Would it be a problem if I added news and newspapers as sources? Kartal1071 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battle_of_Rey_(1059)# Kartal1071 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and newspapers are good sources for current events, but not for history, which is what you've been editing about. For articles on history topics, the best sources are books and journal articles written by academic historians. -- asilvering (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konko Maji has asked for a deletion review of Debangshu Bhattacharya. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 23:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cryptic and apologies @Asilvering, I intended to leave a note when I fixed their nomination but got distracted. Star Mississippi 01:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nothing really to say as the closer anyway, but I've left a comment on the sources. -- asilvering (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering I hope you're doing well.

I've created this article in draft space: Draft:Michael Commane

Would love your feedback on whether the subject meets notability for main space and any improvements that might be needed.

Appreciate your time—many thanks! Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not - there's nothing here that's useful for WP:GNG, because none of this sourcing is independent. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean the sources need to be written about him like this one? https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20193550.html Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be about him, but not like that one - that's more an article about a particular clerical abuse scandal than it is about Fr Commane (so it's not really about the subject of your draft), and it's basically reporting of a thing that he said (so it's not all that independent either). The deck calls him an "outspoken cleric", which does imply to me that he's notable (in the non-wikipedian sense) in that he is known as an outspoken cleric, but for it to survive a deletion discussion you'd need sources that fulfil WP:42. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, he's quite a well known journalist / priest commentator in Ireland so I thought he'd tick the notability boxes -- there are links like this https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/21963614/ (RTE is the equivalent of the BBC in ireland) -- but he might be a non-starter if I can't find enough independent sources. Thanks for taking a look Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's really tough to write AfD-proof articles on journalists, unless they've published a book, and then it becomes very easy, because a book by a journalist is going to get reviews, and those give you the coverage you need. WP:JOURNALISM looks pretty sleepy but you might be able to ask for tips there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how about this one she's an author, book reviews are on Amazon but I don't know if linking to Amazon is acceptable? Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need WP:RS reviews. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you how you got to your conclusion? The delete !votes which came in after the sources were found/discussed were mistaken, especially the one after the second relist, which just ignored all of the sources that were already presented. None of the delete !voters actually said why any of the presented sources weren't any good. This should be at least a no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 04:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 5 keep !votes are particularly strong - ie, none of them are a slam-dunk of significant coverage that makes it impossible to take the delete votes seriously. Three of them specifically say they are weak or note that there is little in the way of significant coverage. The point about lasting impacts on the design of the airframe, which you and Cashew mentioned, wasn't persuasive to later participants. You can call them "mistaken" if you like, but I don't think that's charitable. Meanwhile, there are 13 deletes/redirects, plus the nom (and even a previous AfD). I admit I did half-expect this close to be challenged - but I expected the challenge to come from the delete side. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did my absolute damndest to refute the delete !votes and I don't think my vote was weak in the slightest. Are you sure you are not willing to reconsider before I take this to DRV? SportingFlyer T·C 19:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly argued, certainly. But I would not characterize it as a slam-dunk of significant coverage that makes it impossible to take the delete votes seriously, and I would be surprised if you would characterize it as such. You tried hard to save the article, but didn't manage to turn consensus to your favour; it happens. My way of acknowledging that was a close that explicitly leaves space for those interested in keeping the article to work on it and try again. If you would prefer DRV, you can of course take it there. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 February 9. —Cryptic 08:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I wanted to create a bio for myself am I able to do this on here ? --"kephartestates" (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @"kephartestates", welcome to Wikipedia! You can write a bio for yourself, but we'd really prefer that you didn't. See WP:AUTOBIO and WP:FIRST. -- asilvering (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We simultaneously have this and this as mutually contradictory decisions. If the logo is copyrightable, then the decision to declare its use on a license plate cannot be PD. The only conclusion I can see here is that this should be PD based on the discussions in toto. Buffs (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're mutually contradictory - neither was deleted. I do think you should update the tag on the PD-usgov one though, since it's correct that it's not a work of the US government. -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the logo is copyrightable, then the license plate featuring it should be deleted unless the subject of commentary. A FUR allows for the logo to be used in the article, but a license plate repeating said logo would fail FUR.

At a bare minimum, perhaps it would be better to relist these together for consideration. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --Marcobertolotti (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marcobertolotti, welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm currently working on my very first Wikipedia article. I've been able to work around most of the issues, but I'm feeling stuck on two issues: 1. How do I edit the article title? 2. How do I create sub-headings?

Thanks a lot for the assistance. --SV The Great (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SV The Great, welcome to wikipedia! You can't edit an article title, not exactly. But what you can do is move the article to a new title entirely. Instructions at H:MOVE. Regarding sub-headings, that's easier to demonstrate than describe. I'll add some to Draft:Olalekan Sunday Ajisafe for you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey asilvering, just wanted to ask if you could review my request at WT:AFC/Participants whenever you get the time to. I saw that you're quite active there, which is why I asked TNM101 (chat) 08:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac tends to get to these on Sundays. I mostly just weed out the "does not meet minimum criteria" ones. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK no problem. Thanks for your reply! TNM101 (chat) 03:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain whether to agree with your statement about "bludgeoning" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Collins (2nd nomination). Actually, I dunno why else there've been less or no "delete" or "redirect" votes (or no votes), especially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol (2nd nomination) (which ended in "redirect") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Moss (2nd nomination) (which ended in "no consensus"). George Ho (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea what you're actually asking me. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, The bludgeoning appears to have scared everyone off. Do you still stand by this statement? I've not bludgeoned at two other AFD discussions I've mentioned to you AFAICS. George Ho (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the bludgeoning scared everyone off. You'd think a delete !vote like SportingFlyer's would have gotten at least someone to second it, but no such luck. -- asilvering (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that some of the bludgeoning in these discussions - albeit not @George Ho's is at ANI right now should you feel the need to/interest in weigh in. Star Mississippi 02:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I've already found that one... through the unblocks queue. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In the page for the "Grey-bellied Wren Babbler", there is an image that does not match the species in the page. However, I cannot find any public-domain photos for this particular species.

What should I do? --Mitul and Vijul (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mitul and Vijul, welcome to wikipedia! What I would do in this situation is remove the image from the page and write an edit summary that explains why. In this case, it seems pretty easy - the image is labelled "grey-chin babbler", not "grey-bellied wren babbler", so I don't think anyone is likely to object. If someone does revert your change, you'll want to go to the article talk page to explain why the photo is incorrect and should be removed.

An unrelated issue: I think you're going to have to change your username, or both of you get new, separate accounts. Mitul and Vijul are your first names, right? Please see WP:ISU. Wikipedia accounts should be used by only a single person. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello asilvering,

How do you change your account name? Mitul and Vijul (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Mitul and Vijul: You can make a request here: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for closing WP:Articles for deletion/Bassam Kawas.

You mentioned wanting to redirect, but there was no proposed target. I propose a redirect to Lebanon at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Athletics, because it's the only Wikipedia section solely dedicated to the subject and it pertains to his highest-profile competition.

Would you consider changing your closure to a redirect to that page / section? Thank you, --Habst (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst, my worry about that (I did notice it when I went looking for plausible redirects) is that he's mentioned on a few pages and if we have a redirect to one of them, it makes the other pages harder for people to find. If the article doesn't exist even as a redirect, then those pages all show up for someone who searches his name. Without a redirect, the page you're suggesting is still the first search result: [1]. It seems to me this is the better result for a reader who would really have hoped to find a full article about Bassam Kawas - do you agree? -- asilvering (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, Thanks for your explanation. I agree from a reader's perspective, but unfortunately for technical reasons the only way to preserve public page history on Wikipedia is by keeping a redirect. In the long run, I think this creates perverse incentives to keep redirects around for the benefit of editors at the expense of readers.

Could you undelete the article then in my userspace at User:Habst/Bassam Kawas? That way at least there's a trail for determined editors to follow if a native Arabic speaker ever finds the AfD and wants to add sourcing. The issue with draft space is it's temporary. --Habst (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! It's both hard to believe it's been three years, and hard to believe it's only been three years. -- asilvering (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help and for understanding the small things with love. I truly appreciate your patience in understanding my mistakes. You are my first favourite admin! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 17:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry about laundry day. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Koshuri ^(グ) 14:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please revert your close and relist it? There are no reliable sources that discuss Athmeeya Yathra, so keeping the article makes no sense. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't close it as keep. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say it was closed as keep, but I meant that it doesn't make sense to keep the article. Can you please relist it for the second time or is it eligible for renomination? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misunderstand, no, I was just trying to be delicate about it. At the risk of saying the quiet part out loud, I think you'll have a better chance of getting it deleted in a fresh discussion. I wouldn't re-nominate it right away, but come back to it in a little bit and write a solid rationale and I think that'll get somewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the point of renominating it later when the entire article is sourced only from the subject’s own websites, so there won’t be any new sources in the meantime. The existing nomination rationale is good enough to start an XfD, even if it wasn’t a good faith nomination. Given that the only keep vote is from the author, this should have been an easy relist rather than a no consensus close. Would it be okay if I take this to DRV for a second opinion? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you can take it to DRV whether I'm okay with it or not. But from the perspective of achieving your goal, which is the deletion of the article, I don't think DRV would reliably get you there, so I wouldn't advise doing that. It's no skin off my nose to relist it if you're really insistent, so if you confirm that's really what you want, I can do that. If I personally wanted the article to be deleted, though, that is not the option I would choose. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My goal isn't exactly deletion, as you can see from my vote in the XfD. Either way I was planning to BLAR and if contested, I was going to renominate it but another editor has already started a merge discussion, so that's that. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt in my mind that there's gaming on both sides of this subject. I wonder, why? You might have noticed I quietly removed the ec permissions from the nominator. At least two of the keep votes also belong to users who've apparently gamed their EC, based on my initial reading. I was going to ask a friend to help me break it all down. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that friend is a checkuser. Might help sort things out more quickly. As far as the "why", well, I assume it's the usual crypto rivalries at work. -- asilvering (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong with this comment. An IP editor is not allowed to use account only for maintaining his vendetta against other editors, let alone doing that on a noticeboard on ANI. We have seen such socking cases before. You will benefit from reading about them such as this one. Capitals00 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not wrong with that comment. We encourage IP editors to make accounts, especially for the reason that editor described (ie, that an account better protects your privacy). What is not allowed is WP:PROJSOCK. Demanding that someone reveal their IP is a violation of their privacy, and an obvious failure of WP:AGF. If you have serious concerns about a particular editor block evading, please contact a checkuser. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that the admins who supported blocking this editor were all wrong and you are right? We encourage people to switch from their IP to account for article space. We don't do it to encourage them to maintain vendetta against other editors on WP:ANI. Asking another person to reveal their past "accounts or IPs" or otherwise stop joining the ANI discussion is not wrong. This is a normal practice. If the editor's past role is limited with an IP which they don't want to reveal, then they must avoid any feuds related with that IP. Checkusers are not going to bother over a single edit. Capitals00 (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that. I even linked WP:PROJSOCK. You will notice in the comment you link as normal practice that the admin there offered the possibility of emailing checkusers about the IP. It is not appropriate to demand that a user disclose their IP publicly, and it is not appropriate to threaten someone with admin action for not disclosing their IP. The next thing you link is WP:NOTFISHING. If you believe that a CU would call this fishing, then you cannot possibly believe that this is an obvious project sock of a particular IP. -- asilvering (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering. I saw your username on the list of "Good article mentors". I recently finished the article for Freak Lunchbox, a popular Canadian candy store. Despite the shorter length of the article, I did spend quite a bit of time on it, and after reviewing the good article criteria a few times I think it would qualify. Before I go through all that, I was wondering if you might just take a quick glance at it and tell me if you see any glaring issues that would immediately disqualify it from receiving GA status.

I was also thinking about nominating the article for DYK, with the fact "Did you know that Freak Lunchbox spent $12,000 on a mural only for it to get covered up by a new nine story building?" or something like that. I imagine you'd typically choose one or the other though, right? I wouldn't want to take up too much of peoples' time. Any advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Kylemahar902 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People don't usually pick DYK or GAN - they do both! If you want to make a DYK nomination for it, I suggest you do that soon, so you don't miss the window. Regarding the GA criteria, I think you've got an obvious problem you'll need to address before you start: there's nothing on the article about the store itself or what they sell. What I learn about it is a) where some of the locations are, and b) that there was a big controversy about the mural on the side of the building. Are there really no sources about the store itself? What makes it different from other candy stores? Why's it called "Freak Lunchbox"? etc. Other than that, at a glance it looks good to go: lots of sources, none obviously unreliable, images appropriately licensed, nothing wonky about the prose. -- asilvering (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. I guess I got so caught up in explaining the history of Freak Lunchbox that I didn't consider that readers would require more context about what the store actually is. I'll see what I can do. Kylemahar902 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again asilvering. Thanks to your help I was able to expand my article accordingly and have submitted it for review. I figure the logical next step is to begin reviewing the work of others, however given that I'm new to the process I'm getting a bit lost in the nomination list, and I'm not sure where to start. I was wondering if maybe there's any nominations in specific that you think would be suitable for me start with. A lot of these are very long and in-depth, and I'm more than happy to tackle those at some point, but I'm not sure that I'm well-informed enough just yet. Your WikiWisdom is appreciated. Kylemahar902 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through looking for nominators I know are likely to have submitted something that's already GA-worthy - it's really easy to feel pressured into accepting something that's kinda meh when you're new, imo. Letters Written in France is short and mostly comes from just a handful of sources, so that's probably an easy review. The Cat in the Hat Comes Back likewise. Toward European Unity looks a bit more daunting, but you'll notice that Grnrchst has a habit of stacking multiple citations together, so you don't actually have to check as much as it looks like to verify the content. Those three nominators are all experienced reviewers who won't mind answering any of your questions. :)

You may have noticed those are all from the literature section. Hey, it's what I know. If those articles don't interest you at all, you might have a look at one of Sammi Brie's TV station articles. She's been cranking them out for a while so you'll be able to find loads of reviews that have already been done on really similar articles just by following up on the list of GAs she has on her userpage. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your response, those look like some really fun reviews and I appreciate you taking the time to pick them out for me. I must admit, I thought perhaps my message might have gotten lost in the sea of pings, and I didn't want to continuously post on your talk page, so I went ahead and started reviews here and here earlier today. I reached out to another editor on the mentor list to take a look at the statue review, but haven't heard anything just yet. I happen to have quite a bit of time on my hands lately, so maybe I got a bit ahead of myself. Once I get these two reviews sorted out, and I'm sure I'm on the right track, I'm definitely diving into The Cat in the Hat Comes Back next.

If you wanted to take a look at the reviews I started and leave a comment you're more than welcome - I'm trying my best to stick rigidly to the criteria, but I worry there's a chance I'm not being critical enough. Don't go out of your way for me, though, I'm sure I'll get it figured out soon. Thanks again, MediaKyle (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to be really obvious about your source checking - you stated that for Frederick Warren Freer you read the article that most of the citations are from, so that's good and clear, but I'm less clear on what you actually checked for Statue of John Witherspoon. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thank you. I'll revisit that. MediaKyle (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asilvering,

Great closure with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:PA by Cerium4B. I seem to be seeing more editors (in general) coming to ANI with a determination to get another editor blocked or topic banned or some other sanction imposed when there doesn't seem to be a compelling case to do so. And when one argument doesn't work, they try another. I'm not saying any editor is perfect but ten years ago, ANI used to be a bloody mess, with cases determined by mob justice (a lot of "off with his head!" comments) and I don't want to see those days return.

I'm finding it depressing and I have to spend less time reviewing complaints because it can seem like a case of "Last editor standing". I'm surprised when editors stick around after having to go through experiences like this recent case. Thanks for finally bringing this one to a halt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ANI ought to refer those kinds of issues to AE. I don't think the AE admins would be terribly impressed, and the discussion format there does help contain the "off with his head" bits. -- asilvering (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | March 2025, Vol 11, Issue 3, Nos. 326, 327, 332, 333, 334 Online events: New: Alphabet run E & F | Artists+Activists | Women of the Arab World Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements from other communities: March editathons around the world Celebrate Women 2025 office hour series Tip of the month: You can access the Wikipedia Library if you have made 500+ edits, and 6+ months editing, and 10+ edits in the last 30 days, and No active blocks Moving the needle:[1] 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) 23 Dec 2024: 20.009% (2,041,741 bios, 408,531 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | [[ File:Twitter icon.png|frameless|15px]] Twitter/X ^ "Humaniki".

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to check whether I actually submitted the draft List of Minecraft mobs for review. I feel it was this guy instead (see Special:Diff/1275415708). I already changed it on two pages where it was listed (1, 2) Could you confirm if there was a mix-up? Xoontor (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xoontor, those pages are administered by bots, so I don't think it will do you any good to change what they say. I suppose something has gotten confused because you were the one who put the AfC template on it. Not sure why. -- asilvering (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what are the rules relating to editing? I am a bit confused about them. --Mistermisterwhosthemister? (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mistermisterwhosthemister?, welcome to wikipedia! I've left you some helpful links on your talk page. You might want to start by reading WP:SIMPLE. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you good sir! I shall read it carefully. Mistermisterwhosthemister? (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have noticed that in the Wikipedia article, the title for Thattekad is written as "Thattekad Bird Sanctuary" when it is actually a wildlife sanctuary according to official sources (such as Birdlife International). Moreover, Birdlife International spells "Thattekad" as "Thattekkad".

Should I move the article to "Thattekkad Wildlife Sanctuary? Mitsingh (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mitsingh, welcome to wikipedia! The answer is: probably. However, you can't move pages yet, because your account is too new. You'll have to go to WP:RM and propose the move under "Uncontroversial technical requests". Please provide a rationale like you did here, and a few URLs that show the name "Thattekkad Wildlife Sanctuary" as evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I was in the fact-checking business for 11 years and recently transitioned into a new career- but I still want to fact-check.

I wanted to add the info about the Brent Spence Bridge seen in the graphic at 37 seconds in the clip below- is that a good example of an edit? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnisQlVqRTE) --Hatshepsut3 (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hatshepsut3, welcome to wikipedia! Unfortunately, I can't help answer this question, since that video is blocked where I am. Can you try asking at WP:TEA instead? Sorry! -- asilvering (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. I agree it's superfluous, by the way.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just periodically daydreaming about a working ticket system... -- asilvering (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna try? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I'd say "way ahead of you", but it turns out you wrote this before I responded there and I was just slow to check my notifications. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm working on a class project for a university History of Palestine and Israel course. The project involves creating or editing an existing Wikipedia entry, and the subject matter I have chosen is the management of water as a resource in the region. The page on water in Palestine is locked, as are other pages regarding similar topics such as environmental impacts of conflicts. Is there any possible way I am able to contribute to these pages or do you reccomend I create a new entry entirely?

Thanks. --Theonims (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theonims, welcome to Wikipedia! I am sorry to tell you that this class project is doomed. You aren't permitted to write on the Israeli-Arab Conflict with a new account (see WP:PIA for the reason why), so unless students in your class already are experienced Wikipedia editors, none of you will be able to edit on the topic of your course. What's worse, if you're all editing from the same IP address at your school, if one of you gets blocked, your whole class might be confused for sockpuppets and blocked together. Can you please get your professor to contact us at WP:EDUN? -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with a fun fact's presentation on the main page. The writer of the fun fact has completely misinterpreted the meaning of the quote. How would I report that? --JoelSalop (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoelSalop, welcome to Wikipedia! The less helpful answer here is "on that article's Talk page", but if you tell me the specific fun fact and what's wrong with it, I can give you a more helpful answer. By the way, those fun facts are called "Did you know", and you can learn more about that process at WP:DYK. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering. The "Did you know" in question was on the subject of the cactus Mammillaria albiflora, and took the phrase "just a phase" from the introductory paragraph of the full article in the colloquial usage of "just a phase" as one would when referring to a trend, rather than as a growing or evolutionary stage of a plant as is intended in the full quote. JoelSalop (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, at least as I read it, that's the "joke" of that DYK hook. In any case, the hook has already run, and the article Mammillaria albiflora has the correct information, so there's nothing that needs to be done about it at present. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! How do you change the title of your article? --Jamesdegenhardt (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jamesdegenhardt, welcome to wikipedia! To change a title of a page, actually what you have to do is perform a page move. Just move the page to the correct title and you're done. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir. How do I create a new page ? I wanted to create a wikipedia page about a tamil Youtuber : VJ Siddhu vlogs. If not can you please create it ? I would love to expand the page. --Gruutri1204 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gruutri1204, welcome to wikipedia! There are some tips about starting your first article at WP:FIRST. I don't think this is a good idea though - YouTubers, even popular ones with a really high subscriber count, don't tend to meet our guidelines for inclusion (see WP:NBIO for those), so it's really difficult to write articles on them even when you already have a lot of Wikipedia experience. -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:Hi im AbchyZa22, why you transferred this logo to the Wikimedia, this logo is not simple (below too) ,is the same logo deleted in Deletion Request (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rutaca.png) User:Taivo (Administrator of the Wikimedia Commons) says:complex logo. The curves are not arcs of ellipses or ovals (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, @AbchyZa22. I'll restore it here and tag the Commons version for deletion. -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every answer I get from wiki people is so cryptic I don't understand I it's like military grade encryption to me I just got to all the things all the edits and thought I was in good shape because I got to the page that gave me a banner that said now I needed to wait I thought that was a good sign because I got all the other errors fairly quickly over multiple days but I can't get back to that banner that tells me to wait for 2 months. I did once but I can no longer get back to that banner I don't know what I'm doing and this is just crazy. ButtonWarren (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ButtonWarren, I've restored the template for you at Draft:Raphael Warren. That's what you were talking about, right? Press the blue "submit" button to submit the draft for review. -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's the blue "resubmit" button. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the draft:

That was not the corrected version. The links were not working

This is the one that was moved then waiting to be reviewed:

Raphael Warren – Executive Cybersecurity Strategist

Raphael Warren is a cybersecurity strategist, former military officer, and retired federal agent specializing in high-level cybersecurity consulting. He is the founder of Spartan Cyber Security, an executive advisory firm providing discreet cybersecurity solutions for corporate executives, law firms, and healthcare organizations. Warren is also a board advisor for TAC Security, an international cybersecurity firm. [1]

With over 30 years of leadership experience in military, law enforcement, and cybersecurity sectors, Warren has advised Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, and healthcare institutions on cybersecurity risk management and regulatory compliance.

Industry Expertise

Healthcare Cybersecurity & Compliance – Helping organizations navigate HIPAA, ISO 27001, and NIST standards.

Cyber Risk Management – Conducting executive-level cybersecurity risk assessments and strategic planning.

Incident Response & Business Continuity – Ensuring resilience against cyber threats and compliance violations.

Government & Corporate Advisory – Providing cybersecurity insights to public and private sector leaders.

Career Highlights

Presidential Nomination & Senate Confirmation (2012) – Recognized for contributions to national cybersecurity policy. [2]

Public Speaker & Media Analyst – Featured on KOAT Action 7 News, KRQE News 13, and Sandia National Laboratories, providing expert insights on cybersecurity threats. [3][4][5]

Author of Cybersecurity Lingua Franca (2025) – A guide for executives on cybersecurity best practices. [6]

Cybersecurity Leadership Award (2024) – Recipient of the National Cybersecurity Awards for leadership in cybersecurity. [7]

Public Speaking & Media

Warren is a sought-after speaker on cybersecurity, risk management, and executive leadership. He has appeared on national television networks, including KOAT Action 7 News and KRQE News 13, analyzing cybersecurity threats and IT outages. [3][4] He has also presented at Sandia National Laboratories and been featured on cybersecurity podcasts. [5]

Government Appointment

In 2012, Warren was nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a cybersecurity leadership position in [Agency]. His federal appointment recognized his contributions to national cybersecurity policy and defense strategy. [2]

Warren’s expertise positions him as a trusted advisor for organizations looking to enhance their cybersecurity posture while ensuring regulatory compliance in critical industries.

References

"Dangers of Artificial Intelligence in New Mexico Amid Elections". KOAT Action 7 News. August 6, 2024. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"Social Security Numbers at Risk After Recent Hack". KOAT Action 7 News. August 21, 2024. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"New Mexico Airports, Borders, and Hospitals Impacted by IT Outage". KOAT Action 7 News. July 19, 2024. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"Ransomware Attack Forces Bernalillo County Buildings to Temporarily Close". KOAT Action 7 News. January 6, 2022. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"Lovelace Employee Says Network Outage Has Been Chaotic". KOAT Action 7 News. November 27, 2023. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"Here's How Russia's Attack on Ukraine is Affecting New Mexico". KOAT Action 7 News. February 24, 2022. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

[How New Mexico entities are dealing with cyber attacks "Cyber Attacks Take Down Major New Mexico Hospital, Government Offices"]. December 2023. Retrieved February 14, 2025. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)

[Raphael Warren "Raphael Warren – Member Board of Advisors"]. Retrieved February 14, 2025. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Text "TAC Security" ignored (help)

[FY22 Q3 Small Business Forum: Cybersecurity Posture - Apr. 2022 "FY22 Q3 Small Business Forum: Cybersecurity Posture - Apr. 2022"]. April 2022. Retrieved February 14, 2025. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

In 2012, Warren was nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate PN1548 - 3 nominees for Army, 112th Congress (2011-2012) ButtonWarren (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the history of the draft (link: [3]) and you will see a list of all the previous versions. (Click on the date to see any individual one.) Find the one that is the version you want to submit, and come back here and give me the URL of that version. I'll be able to add the correct template to that one and explain how I did it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Starship flight test 9. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Redacted II (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

---

18:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

What makes this a "redirect"? There was one delete, two keep, and two redirect (I'm not counting the two sockpuppet "deletes"). The one valid delete did not see any of the sources presented later on in the discussion, while one of the two redirects offered no explanation (aside from "valid ATD"). I'm curious how you determined the "redirect" argument strong enough to overtake the "keep" argument, given the close numbers and not many substantial arguments either way? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for leaving you hanging here for a bit. Ok: there are two deletes (counting the nom but not either IP), two redirects, and two keeps, so just on the numbers that's 2:1 for "no article". Given the possibility of further sources that the keeps pointed out and absent any argument for why deletion ought to be preferred over redirection, I land firmly on "take the ATD". Additionally, one of the keeps (yours) was specified as weak, and Joelle's point about the sources not having much coverage wasn't contested (the objection was instead that it adds up to enough, not that the description of the coverage as only a few sentences was inaccurate). So I didn't see any good reason to weight the keeps so much more heavily that they'd overcome the 2:1 on the numbers. That said, I personally think you're very likely to be correct about there being additional sources, which is why I explicitly mentioned spinning it back out in the close comment. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You made an interesting comment here. It's a suggestion I made a couple of years ago when 2019 through 2022 I and a few others were doing a concentrated spurt to address many accumulated requests for Curation features. It's in WP:PCSI somewhere. If I recall correctly I even designed the Curation tool UI for it. I can't remember if the idea gained traction or not, we were ploughing through so many accumulated requests for features and creating Phab tickets for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what would be really helpful: a checklist. I don't think we could make it exhaustive, since there's the outstanding question of "what even ARE we looking for", but being able to check off stuff like "earwig checks out" would probably save some duplicated effort. -- asilvering (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist? What you want a checklist for? I'm not sure I understand. What ARE you looking for? Did you read WP:PCSI? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently closed Cerego as No Consensus. It was notable (to me) that none of the Keep !voters based their reasoning on the appropriate GNG/NCORP policy/guideline rationale - instead throwing sources/references out there and much of the time with reasoning which actually contradicts our guidelines on the type of sourcing that may be used to establish notability. In fairness, I see that one of the editors, while not demonstrating a familiarity with the appropriate guidelines, at least seemed to be trying to find sourcing that meets GNG/WP:NCORP. My own !vote was a couple of days ago and I pointed out why (according to sections in NCORP guidelines) the references fail. I accept the AfD has been open for 23 days, is there anything to be said for reopening for a further and final extension to wait for a response or to see if consensus is coalescing in one direction or another? HighKing⁺⁺ 08:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'll relist it. I can't recall what was going through my head at the time (possibly it was "well, HighKing, you sure tried") but my guess is I just miscounted the number of relists. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello i am creating this list of former chief justices of Indian High courts just as list of former chief justices of India and list of former judges of supreme court But my partially created draft was rejected and i am working on it very hard to complete this list of former chief justices of Indian high courts but i am not sure whether this list would be published as aricle on wikipedia or not if otherwise, then i may better leave to complete it Kindly provide your sugges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Former_Chief_Justices_of_High_Courts --Aruunn (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the AFC submission template to your draft, so whenever you're ready, just hit the blue submit button and it will end up in the pile of drafts awaiting review. I'm not familiar enough with that topic area to know offhand if it's a reasonable list topic or not (seems fine to me), but whoever reviews the draft will check for you. -- asilvering (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was always on the Wikipedia page for Cooper’s company in Coburn School as I was very famous. As my daughter is just attended I looked again and for some reason the last couple of months my name was taken off. I’ve tried to put it back on but someone keeps taking it off which is really annoying. I am on Wikipedia on the Big brother three section of the Wikipedia page. --Alexandersibley (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexandersibley, your name is being removed from that list because there is no reference given that states you went to that school. Are you able to provide a reference that says so? -- asilvering (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can. I have all my gcse certificates. I’ve been on the wiki page there for years. No idea why it was taken off. Google me and my school name comes up. Why on earth with someone wants to pretend to go to a school is beyond me I just want to be back up on there especially if Richard medley. Tell me where I’ve got to send you proof. Alexandersibley (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By reference, I mean a reliable, published source. So if there is a newspaper article about you that mentions that you went to that school, that will work. We don't want to see your GCSEs. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not online, but there’s a news article about when a man ran into the side of my car and died from his injuries. It said in that that I went to Coopers company in Coburn School would that be enough? Alexandersibley (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering, I noticed the Luna Snow AfD was closed as a merge, but there was significant "Keep" support citing sources like Polygon, Kotaku, TechRadar, and IGN. Given her multimedia presence (games, animation, music, comics), could you clarify how consensus was determined, especially given how many "keeps" were listed? I was also in the process of cleaning up the sources for that page and using more reliable references, and since the most recent post was a "Keep" just 1 day earlier, I assumed it wouldn't be closed so abruptly. Thanks for your time! -- Pokedigi (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the close timing, AfDs stay open for a week, and after that they can be closed at any time, though usually they are allowed to run for another 7 days after each relist. It looks like I closed this on the 8th day after the relist. So as far as AfDs go, this was actually closed a bit later than normal.

Regarding the close outcome, the keep votes were pretty clearly refuted by the merge/redirect. The main point from those participants, It's a lot of sources verifying she exists, but nothing offering commentary., meanwhile, wasn't refuted or even really addressed by the keep side.

I understand that's a bummer given your own position in the discussion, but I hope to see you back at AfD in the future. We always need more participants, but we especially need more participants who are interested in trying to fix up the article while it's there. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean the only way to get the page reinstated is to present better sources of notability in a deletion review? Sorry for my ignorance on this, I haven't ever had to deal with a page being deleted before. -- Pokedigi (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note formally I don't avoid block, just was some way frustrated with your, though quite a practical, approach about "edit like normal, " is possible only after registration (however only if I'll change my behaviour and edits thematic and be as silent and still as the midnight fornoone 'd see any similarity, but that's not funny and have lack of any interest for me if we talk about wiki is together created pedia and not 'the articles of one' space). But what if I don't mean to be registered? Editing as normal is not for me? That's not some trap, but exclusively applies for my deeper understanding what's really going on here and not what said as have to be. Don't hurry with the answer. And thanks in advance. 83.142.111.64 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be silent, it's just that creating an account will allow you to leave your past behind, provided that you do it once your block expires and don't go back to the same topics you did before. What I was suggesting was that you try a WP:CLEANSTART. You can't really clean-start from an IP. We can all see who you are.

Sorry in advance about the rangeblock I assume you're about to get for block evasion. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, asilvering. While I agree with you that "The idea that Talk:Battle_of_Algiers_(1956–1957)#Teitgen's_claims shows MzTourist deliberately violating OR and NPOV is astonishing", it seems to me that a month-long block of M.Bitton is excessive. At first I assumed the length was because they had a really damning block log, but I see that's hardly the case. Please consider shortening the block. BTW, I was a little surprised to see you, by contrast, merely gently upbraiding Orocairon, who was behaving pretty badly in the thread. Perhaps they're too new to need a block for it, but they didn't even get a note on their page. And, as The Bushranger points out, their history is pretty suspicious. CU needed?

Another thing; whether or not you decide to make any change to your block, I urge you to add a line in the log to provide a permanent link to the ANI thread. The current link is non-permanent and will "rot" as soon as the thread is archived, and then there will forevermore be no information in the log (nor on M.Bitton's page, which also has a non-permanent link) about what the block was for. Well, except only the name of the thread, which is information of a kind, but hardly of a fair kind. You can use the "Permanent link" feature on the ANI page, in the "tools" section on the left (in the skin I use, but it won't be hard to find in any skin) and then use "change block" to add a note with the better link. Bishonen | tålk 10:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

PS, please note that "M.Bitton8", an account which has posted here, is a joe job. See User talk:M.Bitton8. Bishonen | tålk 11:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Did you see the comment by User:The Bushranger who wrote "I find it very interesting that the moment Mztourist commented on M.Bitton's history, Orocairion - somebody who has never edited Wikipedia: space before, who has never edited articles on Korea and Vietnam, who has as the closest thing to "war crimes" previously only made two edits to Talk:Augusto Pinochet, and who had not edited since 25 February - suddenly appeared to personally attack them and declare they should be banned for whitewashing and denying war crimes, particularly around topics surrounding Korea and Vietnam." Like Bishonen, I feel that your block was to long, escalating from a block of a week to a month doesn't seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve changed my mind. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both,

Yes, I saw Bushranger's comment. No, I am not terribly concerned about Orocairon. They've been called out for their behaviour pretty obviously in that thread, and haven't edited since. No further action required. (If a 30-edit account wants to try to make a case that an entire 15-year, 70,000-edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes, well, they're welcome to try, but I don't think they'll enjoy the result.) Unless you or someone else have evidence they're a particular editor's sock, it would be inappropriate fishing to CU them, as far as I understand the rules about accessing that data.

I used that form of link on purpose, so that if the ANI thread continues (as I said, I'm not sure that's quite the end of it), editors of the future will be able to read the rest of it easily, rather than being directed to an outdated permalink. The link won't rot - when you follow an archived link like that, the software automatically searches for that heading in the archive pages and generates a link to the discussion.

Regarding the block length, I made that decision based on a combination of factors, including the block log. Perhaps we have differing ideas of what constitutes a damning block log, but what I took into consideration as aggravating factors were the logged AE warning for incivility, the week-long block for edit warring barely two months ago, and the fact that the unacceptable behaviour continued in the ANI thread itself, which clearly demonstrates that more mild actions were unlikely to have any effect. My own examination of the linked threads and a general survey of M.Bitton's edit history did not give me any reason to think otherwise. At the time, I hesitated between two weeks and a month, and ultimately decided on a month. Having duly considered it again in response to your comments, I'm surprised I hesitated at all; I believe a month was the right choice. -- asilvering (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilverling. Would you be willing to be my good article mentor? I'm a somewhat experienced editor (about 8000 edits and two years editing), who wants to reduce the backlog at GAN but is a bit nervous about where to begin. My areas of interest are Eastern European history (broadly construed), biographies of women, and crime-related articles. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I see you've already found your way to WP:WIG, which is good. I went through their GAN list and found Augustina Gabel, who fulfils all three categories at once, if you're not scared off by the Ukrainian sources. It looks like the most-cited one is online, at least, so we can muddle through it with machine translation. If that one's not appealing, you can find that list of women-related GANs here: [4]. I tried picking through it but the likely-looking ones are all pretty long, and I expect you'd prefer a shorter one for a first try? -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was thinking more Virginia Christian (sorry, I forgot to mention that). Do you think that would be too difficult for a first-time reviewer? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not worried, I'm not worried. Shoot me a ping from the review page once you start if you have any particular questions that make sense to answer there. Or go ahead and ask anything you like here, if it's something more general. Or, if you'd prefer to just get to it and just want another set of eyes when you're done, feel free to tag me in for that. If you haven't installed it already, User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool.js makes the last part (closing the review) really easy, and I recommend using it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this settles my doubts. I will try my best. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm almost done with Talk:Virginia Christian/GA1. Can you please take a look at it if it is not too much trouble? Thank you, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've concluded the review with a result of pass after improvements by the nominator. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! I'm impressed haha, these take me ages. Though, now that I've had a closer read through it than my earlier skim, I can see why. It was in great shape already. A couple suggestions, which are mostly my own preferences and in no way invalidate the review:

1. I just make those little picky grammar/link fixes myself, since it's more bother for both reviewer and nominator to write them out and have them do it. ymmv. Some noms don't like you touching the article at all, others will get irritated if you don't. When it comes to anything that's not strictly "mechanical" (like adding a space, etc) but requires some thinking and rephrasing, that kind of thing I do leave for the nom. If you do any changes yourself, imo it's a good idea to say so and explicitly invite them to revert any they hate.
2. I'd have gotten pickier about the sourcing on the political cartoon. But I was able to find it with this information, so it's technically sufficient.
3. I'm not thrilled that more than half of the citations are to a PhD dissertation. Typically we'd want to avoid citing them at all if possible. It may well be the best source for all of this information, and all that information may well be WP:DUE in the article (none of it felt "off" as I was reading without looking at the citations), but I'd want some evidence of legwork showing that (mine, the nom's, or both) before I passed the review.

Again, this is all in the spirit of general feedback for the future - it's a good article! And your review was also good. By the way, if you're interested, Derryn Moten, the historian who wrote that dissertation, doesn't have an article here. But I'm pretty sure he's notable (a quick google brings up stuff like [5]), and without any extra effort we can already link him to three articles ([6]). -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! I'll keep this in mind. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]