User talk:Renamed user 150tcy3tya3ql

Thanks again for the work on the Ohio 11th page—it’s in so much better shape now. If you feel like applying the knowledge further, the Virginia 2021 races could really use it. I started on the Governor’s race but the Lieutenant Gov and AG races have the same issues. No pressure, just if you’re inclined. Meanwhile congrats on the featured picture—what a great image! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for pointing me to those VA pages — I will definitely take a look at them and see what I can do. Right now, a lot of my focus has been on the thankfully lower-profile upcoming mayor race in St. Louis and adjacent articles (though as you've seen, I tend to get sidetracked quite easily!). I've gotten Tishaura Jones up to GA-nom quality and I'm planning to expand other candidates greatly soon; I was set to work on Lewis E. Reed but noticed a paid-editing issue that required admin to get involved. I'll hopefully begin tackling that article more in the days to come. Also, while you're here, I want to thank you for color-correcting the Nina Turner image I added, which made it look a lot better. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh well done sussing out PAID. It’s a drag but so important. And thanks about the Nina Turner pic! Afterward I saw the original and it totally made sense that one wouldn’t think to adjust the color/light—the tone on that jacket, wow! Only because I saw the close crop first did it occur to me.
Meanwhile good luck with the mayor’s race articles (it is nice to work on something less heated!) and if you have a spare moment, great but no worries if not. Thanks for all your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks so much for your work and lending a second set of eyes—you’re catching stuff I hadn’t even noticed! (It was even worse than I thought, yikes!) Much appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

And thanks to you for adding stuff back with reliable sources! That's exactly how this process should be done. I took more of a slash-and-burn approach to this one — the rules at WP:ENDORSE are clear enough to warrant that, I think. I removed mostly tweets and campaign websites, but there were also a few I was unsure of — as a non-local, I couldn't immediately tell if the Blue Virginia website was a WP:SPS or not. It will definitely take a finer eye to go over more thoroughly. Glad to help in any way I can. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Slash and burn definitely warranted especially as there will be plenty of people motivated to add back in anything they can, so it’s not like anything truly legit going to be lost (and hopefully now that so much of the excluded endorsements are cleared out, it’ll be much easier to check additions). As for Blue Virginia IMO it’s kinda borderline, but at minimum looking at your cuts made me realize how much was sourced to the Blue Virginia tweets which is definitely not ok. Collaboration FTW! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Saw the mass re-addition, I’ll get on seeing which of the Gov endorsements I can find a source for so that doesn’t keep happening. Thanks for taking care of the revert. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting story behind that Lord Fairfax endorsement, but WOW the first minute of that video was uncomfortable. Again, nice job with expanding stuff. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

On Jennifer Carroll Foy; I checked her WP page to see whether she would be under C or F, and the article refers to her as simply Foy (in a similar manner to Hillary Rodham Clinton to "Clinton," for example). However, you have been looking at a lot more recent Virginia news sources than I have, and if the consensus there is "Carroll Foy," then the BLP should be edited to reflect that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh good call. Yes here for instance is a recent WashPost piece, or one from Richmond Times-Dispatch which are the papers of record here, more or less. I will get into the bio altho maybe not until tomorrow. Happy new year! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987, I came across a user at the page for the upcoming Anchorage election who has been very domineering about what they want the page to look like, even ignoring rules such as WP:ENDORSE. They have been rather defensive and hostile in their previous edit notes. I wanted to bring this to your attention due to the discussion we've had about ENDORSE. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hoo boy the fun never ends! I will read the page history and then add as constructively as I can. WP:OWN situations are very tough. Thanks for the ping. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, well per the request in the edit history, I went through all the sources. Page actually much better now, I think—a lot of those bad refs weren’t needed anyway so no content removed other than endorsements. Hope the page stabilizes. Fingers crossed. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your work. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't checked the category page for what their local criteria were. I usually work with static cats, so I didn't think to do so. Thank you for reverting my edit, which was apparently erroneous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's no issue — it happens to the best of us. Thanks for the note. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course. No problem. Wikipedia would obviously be a far better place were most editors willing to admit when they erred, and with that in mind, I try to acknowledge when I do make a bad edit, and likewise acknowledge helpful edits. Regardless, thanks for implementing "housekeeping" edits such as this, as well. Far too many articles out there that haven't been reviewed and changed, even some BLPs. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I composed that edit about 10 hours ago, grabbed some sleep and a bit to eat, then returned to post it. Before finishing my edit, I looked again at the section to make sure no one else had edited it, actually changed "said" in my original to "observed," and no duplicate warning came up in my reference since I was quoting the editorial directly, and hit "publish," meaning to go to the Post Dispatch to see what they had to say and also for a reference to Danforth's comments. When I went back a few minutes later to add the P-D quote, I found my edit gone, and reopened the whole article to see what had happened. I don't think you and I differ much in our views on what merits inclusion in the Hawley article and think I may have edited his article in recent weeks, regarding his vaunted reevaluation of old untested DNA in rape kits. I looked at an article in the Anchorage Daily News at the same time and found they spent $1.5 million analyzing old rape kits and found exactly one prosecutable case, that only thanks to a fairly unique state law that extended the statutory limit for prosecuting such specific violations. (That article, arising with a collaboration with Pro Publica, found that mandated rape kits had rarely been done in most jurisdictions in that state, and DNA analysis found that only the victims' DNA was identified from samples, and that only partial DNA samples were found in other cases, potentially left by the alleged assaulters.) About that time I did edit Eric Schmitt's article because he joined 16 other A.G.'s in filing as amici in Paxton's efforts to overturn the election results in GA, PA, WI and MI or AZ. Derek Schmidt in neighboring Kansas had joined so the difference was only one letter in the last name, referencing the KC Star article. Oh, and I think my use of the term observed was not incorrect, which I'd preferred only because "said" in referring to quotes becomes a bit hackneyed IMHO. I don't have any problems with your edits. From Google definitions: ob·serve /əbˈzərv/ Learn to pronounce verb past tense: observed; past participle: observed... 2. make a remark. "“It's chilly,” she observed" I hope that explains the situation and glad to see your enthusiasm for covering MO politics. If it's okay with you I'd like your opinion on the primary challenge to Clay since you're a local and would write to you directly if your User page on Wikipedia is linked to one. Activist (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I want you to know that the revert was really nothing personal. That BLP specifically has come under a lot of pressure very recently (primarily by much less quality users than you are) and I and a few others have really tried to hold down the fort and make sure everything is triple-checked for WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM and other policies. When there's any room for doubt, we'd much rather err on the side of caution and air things out on the talk page; it's not often that views on an article subject are torn between "valiant patriotic defender of liberty" and "responsible for an attempted coup of the USA." While you're here, I want to commend you on VERY good work finding refs to extend the page and adjacent pages. It's always amazing to me how lacking MO articles can be, when all that's needed sometimes is to Google an article subject's name. (Worth saying that never seems to happen for, say, Cali or NY politicians.) By the Clay challenge I assume you're referring to Cori Bush's recent victory. Here's my take on it: I'll support any challenger in a situation where "not being named Clay" is in itself a decades-long barrier to office. Thanks for stopping by, thanks for your work, and let me know if I can help you with anything else. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Josh Hawley salute.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This image was deleted before I could see it, so I don't know what the exact basis for the deletion was. However, I do believe that image is a unique historical image, as it is the only photographic depiction of a now-notable event covered in depth in that article, and I believe I labeled the image itself as non-free. In other words, I would like further clarification on why this image was deleted, perhaps so as to avoid similar errors in the future. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding. I've been fiddling with the new watchlist expiry capability and must have messed something up as your user talk page isn't on my watchlist for some reason. I've responded at the Josh Hawley talk page as that seems the best place to hold the discussion. Again, sorry for missing this message. -- Whpq (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Given your position, you might find the concerns expressed by prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, that his close association with Proud Boys might have a negative effect on the jury pool and witnesses, intimidating potential jurors in particular. The Talk section of the article and the deletions from the article might interest you further. Text, which User Springee has repeatedly removed reads, "The defendant's continued association with members of a group that prides itself on violence, and the use of their symbols, raises the significant possibility of future harm. Further, this association may serve to intimidate potential witnesses," in the criminal case.

It's at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting Activist (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I read over the info within the context of the article, and I really don't see a problem with it. Maybe rephrase the beginning of the sentence to use a simpler word like said? Right now, I think it's clear that is the opinion of the prosecutors and not something WP is saying outright, but perhaps an edit explicitly stated as "for further clarity" could help smooth things over. Also remember to watch for that user crossing WP:3RR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. I don't expect Springee to change his behavior, so I guess I'll have to waste some time in dealing with him. This has been going on for a long time. Activist (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NiKo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niko. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:2021 US Capitol storming; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: WP:3RR was in the front of my mind as I reverted, which is why I only reverted once. All I was asking was for that user to follow the same policy you just linked me: "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons." I think that in addition to policy, that's pretty standard common courtesy. I have no issue with 3RR or WP:BRD, but BRD shouldn't take effect until a revert is actually explained: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." Now that the user in question has actually done that, a productive conversation can begin. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Might I add: judging from your talk page, misusing EW and similar templates seems to be a regular thing for you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, but I do not want it remaining on my talk page. I did one edit without explaining what it was because I made an honest mistake. I do not want a reminder of that small mistake on my talk page forever. Consider this my acknowledgment of your feedback, as well as a thanks for it. I will take it with me going forward. Please do NOT change my talk page without my consent, or unless you have something new to add. Thank you. Packer1028 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: per guidelines, I am allowed to remove content from my own talk page at my discretion.

My apologies. I was not aware of those guidelines. Please forgive me. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You reverted a correction that I made on the Article of U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and gave hypocritical reasons for doing that. It is hard for me to understand, how "minority or fringe viewpoints" are expressed or given weight, when biased wording is removed. That was the exact reason for me to edit the passage: This article should stay true to the First Amendment and Wikipedia guidelines. Just because certain people (I'm not saying you) would like to see their viewpoints as agreeable, incontestable facts, when they are not, that doesn't mean they are. The current wording is biased and does not meet any guidelines, that's why it needs to be changed. Neither debunked conspiracy notions of "stolen elections" nor the notion that Hawley's objection is definitely founded in conspiracy theories or that he provoked the mob should be given weight. Balance and Neutrality are important. Alleging me to make the article fringe and biased is just totally ironic, when I did the exact opoosite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanP (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The article does not claim that Hawley definitively incited a mob; it only notes that prominent people have argued that, which is noteworthy. All references to such a claim are marked specifically as someone's opinion. And to your other point: there is no evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. As such, those claims are baseless. That's not just my opinion. If you want to research that on your own, good news! There's an encyclopedia at your fingertips. And if you happen to have "contestable facts" to the contrary, I would very much like to see them (along with several million other people, I would presume). Reporting facts is inherently neutral; giving legitimacy to arguments which are based on literally nothing is inherently non-neutral. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume you can read. I also assume you have no bad intentions. Therefore I have to assume you are/were in a rush or something and missed the obvious problems. Please, if that is the case, stop undoing neutral improvements. It sets dangerous precedents. I am going to quote directly now, because you show zero understanding of the talked about passage and you almost state the opposite of what is literally written:

Quote: "In January 2021, Hawley provoked an intense political backlash after he became the first senator to announce he would object to the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election; he was criticized for promoting the baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump. On the day when the electoral votes were being tallied, Hawley raised a clenched fist in solidarity with pro-Trump protesters demonstrating outside the U.S. Capitol. As Hawley filed his objections, some of those protesters then stormed the Capitol, resulting in five deaths and Congress being evacuated. Because Hawley helped popularize and legitimize the conspiracy theory that motivated the mob, figures from across the political spectrum argued that he was morally responsible for the riot and called for Hawley to resign his office or be expelled from the Senate."

First of all, cite the reference of Hawley claiming, the election was stolen. You might find some people claiming that, but that does not make that a fact, honey. His intention was never to overrule the election, because it was stolen. He claimed, fraud in Pennsylvania was widespread and dangerous and that an objection is justified, because of it. Again, he claimed that, It's not a fact. Secondly, Hawley did not present his (absoluteley questionable, that is why I made the adjustments to reflect everybody's objections to the wording) objection on a "conspiracy theory", but on his "evidence". There is a debate over that evidence; and you could call it a conspiracy theory; fact is, it is a debate. Thirdly, saying "because Hawley helped popularize and legitimize the conspiracy theory that motivated the mob, figures from across the political spectrum argued that he was morally responsible for the riot" is not unbiased or factbased. That sentence assumes, as if it were a neutral fact, that the Senator popularized and legitimized a conspiracy theory, he did not--Or at least people claim it or they claim the opposite>that needs to be reflected in the article. The sentence also assumes Senator Hawley motivated the mob; That is indirectly saying the Senator was responsible for the storming or that he incentivized it. That is false propaganda, not a fact.

You state, that all references are marked as someone's opinion; they are not.... look up the sentences. You also incorrectly state, there was no voter fraud at all in the whole election. With such a statement, I seriously have to question, if you have any knowledge on the whole subject. It is a fact, that no fraud altered the result; that does not mean there was no fraud, domestically and foreign. That statement is just absolutely mind-blowing.

Please, stop making these false allegations and changes. They threaten Wikipedia's neutrality.

Here's the source cited within the article for the claim that Hawley "was criticized for promoting the baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump."^[1] Here's a quote from that article (since I don't expect you to read it, honey...)

Mr. Hawley's decision elevates President Trump's repeated false claims of a stolen election tainted by pervasive voter fraud, and it answers Mr. Trump's demand that Republican lawmakers move more aggressively to defend him... The process is one that Republican leaders had long hoped to avoid. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, warned his conference this month not to lodge such an objection... At a news briefing on Wednesday, the incoming White House press secretary, Jennifer Psaki, said that "the American people spoke resoundingly in this election", and she described Congress's certification of the Electoral College results as "merely a formality."

Secondly, on this point on "evidence": there is no evidence of widespread fraud, which again is not my opinion but a fact. (I'd recommend you take a look at the FAQ on the election and read this article.) To lend even minor legitimacy to these baseless arguments by presenting them as merely "allegations", "accusations" or another such word without prefacing them as baseless in fact itself violates NPOV. I'm sure you could find Holocaust deniers ready, willing, and able to frame their views as a "debate"... and yet Wikipedia's page on the The Holocaust cites it as a real event, because giving fact-free conspiracy theory the same weight as the vast majority of information on the subject is inherently WP:UNDUE. We must not only strive to accurately represent information, but to represent it respective of how widely it is supported by the body of knowledge at large. Please see WP:WIKIVOICE for more information on this. Thirdly, the source I provided verifies your claim, but if you still have an issue (as I expect you will), I would implore you to talk it to the talk page rather than edit war on a WP:BLP. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman, I added the ratings given by Cook Political Report to all the gubernatorial races in 2021 and 2022 to Wikipedia. However, you have reverted my edits, even though this is consistent with many other Wikipedia pages, such as this one about the Maryland Senate Race in 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Maryland#General_election. I don’t believe my edits violate WP:CRYSTALBALL and/or WP:NPOV since these ratings are on all 2022 Senate races, even though they are in the future. Is it because I didn’t add the rating in the chart like it is because I don’t know how to do that. Maybe you could add the chart that has the Cook Political Report rating. Thank you. Muhibm0307 (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the comment. I did not feel that prognostication was appropriate for the lead. I have added a chart. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi AllegedlyHuman, you are probably already aware of this, but I'd like to make sure that these notices have been added to your talk page (per WP:AWARE).

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Feel free to remove this message especially if you already knew, and sorry for the inconvenience.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on "Sedition Caucus" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

On 9 February 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Karen Lewis (labor leader), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Great work on this! I had watchlisted the page when I learned of her passing but wasn’t sure I’d get to it before the ITN window closed, so I was so pleased when your edits popped up—I knew the results would be great, and indeed! Thanks for the job well done on a deserving topic. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! She was certainly an interesting figure who deserved Main Page recognition. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that GameStop short squeeze is not ITN anymore (though it will always be ITN in our hearts), I just wanted to thank you for all the great work you did on the article !--JBchrch (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this, JBchrch. Your work on that article is phenomenal as well. Documenting history in real time... AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I have no connection to Tools of Titans or the people featured in it. Just a fan.

For ease of access, you should keep comments related to a discussion on the same talk page, rather than moving it to mine. (You should also sign comments using four tildes.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi friend. I spent all night (until I fell asleep) thinking of the "US-centric" comment I made and your response which is certainly true. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, apologize If I offended you (as an American you are) in any way. Cheers. CoryGlee (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't take any offense to it at all! It seemed to be a genuine question, and I attempted to answer as earnestly as I could (I've found it's very difficult to display intent through text). As I said then, I think it's great that ITN editors have balanced world events on the Main Page as much as they have. I very much appreciate the apology, though. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that the reason Keith Gill should be pointed to the investor's article is because it's getting literally thousands of hits from readers virtually all of whom want to read about the investor. The athletic director was averaging only about 5 hits per day before the investor popped up. By sticking a dab page in their way (especially with only 2 possible articles) you're just inconveniencing dozens to hundreds of people per day, however slightly, and for no offsetting benefit. Eventually we can actually move the page, but in the meantime, there's no reason not to redirect, unless there's some reason I'm unaware of. Station1 (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Keith Gill should probably point to Keith Gill (investor), but so long as the pages are parenthetically disambiguated they should remain like so. I would recommend you to request a move using WP:RM#CM and share your reasoning here with the entire community. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you can do it if you like. Station1 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/United Airlines Flight 328 at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the additions to List of assassinated serving ambassadors! Poydoo can talk and edit 12:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I found the page following Luca Attanasio's death, and I noticed several of the people in Category:Assassinated diplomats were not reflected on the page. I appreciate the barnstar. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I saw the attempted trivia addition you made for the 2021 New York nursing home scandal. I thought it was quite good but sad to see it got such high resistance. A lovely comment was seeing an editor call the scandal "overblown", quite frankly, what a partisan scumbag lol. If hiding 6k deaths from public knowledge isn't alarming to you you're too far gone. Regards. CaliIndie (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but that's how things go I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ While you're here, I wanted to thank you for the great expansion you've done to that page. It's in a pretty good shape now for readers thanks to the work you've put in. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I was quite worried cause when I stumbled on the page it was kinda poorly constructed. The reactions section had bullet points which you never see for these kind of pages. Since the page was facing possible deletion I tried to make the presentation look as best as it could look to avoid that and it seems to have been a successful endeavor. Likewise, your additions have been good as well, I'm glad to see another editor taking a crack at fixing up this highly important article. CaliIndie (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman: If you're interested, I've went ahead and created a draft article at Draft:Impeachment of Andrew Cuomo, as the likelihood of such a scenario warrants prepardness if it occurs, we have an article ready. You're invited to contribute. CaliIndie (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No rush, but are there any updates on this? My edits were prompted by this discussion which shows the general sentiment that the current version of this page has a pretty clear bias that actively misrepresents that actual circumstance. Goofygubernaculum (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I want to let you know I really appreciate you having the initiative to edit Wikipedia for the good of public knowledge. My issue with your edit at the time was not that it was factually wrong, but rather that you were radically changing the article structure within one edit. Some of your edits also linked to external websites in the body of the article, which we should not do. I will say I was not at the time aware of the situation re Reddit, so I thank you for bringing that to my attention. My advice to you would be to first find stuff you know is absolutely wrong and remove that material. Then, I'd recommend in separate edits that you add material you know to be right with reliable sources, so other editors and readers can verify it to be correct as well. (Perhaps other people on that subreddit may be interested in doing this too). As for edits regarding the structure, that's where my original point comes in. The structure of the article normally comes through careful consensus on the article's talk page, and moving a lot of stuff around can be seen as disruptive. Again, I very much appreciate you seeing something you'd like to fix and wanting to do so. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and the super speedy response :) I'll go back and make smaller, more categorical edits. I condensed the structure down because there was a lot of repeated material scattered about. Is there a way you'd suggest condensing? Would it be okay to edit the sections if I do smaller chunks, like condensing all of the Covid information into one section, then in another edit condensing all of the NBME executive stuff, etc? Goofygubernaculum (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like it would make sense. In your edit summary you can even include something like "removing redundancy" if that's what you're doing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The scope of the WikiProject includes:

• the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women up to the mid-20th century.
• ongoing social and cultural movements and issues that affect women into the present but have historical precedents and origins.
• contemporary women as agents of historic change.

You've recently been adding the WP to non-related pages. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to add content I noticed was missing from WP:WIG per the instructions given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green#Current Featured Content. If there's a better way to do this so those articles will show up on the list, I'd like to know, but I thought those instructions were pretty clear, and I followed them exactly. It certainly was not my intent to go against any rules or guidance. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The WP:WikiProject Women in music might be more appropriate in many of these articles. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi AllegedlyHuman. Thanks for filing the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mgoodman1. In the future, I would exercise more caution when speculating on the personal identity of Wikipedia editors. In general, doing so on-wiki is not allowed per WP:OUTING. Even if an editor is editing under their real name, our policy still discourages posting the results of Google searches or the like. If you believe that this kind of information is necessary for us to protect the encyclopedia from disruption or conflicts of interest, you are encouraged to contact an administrator or functionary privately, e.g. via email, instead of posting the information on-wiki. For example, the functionaries have a mailing list at WP:FUNC. Thanks again, and please let me know if you have any questions. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mz7. With all respect, I believe my actions were appropriate as per the WMF statement on this topic. However, I appreciate you sending me these resources which I was not previously aware of, and I understand your move for oversight of that information. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding that WMF statement, you should also review the Arbitration Committee's response to that statement. In summary, the ArbCom at the time expressed considerable skepticism about the WMF's statement. The interaction between the WP:COI guideline and the WP:OUTING policy has been the subject of considerable debate over the years, and that WMF statement only scratches the surface of the many discussions this community has had on the topic. If I had to summarize what I think the best advice is, it would be to always err on the side of privacy and only disclose non-public information in a non-public setting, such as email. Mz7 (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for informing me about how to better deal with this type of incident in the future, and thanks for your immediate action on this delicate matter. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Link: Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine previously being merged Talk:Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello there. I am learning how to edit on Wiki, need to make an account. a more experienced user (devionwombat) explained that while my suspicions of bias were valid, that existing wikipedia policy did make sense. so, i am learning. i did not appreciate your tone, and accusations of whatever "sock" ing is--i dont know what that means.

hoping we can just dial down the rhetoric. we all just trying to help. thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8300:1AB6:1CE3:1F4C:2CB:41D3 (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

On 11 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Simone Gold, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold participated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Simone Gold. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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) 00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

On 12 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Texas power crisis, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Governor Greg Abbott initially blamed the 2021 Texas power crisis on frozen wind turbines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Texas power crisis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

On 14 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marvelous Marvin Hagler, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Globaltruth (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Uh... are you sure? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that the note you deleted was useful and pertinent to a lot of readers, given his cause of death. But I defer to your judgment in the matter. The 75,000 readers in the last three days may have asked themselves this question. It was just a note, and did not interfere with the flow of the article. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It was preachy and NPOV-breaking, and, as I noted in the edit summary, off-topic. We don't need to warn people about the dangers of kiteboarding every time we say a person died from it, just as we don't with car accidents or gun accidents. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

On 17 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Governor Andrew Cuomo, who was initially praised for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York, is now implicated in a scandal related to it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Your DYK hook about anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold drew 10,996 page views (916 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello incorrect about Kenyan Drake being signed the Raiders is not a valid source. The source is the Raiders official website and the team announced Drake was signed (https://www.raiders.com/news/raiders-sign-rb-kenyan-drake-nfl-free-agency-2021). If a NFL team's official website states they signed a player that is always considered a valid source. Diddykong1130

My apologies; I only saw the ESPN source you had provided in that edit, which by itself would not be enough to verify. The official Raiders announcement works; thanks for the message. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the Giants official website must confirm it. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content to see that Twitter is not a good wikipedia source. Teams announcing "Reports" are also worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC) NFL's official Twitter confirmed it MrMiniguy (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You should add the tweet as a source, then. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933: The source you removed was from the NY Giants' official website, not Twitter. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that Giants website article was a Report, not an official announcement. See my talk page to see what @Eagles247 said. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933: You should actually read the article AllegedlyHuman cited. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyways, that article says Twitter is an unacceptable source to cite from. This includes NFL Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933: For one, AllegedlyHuman never added a tweet as a citation at Kenny Golladay. This is at least the third erroneous warning you've given to other editors, and I suggest you lay off of doing so until you have a firmer grasp of how Wikipedia works. Second, tweets are acceptable sources in certain cases. The guideline you are referencing is for "user-generated sources", meaning if you saw a tweet from Joe Schmo in Wyoming saying Golladay signed with the Raiders, you cannot use that as a reference. However, if the Raiders' officially-verified Twitter account posted that he signed with the team, that would be an acceptable citation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I confess that I dislike ALL article tags, most of them discrediting the article content. The translate tag doesn't but still attracts attention. I believe that it fine if there's a stub, and the other language has a well-developed article. Not here. I am on voluntary 1RR, so won't revert you, but do you see my point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally disagree, but I'll revert it anyway, as it's really not that important to me either way. The goal was to link to what appears to be a full article with several sources, as from my understanding that was what you and other editors were seeking. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi AllegedlyHuman. I noticed you added the COVID Conspiracy Theorist category into numerous BLPs. Please be aware if the main body of the article does not explicitly refer to the subject as a "COVID Conspiracy Theorist," then adding that category would be a WP:BLP, WP:COP, and MOS:LABEL vio. Even if the subject expressed skepticism in regards to COVID (or espoused outright baloney), we would have to wait until reliable sources refer to the subject as a "COVID Conspiracy Theorist" before we can add that category. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: The only guidance Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists gave was "Proponents of conspiracy theories related to the COVID-19 pandemic." It was not tagged as a contentious category, like for example Category:People involved in plagiarism controversies. Calling COVID fake or a biological weapon made in a Wuhan lab or by the U.S., attributing it to 5G, or promoting cures such as hydroxychloroquine are all examples of conspiracies labeled at the relevant page COVID-19 misinformation. As such, in my view, the people promoting such "outright baloney" would therefore unquestionably be "proponents of conspiracy theories related to the COVID-19 pandemic." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a slippery slope category. Wikipedia users could create an innumerable number of categories: "War Hawks/Warmongerers," "Koch Bros. Donors," "Politicians who support abortion," "Politicians who support Trump," "Politicians who wear masks," etc. Is this really an appropriate category, for an encyclopedia? I really don't think so. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Take it to WP:CFD, then. Not to sound rude, but that's a larger discussion and isn't really for my talk page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman, I agree that people who say that COVID was a result of "5G" then that would be an example of promoting conspiracy theories. However, if that were the case, then reliable sources would then label the individual as a COVID conspiracy theorist. Would they not? As such, in my view, the people promoting such "outright baloney" would therefore unquestionably be "proponents of conspiracy theories related to the COVID-19 pandemic."--you may be right, but, articles are written based on reliable sources, and not based on the views of editors. Referring to a BLP as a "conspiracy theorist" is undoubtedly a contentious label. Just look at the related Category: Advocates of pseudoscience.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article GameStop short squeeze 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 Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The article GameStop short squeeze you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:GameStop short squeeze for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am curious to ask you why you made a DYK nomination for "Diana"? Do you like the song? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I do – I've been a fan of Pop Smoke for some time, and his death affected me pretty deeply, more than most celebrity deaths. The answer to your first question, though, is kind of boring – I was looking through the newest Good Articles via WP:GOOD, noticed Diana, and after reading through the Wikipedia article thought it would make for an interesting DYK. I hope it's no issue with you – if you'd like, you can add altblurbs to the nomination. By the way, you've done an excellent job expanding the article and, as I now see, expanding many articles on Pop Smoke songs to GA status. That's great – keep up the good work! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It's good to see another Pop Smoke fan on Wikipedia. I remember reading about his death. I was only 17 when that happened... Anyway, I've been wanting to take all of his songs that have articles to GA status before July 3. My biggest goal on Wiki is to make Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon a featured article. That album and its title means so much to me. I want to honor Pop by making his album's article have the gold star. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That's great to hear. I've always thought expanding articles on Wikipedia is a great way to memorialize someone's legacy – that way, perhaps even years from now, people can discover or rediscover a song or album that may end up meaning a lot to them. It's a lot of work, though. Your effort here is very much appreciated. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

On 5 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Diana (Pop Smoke song), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that rapper Pop Smoke recorded "Diana" the night before he was murdered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Diana (Pop Smoke song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Diana (Pop Smoke song)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I've noticed you've made a lot of edits to Constitution of the United States. However, you've added quite a few {{citation needed}} tags. References do not need to be at the end of every sentence - they can be at the end of a paragraph and support the entire paragraph. Therefore, adding a tag in a phrase like this: The Articles of Confederation gave little power to the central government.[citation needed] The Confederation Congress could make decisions, but lacked enforcement powers.[citation needed] Implementation of most decisions, including modifications to the Articles, required unanimous approval of all 13 state legislatures.[15] is unnecessary and unhelpful, unless you have verified that the source does not, or is unlikely to, back up those claims.

Please read Wikipedia:Tag bombing before continuing and avoid adding excessive cleanup tags. They are unhelpful. Thanks! Elli (talk | contribs) 09:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

On 7 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sarah Cooper, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that after making videos on TikTok where she lip-synced Donald Trump, Sarah Cooper got a comedy special on Netflix and a TV show on CBS? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Cooper. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sarah Cooper), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

On 8 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vladimir Cvijan, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the death of Serbian politician Vladimir Cvijan, which occurred in January 2018, was not publicly known until March 2021? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Cvijan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Vladimir Cvijan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

On 7 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The blurb was combined with the men's final; giving credit on behalf of posting admin. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a note with a lot of journalistic coverage. The scientific community is being included, I sincerely beg you to add it again. OaxacaGenius (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My issue is not with the source you provided; it's how you phrased it. "Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) are words the NFL didn't want to hear about for a long time"? That's your opinion. And then you went into redescrbiing the event, after people will have read through the entire article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You should not delete this information of high media and legitimate reach. OaxacaGenius (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You should not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally, there is something that also adds a plus to the article, it is true that it is something recent, but it turns out that the scientific community has requested "that the brain of Phillip Adams be studied" to see if he suffered from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) This is extremely relevant since, in addition to the article, information about the call made by the scientific community can be added.OaxacaGenius (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, if you added something plainly factual like "scientists are requesting to study Adams' brain" with a reliable source then I have no issue with it. Your edit added your own commentary and a redundant summary of an article which people had already read. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to you that CNN is not a reliable source a medium that reaches more than 500 million people do not look for excuses to prevent my edition, and you should not illegitimate the scientific community. OaxacaGenius (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

On 16 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Concrete bus shelters in Canberra, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that concrete bus shelters in Canberra, Australia, now considered an icon of the city, were initially labelled as "lunatic" by a reporter for The Canberra Times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Concrete bus shelters in Canberra. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Concrete bus shelters in Canberra), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

nice :)

Suspicioussandwich (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a friendly editor notice that an RFC has begun about an "Wait" !Vote for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. You can see the discussion by clicking here. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daunte Wright protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah! I suppose I now know of the existence of a certain river. Thank you, my robotic friend. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

On 22 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article United Airlines Flight 328, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that following an engine failure, United Airlines Flight 328 rained debris over Broomfield, Colorado? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United Airlines Flight 328. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, United Airlines Flight 328), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I expected that. Anything wrong or factually incorrect about my edit? Regards regardless. All the sincere best.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Take it to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, Myspace, anywhere else but here. Some of us are actually trying to do important work. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not use any of their sites for "important work" and certainly not for giving the likes of Candace Owens verbal fuel. Important work for me does not include pushing agendas either. I don't intend to reply to this message should you reply to it (or even view it). All the best.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No offense by the way. The word "leverage" is interesting to me. --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Really sorry for the terse tone in the above messages, AllegedlyHuman. Was unprofessional of me. I am just sick of every last officer (who put their lives on the line for the public on a daily basis and regularly pay the ultimate price) being scrutinized and vilified because of a handful of bad apples, and people looking at racism in incidents like this when there was none. These people burning down America are the first to call 9-1-1 when they feel threatened.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way, but I'm telling you, Wikipedia really isn't the place to share it. Your political opinions are impeding editors who are trying to make this encyclopedia as complete (and as fair) as it can be, as you did during that deletion discussion. I mean in all sincerity what I said earlier, that you can and should speak your mind as freely as possible, but on another website, because as I am sure you know, Wikipedia is not a social network. I do appreciate the apology. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I know. Let's just forget about it. Key. (I virtually never contribute to political articles by the way.)--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of your Wikinews additions (all the ones that aren't to § External links) run contrary to the guidance at WP:MOSSIS and the VPR consensus that begat it. Is there a context I'm missing here, some nuance or other consensus that allows for adding Wikinews links mid-article? If so, MOSSIS and Template:Wikinews/doc should be updated to clarify. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 07:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, phooey. Was not aware of that decision. No, I'm not enforcing any new decision or anything like that, just being WP:BOLD and a little bit stupid. I'd seen them in articles before and figured I was in the clear, and if you'll believe it I even tried looking around for a policy beforehand just in case. Personally, I think it adds something, but I'm not going to fight three-year-old consensus. Revert at will. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, little boldness never hurt anyone. Glad I caught you before it got to be too many of them then. I'll go rollback any that aren't to § External links, with no objection to you re-adding to the correct section if justified under WP:EXLINK. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 08:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Think I managed to exclude the ones that were to the correct section, as well as avoiding collateral damage in cases where you'd made other edits. But if I misfired at any point, likewise no objection to you reverting me. Sorry for the flood of notifications you probably just got! -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey bro. I just made Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon GA last month. I'm almost done with Meet the Woo 2 and am going to work on Meet the Woo next. How do The latter two of the three look to you? ShootForTheStars (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Just finished reading through them. Incredible work. I'm not personally sure what more is needed to get SFTS/AFTM to FA but having read similar FAs before it appears to be of comparable quality. Meet the Woo 2 looks like a GA to me as well. Meet the Woo (which I'm assuming you haven't done much work on yet) is about average length for most mixtape/album articles, but still needs quite a bit of content added to get to GA status. Comparing the two is a good reminder of what committed effort can do to an article. This project as a whole has been great to watch, keep up the good work and let me know if you need anything else. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tishaura Jones 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 Legobot, on behalf of CommanderWaterford -- CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey dude. I was wondering if you could help me make a dyk nomination for Pop Smoke? It turns out that he was shot three times by a 15-year-old over a fucking Rolex! We lost Pop Smoke because of a damn watch... Anyways, since I don't know how a qpq really works, I was curious if you think that would be an interesting dyk. For example, we could do: "Did you know that American rapper Pop Smoke was shot and killed during a home invasion by a 15-year-old after a confrontation over a diamond-studded Rolex? Source: " Or something like that. Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That definitely sounds like one the DYKs I see on the Main Page. However, I'm worried about it being verifiable. Per the source, that was only what the detective said so far, and as such we need to be extremely careful in how we phrase things related to crimes until there's a conviction. (If it's true, it's awful, and I hadn't heard that update yet. RIP.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I thought I would post it here, I think it is the right place. I would like to apologize for my edit on 2021 Jerusalem clashes (1022436498). I attempted to make a minor edit on "Palestinian protestor" as to change it to "Palestinian protestors". The revert was accidental, and I will try to be more careful with my edits next time. Glakes (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It happens, no big deal. My only issue was that I had no way of knowing whether it was an edit conflict, or malicious – so to that end I appreciate the apology. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Tishaura Jones you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tishaura Jones for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CommanderWaterford -- CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Take care on the 1R limitation, please. Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The 2021 Boston mayoral election endorsements could use attention. I just spent a while correcting them only to be reverted asserting I’ve misunderstood policy; could use a third opinion if you’re up for it! Hope you’re doing well. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I was unfortunately not entirely surprised that nom got sqashed while one continent was sleeping. Different circumstances, but this one got posted while someone else was catching Zs. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a feeling it would go that way too, but I've learned to roll with the punches. Honestly, at the point the result became clear, the nature of some of the opposes became pretty comical in their flippancy for making outrageous statements, followed by mock outrage on being called out for them. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I'd like to start an RfC about determining the status of the Azov Battalion and what how to describe their links to/descriptions as a neo-Nazi group. I would like you to share your opinion on the format, correctness and content of the questions before I start the RfC.The draft is here. Thank you in advance for your participation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that's good. There's enough options and I believe it encompasses the breadth of opinions people could have on the subject. Let me know when the RFC actually begins. Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not yet started the RfC, but I've posted it on the Azov Battalion talk page. I will include your comment in the discussion of the draft. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Good evening, because Mikehawk10 reported problems with pings, I would like to notify you, as you asked, that a new RfC on Azov Battalion has just started. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. A while back I received a message on my talk page that said that my edit appeared to have been disruptive. I would like to contest this and ask you to explain how my edit on the article on "Marjorie Taylor Greene" was disruptive. --Thronedrei (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That was in regard to this edit on Josh Hawley, reverted by Snooganssnoogans. The broad consensus of reliable sources as well as the consensus on that article's talk page is to call Stop the Steal "baseless". Your comment, "There were evidence in form of witnesses, so it was not baseless." is based on original research. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BBB, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Build Back Better.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

On 5 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robin Ransom, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Robin Ransom, the first African-American woman to serve on the Supreme Court of Missouri, said that she was "really happy I didn't like law school"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robin Ransom. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Robin Ransom), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a nice little article! Gave me a nice chuckle reading it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

On 6 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Somaliland parliamentary election, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

331dot (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

On 7 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tishaura Jones, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tishaura Jones, the new mayor of St. Louis, once started a GoFundMe fundraiser to take down a Confederate monument? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tishaura Jones. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tishaura Jones), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman alleges something is not a human. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Nice catch, got a good chuckle out of that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello AllegedlyHuman, you already requesting the article to semi-protected. Can you adding pp-vandalism on the article because the article is once again indef semi due to vandalism because admins are forget and not yet adding it to the page. Thank you. 182.1.6.22 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

El C, this seems to be more of a request for you. Would you mind helping out? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, whenever MusikBot II glitches out (here, probably due to the move protection tag), feel free to add the pp tag yourself. El_C 23:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I have checked with Wikipedia’s terms of endorsements, and I have not violated them in putting some of those endorsements you had previously removed back up. Also, I’m assuming he removed Octavia Johnson for being non-relevant. She is a former sheriff and a gubernatorial candidate. She is very relevant. Please stop removing valid endorsements to make things look better for the other side Adredskins5410 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not editing "for one side" or the other, and that counts as a personal attack of a political nature. I don't even live in Virginia; I care nothing about this race at all, to tell you the truth. What I meant by "notable", which is the word I used, is the Wikipedia sense of notable: has an article. Per our policy on endorsements, all people listed must be notable (in other words, have an article). If you think Johnson passes that guideline, write the article first. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If you do not stop removing endorsements that do not violate Wikipedia‘s endorsement policy, you will be reported to Wikipedia. After the first time I made a revision, I made sure nothing I put up clearly violated their endorsement policy. It is not up to a private user to decide what does and does not violate it. Please do not continue removing endorsements, or you will be reported Adredskins5410 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha. Sure. I've pointed you to WP:ENDORSE enough times, so let me spell that out for you since you apparently haven't read it still: "Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources." A "reliable independent source" does not include the website of one of the candidates. But sure, dial Jimbo Wales or however else you plan on "reporting me to Wikipedia". Honestly, I should be the one issuing stern warnings in your direction, so here goes: stop adding loosely sourced or, in some cases as you have done, completely unsourced additions to the encyclopedia. That actually is against our rules rather than, you know, enforcing the rules. This includes the first edit you made , which you assert was completely kosher. Oh, and last thing: "It is not up to a private user to decide what does and does not violate it." Perhaps you're confused by the volunteer aspect of this. We're all private users – look in the mirror, you're a "private user" trying "to decide what does and does not violate it", in your case clearly without reading the not-so-fine print. If you want an expanded discussion, go to a talk page! That probably won't suffice for you though, as the actual way things get solved is by deliberation among "private users". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sedition Caucus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedition Caucus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like I see you everywhere, lol. Well maybe not *everywhere*, but I saw you jump into the John McAfee page to keep off the conspiracy theorists the other day, so imagine my surprise when I make a minor edit to the AWCA 1989 page and who had just recently moved and edited the page lol? Allegedly Human Cool beans. Enjoy the tea :) DieSonneUnsLacht (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Haha. Thank you! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Early life and career of Joe Biden 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! Elli (talk | contribs) 03:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I can't really see any benefit to this edit. That version of the infobox has been stable for several months. Was there an error you were trying to fix? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there were some editors having issues at WP:ERRORS. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I will look into that now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bigo Barnett. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 2#Bigo Barnett until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think that per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 152#Restrict Wikinews links in articles prominent links to Wikinews in articles are now discouraged. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I had someone else previously come to my talk page about this, who said the issue was placing them in the middle of articles. They said adding as external links were OK, and so that's what I shifted to doing. If that's not the case do let me know. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought that adding prominent EL links falls under the same set of concerns? From following the link added at the OECD article, the first Wikinews story linked there is totally wrong, as it says that there are 130 OECD countries when there are actually about 36, so I don't think that this is a source we should be privileging in that way. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a Wikimedia project in the same way as Commons or Wikidata. It's included in the sister links template, for example. If you have an issue with a particular story, I would advise you reach out to the editors. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your good edits. You've tagged a sentence in the assassinated Haitian president's page as "Peacock prose." But that's not what the Peacock tag means. It is to be used when words are used "without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." But here, this refers to words used in a statement by a person. The words are true to what the person said. And they are verifiable, and with attribution. So it is not proper to tag them with that tag.

Second, the last three sentences of that paragraph relate to 2019. They should be in their own paragraph. Not combined with the prior paragraph, re events two years earlier.--2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

It reads like a White House press release – that's what makes it peacock prose.

She also urged the Haitian government to fight corruption, investigate and prosecute human rights abusers, and combat narcotics and human trafficking.

Were they not planning on doing that already? It's three sentences about a meeting he was involved in, but it almost entirely discusses what Craft said and did, not Moïse. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I see what you are thinking. But first of all, as I mentioned, it's not what wikipedia's "peacock prose" tag has in mind. See MOS:PEACOCK. It is not for when the subject uses flowery language. It is for when wikipedia in its own voice - not the subject - uses flowery language. You could even quote the article here, but the elements you see as flowery seem to be those of the speaker, not those of wp. You may as an editor have a view that they are planning to do that already, or that the new article sounds like a press release - but that is not peacock prose. And we have across the project all manner of text mentions anyway supported by actual press releases. That is not peacock prose.

As far as them planning on doing that already, it's not clear. There have been strong allegations on highest level involvement in doing those things, even at the government level certainly for the top two. See for example Corruption in Haiti. And [Moïse Moise himself was facing allegations of corruption] - so it is of moment for the US Ambassador, with the US giving him significant aid (the U.S. has been Haiti's largest donor since 1973, and often given "conditional" aid), to swoop in and make that statement. Of course, the article would be better with mention of corruption charges against him, but it is blocked from ip editing so though I was improving the article in general, I can't address that at this point.

Him having a US Ambassador to the UN come to his National Palace to meet with him was a very unusual and noteworthy thing. What I didn't have time to expand either is that while he apparently was on board with the Ambassador's suggestions of dialogue with his opponents, when she went to them and suggested dialogue with him - their approach was chilly and unaccepting.

I also didn't get a chance to link to 2018–2021 Haitian protests, which belong somewhere in his article, as insight into the setting of his presidency.

As a starting point, since ip's can't, can you separate that paragraph into two? That should I would think be easy, normal editing. And is how it was. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

None of this information related to the Craft meeting is in quotes – it's all in WP:WIKIVOICE. That's what makes it peacock prose (though if we just included i.e. "Craft said 'I had a great time!'" that would probably be WP:UNDUE). And I'm not really clear about what you're asking me to do – in any case specific edit requests should be handled on the article talk page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm making this needlessly complex by addressing two issues at once. Let me focus on the tag. For the reasons I point to above, it is not appropriate. What words do you object to as "peacock," that are not directly attributable to (and referenced to) the person in question? Corruption? "human rights abusers"? "narcotics"? "human trafficking"? And -- please read MOS:PEACOCK -- what in the world do the words you object to have to do with the content of that MOS? I really see zero connection between the language in the MOS, and the text you have tagged. Since you did the tagging, rather than bring this to the article or to a notice board, it makes sense for me first to explain myself to you, linking to the MOS in question. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

On 15 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Miller v. Bonta, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in his ruling in Miller v. Bonta, Judge Roger Benitez compared AR-15s to Swiss Army knives? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Miller v. Bonta. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Miller v. Bonta), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

On 21 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 NBA Finals, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RCV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ranked-choice voting.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello AllegedlyHuman, can you please take a look at my answer to your concerns at Talk:Edward_Jones_Investments#Edit_requests_to_remove_undue_tag page? I am happy to discuss any and all your concerns, but I am also anxious to have the article more balanced so that the "Undue tag" can be removed. I truly appreciate your engagement, and am more than willing to help you in any way that I can. Thanks, Julia.edwardjones (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello AllegedlyHuman, Thanks for helping out with my edit requests on Alphonso David's page. There are still two requests remaining that you did not implement, and I wonder if you don't mind taking another look, because I feel the sources back up my perspective, including the new sources that you added to the article. As far as the "smear campaign" wording, yes, the Intelligencer article uses that term freely, nevertheless, the phrase is loaded with one particular point of view which is something that should be avoided, especially on BLPs. The second issue is whether David helped to "draft the letter." According to both the source that was already on the page, and the new NBCNews source that you added, it does not say that David helped to draft the letter. It does say that David saw the letter, did not think it was a good response, and did not sign it. The NPR source mentions that "he took part in discussions about a draft letter or op-ed" but it does not say he helped write the letter, or that he even agreed with those efforts. I am happy to further discuss this at Talk:Alphonso David, if you prefer. Thanks for lending an ear. LS for David (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

On 22 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Early life and career of Joe Biden, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in his early life, Joe Biden (pictured) was known by his classmates for his cramming abilities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Early life and career of Joe Biden. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Early life and career of Joe Biden), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

On 26 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kevin Strickland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that prosecutors who worked to convict Kevin Strickland in 1979 now say they believe him to be innocent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Strickland. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kevin Strickland), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed that you seem to have left us. I've seen you around in a bunch of places and have good associations with your (former) username, so I'm sad to see it. All of the ITN and DYK recognitions on the talk page here attest to how valuable your contributions have been. I hope you are well and that you find a way to start editing again someday. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Me too, thinking of you and wishing you were around! But I hope all is well off-wiki. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sahaib3005. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Donald have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Sahaib3005 (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

How was my edit not constructive? Please elaborate. It was mentioned that the conspiracy theory "baseless" and I pointed out that this was false. It was a conspiracy theory, but the claim that it was not based on anything is not true. The theory had it's roots based in witness evidence.

First of all we need to be able to differentiate between "proof" and "evidence". Evidence is something that you only need to present, while proof is something that is established.

Wittness evidence was presented, but not accepted and looked at, so it never got established. But this is what the theory was among other things, based on. So you can't write in the article that it was "baseless".

Being based on something does not mean that something is true. It just means that there was a basis for the idea.

So exactly how was my this not constructive? please define exactly what you mean here. I would very much like to know exactly what the problem was. what were you criteria when revertying it as "not constructive"? Thronedrei (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)