For me a big blast from the past, it was 2013 when I was discussing Talk:Inventio Fortunata#News and Suggestions with Kirsten Seaver and working on related articles. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying on mobile) It's a small world! I didn't look at the talk page and had no idea you two were friends. When I was going through the Norse Colonization article recently her chapter "Unanswered Questions" was fantastic. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the good old days. Pre-Covid, cancer and Parkinson's. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flying saucer 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 Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Flying saucer 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:Flying saucer and Talk:Flying saucer/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no rush, but make sure to ping me when you think you’re done with changes and it’s ready for me to do the final close out. Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I will. Right now, I'm still working through the feedback, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take as long as you need. Unlike other reviewers, I don't enforce the time limit. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Flying saucer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flying saucer for comments about the article, and Talk:Flying saucer/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your diligence in fixing and reporting the copyright issues at List of reported UFO sightings. I have done the revision deletion, but I wanted to point out that the start and and end parameters in {{Copyvio-revdel}} are meant to be populated with the revision ID and not a revision link. Not a huge issue as I can still tell what revisions to look at. For future requests, if you use the revision IDs (the number at the end of the URL for the revision link), it makes it a lot easier for the reviewing administrator as we have tools that use that revision ID to assist us in evaluating and acting on the revision deletion request. As an example, see what I did with your revdel request. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of it, and yes, going forward I'll use just the ID so it works better with the tools that folks are using to fix the issue, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ívar Bárðarson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ívar Bárðarson's 14th-century reports of feral livestock inhabiting a failed Greenlandic colony were corroborated by the discovery of a frozen goat and animal feces inside an abandoned home? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ívar Bárðarson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ívar Bárðarson), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

1=Launchballer 00:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you mean by that comment, but it is true that only one of the current preps/queues weren’t put together by me. SL93 (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93 Thanks for asking. Sometimes confusion is inherent in a text-only medium. Then add onto our text-based limitations that I personally can confuse people in a face-to-face conversation.

I definitely believed and do believe the statement is true. My inscrutable question ("How is that reality?") was meant to convey a couple of things. First, how did that situation develop? Other people can make preps. And second, that situation should not be the norm. It would be burn me out personally, but even if you are fine with it, what happens when you get the flu or go on vacation?

Also, I looked over the article and nomination that started this conversation. I can go into details if you like, but I did notice a lot of small issues. I revised as I went (you should, I realize as I am typing, probably triple-check that I have not screwed something up), but did so much revising that it would be inappropriate for me to promote it. I did make a point to promote a different nomination of yours because of the potential issue of other folks not making preps. I hope this all makes (more) sense, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93 Not a problem. I also uploaded an ancient postcard and added it to Armstrong House (Britt, Iowa) just now. It was something I came across looking through the cited sources and other potential sources, but was unsure about the public domain status at first. I added two small details also from sources that I had bookmarked from before. I am done with the article for now and moving on to other things. I think on WT:DYK I saw that you were recovering from surgery; I hope that goes as well as recovering from surgery can go. Take care, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the main reason User:Simonm223 reverted my first edit about the Kensington Rune appears to be that the reference I gave for my edit was formatted incorrectly. I noticed that you then reverted my edit again after I revised the citation format. The Kensington Rune paragraph on the Norse colonization of North America page does not discuss any scholarship more recent than the early 1900s. I believe it is important to include more recent scholarship about the rune such as Alice Kehoe's work from 2005. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also mentioned a concern about WP:DUE. This is, on the surface, a fringe claim although from a respected anthropologist. I would like some time to look both at her work and any responses to it before deciding on the WP:DUE question in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nezahaulcoyotl & Simonm223: If it's just a miscommunication, then I apologize if I came off harsh. I agree that WP:DUE is an issue. This review says "She is also an enthusiast of diffusionist theories and a cheerleader for underdogs. In keeping with this, she has picked the Kensington Runestone as the ideal candidate for analysis. [...] Kehoe 's book is well written, and to those who are unfamiliar with her topic, it may seem interesting and thought provoking. However, despite her claims of professional objectivity, it suffers from one-sidedness and subjectivity. It is also uninformed. Her portrayal of 14th-century Swedish history has no correspondence to reality. Regarding, the need for "more recent scholarship", sure but the Wikipedia article should not make recent speculations seem like an update to a scholarly consensus that has not dramatically changed. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest this review is kind of what I was expecting to see when I said I had WP:DUE concerns. Are there any other reviews in the academic press that are more favorable? Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review contrasts her work with runestone proponents that have "the fervor of a moral crusade." But it still characterizes Kehoe's book as lacking evidence, even though the tone is positive, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. @Nezahulcoyotl I sincerely think, based on Rjjiii's two reviews, that this source is likely WP:UNDUE inclusion. I agree that Alice Kehoe is a respected anthropologist but the academic consensus on her book isn't very favorable to her claims. Based on that I think we should probably leave it out. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feder (2006) and Bengston (2007) both speak favorably about Kehoe's book. For what it's worth, Hall (1982) is another post-early 20th century work that vouches for the rune's authenticity.Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide more bibliographical information for Feder (2006) and Bengston (2007)? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Feder's review in Ethnohistory is a more positive but the positivity is focused on challenging how scholarship thinks about and frames the pre-Colombian Americas: "For this reviewer, a more thought-provoking issue is Kehoe’s deliberate questioning of America’s legitimating myth; that is, the notion that America was a wilderness populated by savages until Europeans (read: WASPs) transformed it into a civilization, and that no Europeans had come to America before 1492 “when Columbus sailed the ocean blue’” (p. 14). What makes the Kensington Runestone—which is dated 1362 CE—so important is that it challenges that legitimizing myth and what we think we know about America before Columbus. [...] At first, one might suspect that Kehoe is only trying to get to the bottom of the “authenticity” mystery, but something else lies beneath the palimpsest of Kehoe’s method; specifically, her masterful dissection on the significance of the Runestone itself." When it comes to evidence, Feder is always framing it as supposed or presented by others except "in maritime and arctic Canada" where he talks directly about a Norse presence.

Here is a more recent paper directly speaking on the authenticity of the stone:

Edwards, Harold (2020). "The Kensington Runestone: Geological Evidence of a Hoax". Minnesota Archaelogist. 77: 6–40. Analyses of the geology, geological provenance, fabrication, and lack of weathering show it consistent with an 1898 date and not a 1362 date. The flagstone that was used as the raw material is not native to the Kensington area. Tool impressions and other features of its fabrication are consistent with nineteenth century practice, not fourteenth century practice. All of the letters are virtually unweathered. A calcite-rich coating covers the lower left corner of the front. This coating is consistent with stucco applied to the surface of the sandstone. This coating is less weathered than the calcite in 61-year old marble tombstones found in Minnesota, so it could not have been exposed for 536 years. It is well established from karst geology that calcite weathers at least one and a half times faster below ground than at the surface, so if the artifact were buried for any length of time, its calcite-rich coating, including its inscription, would have been obliterated. This artifact was created near the time of its discovery, and is a late nineteenth century hoax. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]