. Thanks. BlueD954 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"}

Thank You. BlueD954 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk page

Parkwells went to User talk:Doug Weller claiming I did everything on his user talk page and made all kinds of claims. I don't even know where to begin with this one. When did I ever say I don't want a neutral POV? When have I ever said I wouldn't agree to sourced material? I have a headache now. :( --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't panic @Tsistunagiska:. My account is open to email if needed. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Korean Peninsula

Just to let you know, I will not be performing the merge of "Korean peninsula" to "Geography of Korea" because I don't agree with it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What would you rather do; What is your idea, @Jack Upland:? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I would prefer to merge to Korea, which I did in December 2019, before it was recreated.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: At this point, I think we're safe in you re-instating your merge of December 2019. If a revert occurs again, I'll go ahead and do it to the geography article. Thanks, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"}

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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

For your tireless and continued work of copy editing articles on multiple subjects but particularly those of Cherokee relation, I wanted to thank you. Really could have been three different Barnstar's because you are forever doing so much to improve these articles through copy editing, link repairs and minor edits. Your contributions are noticed and so appreciated. Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Whoaa!!! Thank you, T. Very much appreciated! GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for closure

Hi there! 2.5 weeks ago I posted this merger proposal at WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Although I invited a number of users and related WikiProjects to the discussion, there hasn't been any new input since 23 November. I think the discussion should be closed, but it doesn't feel right to do it myself since I'm involved in the discussion. Could you maybe determine whether there is a consensus to merge? Your help would be much appreciated!

PS. Not sure if I did this correctly, but since the proposal involves so many articles, I didn't know how to post it at WP:PROPMERGE without creating a big mess... ― Ætoms ^[talk] 15:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ætoms I'll try to get something going on soon. No promises as RL is keeping me hopping, and I think I'd first want to try to generate more input to get a stronger agreement to merging or not. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with setting up GOCE

GenQuest, I am taking you up on your generous offer of help getting started with copyediting! Two questions:

• I am trying to set up the Word counting script as detailed here but when I attempt to save the page on which I've added the recommended script, I keep getting an error message.
• I found a page from the PetScan list that looks like a good one to start with. But I see the request for copyediting appears for only one section of the page ("Fending off Vikings"). Does this mean that copyediting is requested for ONLY section 1.2 (i.e. one short paragraph)??

Many thanks! Redwidgeon (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Redwidgeon. Welcome to the team.

First off, check the side-bar menu to the left of your screen. If you already have "Page size" listed there, you probably won't need to update your console with the script at the Guild page. That should be a close enough substitute for our needs... As far as number two, I would usually just C/E the whole article if it's not too huge. In this case, though, the tag is for the section only at Ramiro I of Asturias#Fending off Vikings, so until you get comfortable, just do the section for now to get your feet wet. Let me know what you find re: the script and we can proceed from there. If you want, copy that section to your sandbox and we can play with it there. GenQuest ^"scribble" 09:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ps: I can ping you with replies if you don't want to add this page to your watchlist, whatever is best for you. -GQ

OK, GenQuest, I have (finally!) made an editing attempt on the Ramiro article in my Sandbox. If you can check my editing & provide feedback I would be most appreciative.

Also, regarding the 'Page Size' menu item: it does not appear in my left column but 'Page information' (listing page length in bytes) does. Is that sufficient?

Thanks for the offer of pinging but I'm happy to watch this page for now. Redwidgeon (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, R. Do this:

1) Go to (copy/paste):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:[your name]/common.js

2) Replace with your name at placeholder without the [ ]

3) Add the following (copy/paste) to the next open line of text you'll see:

importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool

4) Save.

This will give you a text counter that works fairly well for Wikipedia purposes. When you get that done, let me know. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for reviewing my DYK nomination on my Positioning theory page! Itsjessjj (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Thanks for the treat. GenQuest ^"scribble" 09:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Childhood into Child

I noticed you marked my merger proposal as not done. See here. Whilst there was consensus against merging Child into Childhood, most users said it should the other way around. Should I open up a new discussion on the talk page regarding that kind of merge or should I add on to my original proposal? Interstellarity (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I decided to open up a new proposal to get a fresh set of eyes on the proposal since one of the editors that commented has recently retired and hopefully we can get a better idea of whether these should be merged. Interstellarity (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That's best. thanks. GenQuest ^"scribble" 00:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Refactor?

How is that [1] a refactor?

==Requested move==
==Requested move xyz==
stuff

Is that not a duplicated header?

-- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Assessment of classical composition pages

Hi GenQuest, we generally do not assess classical music compositions to country WikiProjects, unless they are directly linked to the country. I've noticed that you assessed Piano Trio No. 5 (Mozart) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries and Piano Trio No. 6 (Mozart) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Austria, which quite frankly doesn't make any sense. Cheers, intforce (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

ThanX for the heads up. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

My subject is edited and doesn't have any ads, why you like to rev it?

Hi can you explain me why you revert the article again and again!! I edited it and it IS follow the wiki rules. I'm confused Elham377mm (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)elham377mmElham377mm (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Elham377mm: That is not an article page, it is a disambiguation page. It's like an index page. The information you are adding belongs on the Gold Dust article page (whatever the title of it may be), not the disambiguation page. Also, and this is very important, if you add information or content to an article, and it is removed, do not put it back without a discussion of why on either the article talk page, or the editor's talk page (like this one). Doing that will get you blocked from editing here. Another thing: using multiple accounts to advance your agenda will get you permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. We go by your IP address for that, so multiple accounts coming from the same address are easily traced. I noticed there is a sockpuppet investigation of your account(s) already. I strongly advise you to respond to those pages immediately before the block kicks in. (That's a permanent block from your address.) Good luck, GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Empty sections

Hi GenQuest, I reverted this edit of yours: [2] that added an empty "History" section with an "Expand section" template. This is largely because I've reverted about a thousand of the same edits from blocked/disruptive user JohnLickor372 (talk · contribs), so it wouldn't be fair to let this one go. The "Expand section" template is not to be used with empty sections, according to its usage documentation. Also, empty sections like this clutter the article, as described as MOS:BODY. As a result of the other user's edits, I happen to know that there seems to be a general agreement that such sections don't help the project, and that we should wait until relevant content is available before adding section headings. Anyway, just thought I'd explain... --IamNotU (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I very seldom add that tag, usually pull them out of articles on un-necessary sections, but coming across a place/town article that has no history section was an exception to the rule, especially a town with a long documented history even before Columbus discovered the place. Per IAR, I'd ask you to revert that revert. Thanks and merry Christmas. I'm under a time crunch right now or would do it myself. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas GenQuest/Archives
	Hi GenQuest/Archives, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!) – thanks for all your help over the year at Proposed mergers! wbm1058 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Swap pictures, the train should be in the Lede

I originally had the train picture in the infobox; but,

• There is nothing particularly notable to the Portland Rose in that picture. It is a nice picture (I do like it a lot), but,
  • there is nothing notable in showing that past great trains surviving to 1971 were reduced to two coaches,
  • it is not even showing the Portland Rose's number (18); the only evidence that it is the Portland Rose is the record is the inference the photographer seems to have ridden it from Portland at least as far as Denver.

• IMO, the interior picture is the most notable in the category,
  • the rose decor is not only distinctive to the Rose, similar to the situation with the sister train Columbine
  • it is a degree opulence that set the model for the City trains as well as the flagship trains of other railroads (against which the Challengers represented discount service).

I could see an exterior train picture in the lead IFF it was of the 1920s or 1930s trains or even 1940s streamliners, especially with an FEF at the head end! But, the decor picture better represents the name than the twilight shadow.

IveGoneAway (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, IveGoneAway. Have to disagree, per WEIGHT. The article is about the train, so the LEDE photo should depict that if available, not the decor or other features, which belong in the article body. This is standard procedure for the encyclopedia. The time-frame of when the train was photographed is irrelevant. Of course, someone out there probably has access to a better photo of that beast, and we can swap it out if that comes to light. You can consider a change to the caption also, so it is, perhaps not so focused on what is missing, but rather when, what or where the train is pictured in that photo. Another alternative is to find a similar train and use it, properly captioned as "similar to," though that would not be my first go-to. Have you checked the Commons File depository? Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC),

This is my first and maybe only named train page, at least for a while. Weight, huh? At some point, using any picture of a train to represent a specific train becomes incomprehensible to me. Particularly in the streamliner ages, the City, Flower, and Challenger trains all looked alike, by corporate intent. And even in the streamliner ages, what weight should steam, diesel, or Amtrak eve selections get?

If I understand your weight link correctly, we can't choose, but there is only one spot. Obviously, I have checked the Commons File depository, twice, because the first time I completely missed the present selection. I am now presently down to looking at pictures of UP/CNW locomotives showing 17 or 18 on the number boards.

Exterior shots can only show readers what any UP train looked like from the outside (without a bunch of timetables and running orders), not what made the particular UP train particular. Maybe the City and Challenger trains were homogenous within their class; but just scratching the surface, the Flowers were innovative, but in ways unseen from the exteriors.

But I guess the thing to do is for an expert to expand the incomplete Rose article enough for room to include the images in the body.

The most history element in the present infobox picture is the Meadow Gold Dairies sign in the background! IveGoneAway (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello GenQuest, thank you for updating the Tamil loanwords in Biblical Hebrew article, when you have time and if you see fit, can I kindly ask you too look into it for grammar and flow ? Thank you very much Kanatonian (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. Working today, but I can copy edit the whole article for you, if you want. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please, when you have time, thank you very much Kanatonian (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Beautifully done, much appreciated and Happy New Year :) Kanatonian (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome and HNY! GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well Wishes

I wanted to take a moment and thank you for your messages left on my talk page. Your well wishes were so kind and I am so grateful for them. I, too, hope you have a beautiful and prosperous year ahead. I want wonderful things for you, not just those things that make you happy but also the things that help you expand and grow beyond yourself. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindest words. Best wishes!! GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding a page

Hi GenQuest, May i know the reason why you removed sourced content on Bhalerao page. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 07:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Set index article pages for surnames may contain short regional indicators, but not ethnic communities, castes, etc. They are basically disambiguation pages for names. Therefore, they may contain no more than one pertinent link per line, and no referencing. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 08:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge request

Hi, I saw your merge request for Galle Gladiators in 2020. IMO the same should be done for Jaffna Stallions in 2020, Colombo Kings in 2020, Dambulla Viiking in 2020, and Kandy Tuskers in 2020. I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Lanka Premier League articles but did not get a satisfactory response. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah, I definitely agree. I even suspect it may be some kind of slow-motion, back-door Lanka league spam. I thought I'd do this first and measure the resistance. If needed, I'll do a policy RfC. Probably will anyway for all these types of articles. There are a few more floating around, just closed a similar one on hurricanes. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they have ulterior motives. They noticed that Indian and one other prominent foreign cricket league has team and season articles, so they wanted to promote the premier season of Sri Lankan cricket as much as they could. I'm involved because they nominated all these season articles for DYK and it was brought to my attention that they really should be merged into the team articles. As long as you have tagged one of them, I can hold off the DYK approval, but I'd rather this be taken care of sooner rather than later. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah, and I was holding off because I didn't want to upset the DYK process, then noticed the other problems the article had, and figured, "What the heck!". Do you think AfD would be a better venue for the others? The Merge Board always gets much less participation. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that's the way to go. Can you nominate all 5 articles as a group so editors can see what's going on? There's also a few merge tags over at Lanka Premier League. These editors really want to put Sri Lankan cricket on the map! Yoninah (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

In the process of doing it now. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I told you. Looking at these other Asian articles, it looks like you'll have a lot of AFDs on your hands. Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lanka Premier League team seasons

Please see WP:MULTIAFD. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have. This many SPAM articles takes time. Had to dig out the arthritis joint cream from all the typing... :) GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you have done. The superfluous discussions need to be WP:PCLOSEd. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Historic settlements of the Cherokee

Excellent article!!! I am sure there are small things that could be improved on but you did phenomenal work. It's a very precise list. Love the details on each. I haven't dug into individual lines to verify authenticity but, from what I have seen as the article has grown over time, I believe it is as accurate as any list could be. The additional prose added to the article just further cement this as, not only, an exhaustive list of settlements but also an article that adds to the story of the historical importance of the overall Cherokee people here on Wikipedia. Thank you for this article and thank you for affording me the honor of watching it develop these last few months. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Rose Wolf! GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree! It's a lot to pull together and also to concise clarity to the history. Congratulations and thank you for all your excellent work! I have some thoughts on the article Talk page about a couple of elements.Parkwells (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Parkwell. I was going to ping you to check it out also. I want to do a DYK on it, so any changes or glaring ommissions should be corrected. The extent of this article is so huge, i'm sure there are some tweaks needed. I'm fine if you, RoseWolf, or others go ahead and edit it if you're so inclined (tho talk page hints are welcome too, if you are more comfortable that way). Thanks for the encouragement. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Indian removal

Per your own reasoning of WP:MOS, it says to use the article title per WP:IDENTITY and the wikilinked article title is Native Americans in the United States, therefore Native American should be use instead of modifying the title to suit your personal preference. Per WP:IDENTITY, it also says it's acceptable and preferred to use the modern term for a group of people, which is again Native American (I understand Indian is still used, but consensus uses Native American per Native Americans in the United States), therefore it is unnecessary to change the word to "Indian populations". The article uses Native American throughout as well, therefore consensus exists already for the article. Unless there is some other MOS guideline I am overlooking, I don't see how it applies to validating your edits.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Staying consistent with my beliefs, I agree with Oncamera. If Native American is used it shouldn't be changed unless a consensus is met to change or alter it. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Oncamera and RoseWolf, That's fine, I'm not gonna push back, especially on that issue. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That's my whole approach to this argument. It's not worth debating to that point. There are so many other issues plaguing the Indigenous community and society as a whole. I will continue to use American Indian should I write an article on Indigenous people in the US outside of Alaska, Hawaii, Samoa or other territories where neither American Indian or Native American is used. If I am editing an existing article I will not change or alter the terms used without consensus unless said terms are offensive for the particular application. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Yi Seok on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the merging of the article Dhindoora

Hello mate that was the only purest article which I have created. Please don't merge it. It is a film that is not released yet but it was announced by the Maker so don't merge it. After some days when it will release I will create it nicely in a decorated manner so till then please let it be an article. Jogesh 69 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Jogesh 69

Hi, jogesh 69, At that time you can recreate the article from the redirect. That's not an issue. Right now, it has very little content and no reliable sourcing. Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and YouTube are not useable sources for notability. I redirected it so you would have time to find some, or the article most probably would've been speedily deleted. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, For your support. Once it will be released I will create it again with some reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogesh 69 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Phoebe Snow

Hi. I've looked twice now (both before and after I made the edit that you reverted), and I really don't see where the article substantiates the assertion that Phoebe Snow was "one of the first to present a fictional character based on a live model amid impressionistic techniques." Please know that I don't resist justified reversions—and I'm sorry if I've somehow just missed what you're referring to—but could you please show me where you see the lede's assertion repeated and duly sourced? Jcejhay (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Jcejhay. The first part of the statement is sourced in the article with: "...she was photographed in a variety of railroad activities while dressed in a white gown. Standing in for the cool, violet-corsaged Phoebe character of the paintings, Gorsch was one of the first models to be used in advertising... You are right about the second part of the statement regarding the "...impressionistic techniques..." of the paintings, so I went ahead and removed that from the Lede. Thanks for the catch. GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I was thrown by the "fictional character" component of the "one of the first" assertion, but I can see now that that's arguably what a model is typically portraying, so it's sort of intrinsically accurate (though giving the character a name/identity is possibly more special). Jcejhay (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Stool name Clarification

Hey User:GenQuest I noticed some clarification needed templates on a few of the articles I had worked on concerning stool names. Under the Ghanaian culture how names are chosen for Traditional rulers are different from the western culture. People are named with different names all together and they ascend the stool or skin with different names. They are pick what are termed as stool names or skin names to use as their names whilst they rule. Thats the why you see the term stool name. May be an article under the Ghanaian culture would help to get people well informed about procedures and words like that. It may seem complicated though but if changed may not also carry the message behind the culture.I hope that explains it well enough. Thanks. Ampimd (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Ampimd. The notes weren't for my understanding, however, but for the common reader of the encyclopedia. That's a strange usage for a strange word in English that the regular reader may not be familiar with. In that case, a short, parenthetical definition should be provided if there is no wiki-link available. Of course, an article on Ghanian culture (if one doesn't already exist here) would be a good article to have. Maybe you should consider writing such a thing? Then you could link the word to the proper section of such an article. In the meantime, you can change the words stool and enstoolment into links (they will be red) until an article to link-to is made. Thanks for your work on WP! Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sputnik 99

On 8 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sputnik 99, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during a spacewalk, Jean-Pierre Haigneré, a French spationaut and crew member of the Mir space station, deployed Sputnik 99 onto earth orbit by simply releasing the satellite by hand? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sputnik 99. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sputnik 99), 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) 00:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"One horse pony" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect One horse pony. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#One horse pony until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seagull123 Φ 17:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a newbie and need help. (you took down my edit)

Hello Fellow Wikipedia Editor,

      I am a Newbie. There are two issues.

    Issue 1:
The CEO of my company has the same name as the character on this TV show Unbelievable who is tied to a real person who was raped. She doesn't want to be associated with this person with the same name. She wanted me to make edits to the Unbelievable TV show wiki page to clear this up. The edits would look like this: (This Marie Adler is not to be confused with another Marie Adler, the CEO of Adler and Associates entertainment). She says this is Defamation and Libel. What can I do? Also I think making a separate page for her would lessen the confusion.

    Issue 2:

I am trying to make a page for her. She is very notable and has a lot of articles on her. But before we do that I believe its best to be a Autoconfirmed user. This account has been active for more than 4 days and I'm trying to get my 10 edits. You said that my edits were in good faith even though you took them down. Does that mean if you don't have good faith edits a person such as yourself can take away my edits and I could have less then the 10 I need? Whats the easiest and best way to get the 10 edits with out doing something that can get me banned?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Adler (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marie Adler. The kind of information you are adding does not belong in an encyclopedic article. There are literally hundreds of Marie Adlers in the world. The one in this article is obviously not your boss, and the article doesn't deliver any information that would point to your boss, or mistakenly make people think it's your CEO, or any of the other Adlers scattered about the world, so the added information is superfluous and unnecessary. I will put some links on your page so that you can familiarize yourself with editing rules here, what is allowed and what is not.

If you have additional questions, feel free to ask here or at the Tea House help pages. Making a page for your boss is an idea, but the article subject has to pass the NOTABILITY hurdle, among others, to have an encyclopedic article. Fame in a field and having many news articles are not the same as being notable. The links I'm adding to your page address these requirements. As far as autoconfirmed user status, the best way to obtain that is to just read some articles and make small edits at first (correcting spelling or punctuation, better phrasing—those kinds of things). It's best to start slow here, as there are several basic policies and skills required, but finding small edits should not be too hard, and it'll help you learn your way around the place. Good faith just means that you are trying to do good here, as opposed to some who come to mess with articles or vandalize them. We all try to assume edits are made in good faith around here, until an editor's actions say otherwise.

As far as differentiating your boss from other Marie Adlers out there, we use what's call disambiguators in the title to keep separate the many people, places, and things that may have the same title, such as: John Smith, John Smith (actor), John Smith (explorer), John Smith (architect), etc. I hope this helps you begin your journey here. There are other aids to help you learn things here, so take your time and learn how to do it right. Best of luck. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Historic Cherokee settlements

Hello! Your submission of Historic Cherokee settlements at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe, but could be wrong, they are looking for something formally called "Cherokee Regional Councils" from 1794 rather than realizing that the "Regional Council", at that time, was more of a ceremonial position rather than anything formally to be recorded and did not hold much power. Most of the power lay with individual town councils. That began to change in the early 1800's until 1822 when regional and even national councils became more prominent. The Cherokee patterned their government more after their counterparts in Washington, DC from that point forward. --ARoseWolf 14:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking for sources for that stuff now. No worries, although I can't remember where I read that, or even when. I had those statements in the article from early-on in the process, so I am racking my brain to find them. I may just remove it for now if I have to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for patrolling and encouraging community discussion. Wikipedia procedures are proven to work for every article and especially important for sensitive ones. Thank you for requesting that I conform to the community norms. I had recreated an article which did not pass its prior Afd, and I gave no explanation beyond the edit history. You asked for more, so now I explained at Talk:Boycott_of_The_Ingraham_Angle#Reviving_this_article and also add more citations to the article body. I think this should be better, and you are correct, I should have given an explanation first anyway. When so many people comment on an AfD they and the other reviewers who observed and did not comment all deserve an explanation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the labor of the ping to previous commenters in the last AfD. It would have been fair for you to request that I do that, but you did with your time, and I appreciate it. Also as a matter of process, would pinging all previous commenters have been the best way for me to have this discussion? I respect the process and acknowledge that I erred in neglecting to make a post on the talk page. For whatever else was appropriate, I think it is good for me that you showed up to call discussion to order. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, Bb. Pinging contributors to prior discussions being contested is standard procedure (or should be), but that doesn't exclude new commentators either. There is a request board somewhere around here to make a request to re-consider a previously closed discussion, I'd have to look to find it. Probably the notice board at REQUESTS for Closure would have been a good place to start, though. And probably RfC, which before all is said and done, that discussion may still need anyway. Good luck with your quest, GenQuest ^"scribble" 23:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Historic Cherokee settlements

On 6 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Historic Cherokee settlements, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the beginning of the 18th century, an estimated 2,100 Cherokee people inhabited more than sixteen Cherokee settlements in villages east of the Blue Ridge Mountains? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Historic Cherokee settlements. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Historic Cherokee settlements), 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.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Empire AS ^Talk! 12:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Orz... ...maybe...

...just a bit of mis-communication as I have no idea what this is about because there are no links supplied. Another happy customer who could take this to AN if they really feel somehow slighted. Obvious case of new user angst. Dismissed. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(thoughts from a talk=page stalker) Empire AS, Gen has been editing on Wikipedia for ten years and I have never known them to be uncivil since I started. Me on the other hand, I initially assume "Good Faith" but nothing says that is in perpetuity and no rule says it should be. If someone repeatedly causes injury to that faith or abuses the assumption of it to accomplish nefarious or even ignorant ends then "Good Faith" does not have to be assumed further and that person is tagged for what they are and accurately labeled (enter your label here). I have no time for those I have no respect for or who have lost my faith and respect in them. If the world behaved this way maybe we would leave each other alone more and stop vomiting our opinions all over each other as if we know better. By the way, I'm not being mean or attacking you, just being matter of fact. It's a tough life up here and every second counts so fewer words the better. Much love to you both and wish you the best. --ARoseWolf 18:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I made this edit where I also provided a right edit summary saying that 'Issues were rejected at AfD, merge discussion would proceed if 2nd season doesn't occur'. However, they didn't only revert my edit but also warned me by using {{uw-wrongsummary}}. Honestly speaking, the nomination of this list article was empty. The closing admin also said that If the second season does not occur, there definitely exists consensus here to merge this article somewhere. So my edit summary was alright having no issues. But due to they didn't assume good faith, they did this. And perhaps they also forgot this at that time which they now remembered. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 09:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Old news. I'll just leave this here: refer to my above comment. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of King's Mountain edits and subsequent communication

In response to the insistence of certain editors to refer to American Patriots in the American Revolutionary War, derisively and condescendingly, as "rebels", one can propose, with turnabout being fair play, of course, that perhaps it is time to refer to the British and their Allies in the same conflict as "oppressors". Predicting that won't go over well, then it is best and only fair to refer to members of the American side only as "Patriots", "soldiers", "sailors", "marines", etc. P.S. There is substance to my POV here that stands as a constructive contribution to the article. It is an attempt to demonstrate balance of perspective to this sort of history. It is not some random "hot" edit war, so, please cease from dismissing it as such. Thanks. 71.112.245.93 (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you posted this here, as I immediately reverted my reversion of your edit. Edit wars get confusing sometimes with just who is slapping just what into articles. That article goes through this periodically, I'm afraid. And yes, what you did was the very definition of Edit Warring. You should consider respecting BRD in your future edits, even if your edit(s) have merit. I would have fixed it myself had I been around and seen it when those changes were made. Again, sorry for the revert. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 08:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason I posted this here wasn't to bring up anything concerning your revert. It was an attempt to flesh out the reasons behind my original edit as sort of a point of discussion, even though I believe you may agree with that POV. Thanks for the BRD tips. 71.112.241.91 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. I agree with your editing there, and have had to revert similar in the past from those who, due to being on the wrong side of the pond, sometimes get their wording confused. Happy editing! GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mashru

​ I sincerely appreciate your edits on the subject. I have tried a bit to correct the errors you pointed out. Kindly see and advise if they are sufficient to remove the template. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV, I went through the article and re-wrote it to Wiki standards. Take a look at it and let me know if you have questions (- ping me to your talk page if so). Please check what I did with your references in case I screwed anything up. They were somewhat confusing, so there are possible errors there. I also didn't understand your use of the 'nowiki' templates, so they have been totally removed. Have fun editing! GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for correcting my erroneous edits and rewriting the page to the Wiki standards. Warm regards RV (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Raj, It takes a bit to learn the coding, so no problem. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you RV (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Death of Ricky Nelson

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?

• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question

• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203

• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster

• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors.

Plus see ANI discussions here[3] and here[4]. Most of those discussions took place in the last two years. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WilliamJE, Question. The recent RfC that renamed some plane crash articles to COMMONNAME overrides some of that (e.g.: Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash), doesn't it? Although, not too sure how well known RN's band members were at the time. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No it don't. All but one of those discussions is no more than two years old and the ANIs are both from last year. We don't name the dead or survivors of aviation accidents unless they are 1- Have a WP article 2- Are a member of the cockpit crew. @Ahunt: would you like to chime in here?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. One of the main reasons we don't add lists of people who died in aircraft accidents (other than people who already have bios on Wikipedia) is explained at WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thatnks for the feed-back. GenQuest ^"scribble" 23:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Death of Ricky Nelson 2

I don't see how my version cuts across MOS:LEAD. Valetude (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Valetude! The bolding of just Ricky Nelson was the problem as I saw it. The article is the "Death of Ricky Nelson", and—as such—the opening text should be bolded with no internal links in the bolded section. This is per the standard reading of LEDE, esp. the subsection regarding formatting the first sentence. GenQuest ^"scribble" 23:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Oldsmobile Limited

You posted a cleanup request on Oldsmobile Limited that the image position caused an accessibility problem. I moved the images to the right and removed the cleanup tag. Does that fix this problem? Also, is there a MOS entry that describes this requirement so I can recognie it in other places? I usually prefer images to the right for layout but if it gets cramped I don't usually worry about having images on the left. RJFJR (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, RJFJR. My understanding of the requirement comes from problems regarding accessibility for technical readers for the blind, as these left-hand graphics will confuse those readers and jumble their interpretation up. I'm sure the discussions exist somewhere, but I am not sure if they are codified anywhere. I never looked at the requirement myself, as I took @Gerda Arendt:'s word for it back about ten or so years ago when she reverted me for basically the same thing, and her explanation made a lot of sense. Perhaps she could expound on that question? Anyway, since then it has become SOP for me that, whenever possible, I'll move pictures and graphics to the right when copy-editing, unless (and sparingly) there is no other position they can fit in, or I'll create a gallery if sheer numbers of images warrant it, rather than left-justify any pictures. BTW: The original author of the article(s) in question has created many articles (approx. 95) and all that I spot-checked had only left-justified pictures when that format is very much unnecessary. Hope that explains it. Regards. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a MoS person. Images should usually be right. They should be left if a person pictured looks right, BUT:

1. better not directly under a header, because then the text is displaced
2. better not in a position that the following header gets displaced

which limits it to sections with a lot of text to match. That's what I try. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry so late, Thanks for the input, GA. GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Milliken's Bend

I noticed you just assessed it as C-class, which generally indicates that it's a way off from GA status. As I currently have that article GA nominated, I'm wondering where it's deficient enough to be a C so I can improve that. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, HF, Sorry to disrupt your plan-of-action. I wasn't aware of it. I brought it back to C due to RATER seeing that several criteria for B status were unchecked. I was planning to revist that later this week to improve. If you want just go through the checkboxes and mark off what are needed. It is mainly showing c1 - ref checks and c2 -verification needs. C5 - completeness is totally subjective. They may all be good to go, they just need to be checked for a B-rating. I'll get to it the next day or two if you can't, please let me know. Sorry again for disrupting your plans. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a big deal. (Rater is giving me a 95.9% chance that it is b-class or higher when I run it). I think what may be throwing the tool off with ref checks and verifiability is the block quote at the very end, which was added by another editor. Somebody's already picked up the GA review, so it'll probably be reviewed for that level pretty soon. Between me and the GA reviewer, there's a sum of over 1,100 GA reviews done, so anything for GA level ought to get caught when the review is run. No worries - I was just wondering if you were seeing something I wasn't. Hog Farm _Talk 04:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, HF. I'll TRY to get to it tomorrow since the review seems imminent. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Copy editted and re-rated. This should be good to go, Hog Farm. Good luck with the proposal. GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing.

Good morning. I received your message. Any perceived disruptiveness on my part is purely unintentional and I sincerely apologize. Any guidance you might share on what I'm doing wrong or inappropriately would be appreciated - I was acting on the belief that my edits would be potentially helpful or interesting to users. CLBragg1957 (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CLBragg1957 for responding. The mass insertion of links to organizations whose front pages are requesting funding by a new and apparently SP Account is at best going to be questioned closely, and at worst, not going to be allowed here at all. Please have a view of Reliable Sources Guidelines and External Links guidelines. I would suggest before any more rapid insertions of these two links, that you consider putting those links up for review at Perennial sources. I will also put additional links on your talk page so that you can find your way around here if you decide that editing Wikipedia is a thing you'd like to do anyway. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 11:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Will do and thanks. CLBragg1957 (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge

Hey! Thanks for the comment on Talk:Jojo Rabbit. I don't see any other material in Jojo Rabbit (soundtrack) that I'd like to put in the film article, besides probably the navbox, so I don't think I need to worry about WP:COPYWITHIN. I suppose this will mean blanking the whole soundtrack article and make it a redirect. Is blanking warranted? GeraldWL 03:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, Gerald Waldo Luis. So you are going to:

• 1) Copy the source article body text over to its own section in the main Jojo article (the target); adjust headers to one level down (by adding an = sign to both sides – do this to sub-headers also if needed)
• 2) Copy over any categories, further reading, and external links you think are pertinent.
• 3) Do a copy-edit of the moved copy to remove duplicated or unneeded information (including circular link(s) and background information that already exists at the target article); and save with the edit summary such as: Completed merge from [[Jojo Rabbit (soundtrack)]] per discussion , (this establishes attribution of COPYWITHIN).
• 4) Replace any text left in the source article (blanking) with: #REDIRECT [[Jojo Rabbit#Soundtrack]] {{R from merge}} {{R to section}} . I recommend you keep it simple, name the new section simply Soundtrack (as in example above) or similar.
• 5) Use a similar edit summary at the old article: Merged content to [[Jojo Rabbit]] per discussion .
• 6) Repeat 4 and 5 above for the old Talk Page, except don't erase any of the old text there, just add the redirect to talk on the first line of the page.

Let me know when you're done, and I can look it over if you want. There are more details to the above if needed at Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge. Good luck. (PS: you can copy the bolded text above and use if you want.) GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

GenQuest, I have done as you instructed, or at least tried to. Mind checking it? GeraldWL 12:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, looks great! Feel free to help out at Project Merge anytime. 😊 Regards and thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Dilshan's centuries

Don't shoot the Gnome

What is the point and basis of removing Tillakaratne Dilshan's centuries article and merge it on to the main article???? He has scored 38 international centuries more than even Sir Don Bradman, David Boon or Garfield Sobers. But his article is missing. Nathan Astle has only 27 centuries, and David Gower has only 25 centuries. But they have separate century articles. What is this inequality???? Gihan Jayaweera (talk 11:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Gihan Jayaweera: The decision for that was made by the community at AfD—I had nothing to do with any of that. (Near as I can tell, those articles are all being deprecated, so there's no inequality at all—They're all going away.) Also, I'm just the grunt that did the merge work. Remember, "Don't shoot the gnomes." GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

My point is, if we are going to merge the centuries articles, then do it for everyone except those who scored more than 50 centuries. You all are keeping the articles for players with 25 centuries, but deleted the articlewith 39 centuries. It is definitely inequality. Merge all centuries articles OR keep them as it is. Why they delete only Dilshan's article??? That is my point. If you can express your thought. Cheers. Gihan Jayaweera (talk 11:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I had nothing to do with those decisions, I just do a lot of the merges around here when AfD decides that outright deletion is not warranted. My understanding is ALL stand-alone century articles are going to AfD for the decision to be deleted or be merged back to the main articles. You should probably express your opinions there and probably at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. There is also REFUND if you feel strongly enough about any decisions made there. See also Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion. GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I would like to give you this for merging my article excellently and more broadly to recognise the hard work you do in merging articles for others. DukeLondon (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, DukeLondon! Very much appreciated. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Double Thanks

Thanks for the thanks!

Thanks,
Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to that. Ummm.... Thanks?!? GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Madonna's merge

Hi, GenQuest. I've notice you're currently working/cleaning her List of artists influenced by Madonna after the merge resolution. If this help and for time savings, I think all relevant information is now under the scope of Cultural impact of Madonna § Madonna's influence on other performers. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, hey! Apoxyomenus, did you already move that stuff there? That would be a big help. I was interrupted by the maintenance shut-down right in the middle of the merge. It's a big one! Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 12:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi GenQuest, no problem. Not sure what will proceed with the "list" but I think I've completed/moved all information by relevance into the Cultural impact of Madonna. If you happen to notice fancruft or something need more context as well a grammar improvment, help will be appreciated. Thank you for your work --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations for Milankovitch cycles

So, much of the remaining citation additions to Milankovitch cycles can be pretty straightforward; however, the lead and a few other parts need some work.

There is a folk model originating in early scientific application of the theory that the Milankovitch cycles cause ice ages, and, by extension, all sequences in the rocks are caused by sea level changes resulting from the changes in glaciers cause by Milankovitch cycles. In the popular press as well as technical publications intended for public interpretation, there is some difficulty in separating the Milankovitch cycles from ice ages. Yes, early application of the theory gave explanation for the observed cyclic patterns in the recent glaciations of Earth, but the theory offered no insight into why the Earth was much hotter, completely free of glaciers just over 30 million years ago.  The last 10-20 years have seen publications that begin to describe rock sequences dependent on Milankovitch cycles in Eocene and Cretaceous times when the Earth was far too hot for glaciers to form (e.g., Greenhorn and Niobrara). It may take me a month to steal enough time to complete this.

IveGoneAway (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, IveGoneAway, there are no time limits on Wikipedia, so no worries. Of course, the land-mass changes of 30 million years ago surely had some influence on heat retention, insolation, orbital variances, and the like. Even the lengths of days were different. I believe Milankovitch only attempted to address the latest epochs, or am I wrong there? Anyway, thanks for all your hard work on the article. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

30 mya, the day and lunar cycle were not much different than now; after a billion years, though ...

The main "land mass change" over the last 30 ma was glaciation, however, 80 million to 55 ma there was a lot of mountain building and one idea is that the minerals that were exposed in the process had cooling climatic effects. Other than that, the new ranges like the Rockies and the Urals created steppe environments. Yes, Milankovitch started out addressing the recent ice age because that was "New" at that time, and because the Euro-centric sciences had ice-box geology all up in their faces, while Americans were more interested in the (hot-house) Cretaceous in their backyard. I really want to work the mention of Gilbert (1895) into the Development discussion because the new applications of Milankovitch cycles to the hot Earth all credit him for the original conjecture. To be fair, Gilbert was something of a glaciologist, and I have only recently confirmed my layman's suspicion that the Cretaceous rhythmites could have nothing to do with glaciation; there were palm trees in Alaska and dinosaurs were wintering over on the South Pole, for goodness sake!

Thank you for your time.

Ever chatty,

IveGoneAway (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC) 19:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Milankovitch studied ..."

If it is the "Milankovitch studied ..." part that you were really asking to have cited, I intend to Main article the biography section.

IveGoneAway (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)