WikiProject Users

(Rated C-class, Low-importance)

This editor is within the scope of WikiProject Users, a collaborative effort to rate Wikipedia editors to assess the value of their contributions to the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can contest your rating and see a list of open tasks.[Humor]UsersWikipedia:WikiProject UsersUser:Sdkb//WikiProject_Users/templateUsers articles  C  This user has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This user has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Technical geography you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Technical geography you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Technical geography and Talk:Technical geography/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Response is moving forward, I believe I just have to hunt down page numbers for sources you've listed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:QuicoleJR submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

The more technical and scientific areas of the site often suffer from neglect and a lack of experts, so the experts we can get on board are extremely helpful. One of those experts is GeogSage, a geographer that has noticeably improved our information gathering by writing 34 brand-new articles and having the commitment to resolve major gaps in our coverage of Geography. They are also a very helpful part of the Vital Articles project. GeogSage has made significant impact on Wikipedia's study of lands, features and geographers.They deserve respect for wading into the bramble-bushes of Vital Articles and therefore this award. Seconded by User:UndercoverClassicist.

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

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

GeogSage

Editor of the Week for the week beginning February 16, 2025

Technical and scientific areas of Wikipedia sometimes suffer from neglect and a lack of expert input. Therefore, the experts that come on-board are extremely helpful. One of those experts is GeogSage, a geographer that has noticeably improved our information gathering by writing 34 brand-new articles and having the commitment to resolve major gaps in our coverage of Geography. They are also a very helpful part of the Vital Articles project and has made significant impact on Wikipedia's study of lands, features and geographers.

Recognized for

wading into the bramble-bushes of Vital Articles

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster7 ^Chat 17:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Geography, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your inclusion of the template is not constructive. Your POV pushing could be applied to any map showing political boundaries, as there is always a dispute. You are not the authority on borders that gets to pick which version of the Fact Book is okay, and which is not. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Geography, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. M.Bitton (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the personal attack, exactly? Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. M.Bitton (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me with the evidence of misconduct as I requested. Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...for your comment at the level 5 activist nomination. I don't know how noms work there but am surprised at the response and lack of discussion (not on my verbose part, but on others not addressing my counterpoints). Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be discouraged, conversation there is usually pretty thin, and people are voting on their first impulse. People rarely change their votes, and are spread out over a lot of places so don't give any one vote a lot of bandwidth. Would recommend hanging out in the project and voting on stuff you're not super familiar with, it might give you a good idea of the stuff we include/exclude. Currently, we are hitting the upper boundary of the 50,000 article quota in many sections and cutting is becoming more of a priority then adds as we try and sort what to include/exclude. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Not discouraged as much as surprised at the lack of discernment and back-and-forth discussion. The three most important activists in world history, at least nonviolent activists, are arguably Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and James Bevel, which becomes obvious upon study and understanding of how the Civil Rights Movement worked. To argue against returning Bevel to the level 5 list seems surreal to me, but I would have had the same reaction if his name was placed before me before October 1983: Who? Never heard of him. Would have thought that editors who work, protect, and perfect such a list would at least fully discuss and consider their objections when a sincere claim is made and defended, but instead my role in the discussion is called badgering. One oppose vote is based on a literal misunderstanding of who qualified as a member of the Big Six (activists). As for working on the list myself, thanks, but I'd probably cause further angst and conflict if I went against the tide too often. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]