User talk:Jon698

Have you considered requesting the autopatrolled permission? You seem to meet the general criteria (only stumbling block being a couple of copyright notices) and this could be helpful in reducing the WP:NPP backlog. If you have questions or wish to discuss don't hesitate to ping me here or leave a comment on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jon698, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 05:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jon698. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 20:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jon698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have made one account and used it for illegitimate purposes. However, I ask that I be unblocked, but banned from participating in AFD discussions and only be allowed to edit as my contribution history shows that I am the only person that has edited articles such as George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign, Alaska Libertarian Party, and Libertarian Party of Massachusetts and there are many articles like Bush's that are in need of greater editing to be completed or to be proper for Wikipedia. I came to Wikipedia two years ago to improve political articles and I have went too far. I acknowledge that I have broken the rules, but as this is the first time I ask that I be given a second chance. If I renege on this then I wish for the next blocking to be permanent.

Decline reason:

You outright lied about the connection before being blocked. You can take the standard offer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Comment I understand. I am not good at apologies especially online and I have had the account since 2017. I rarely used it and did not use it for disruptive editing. I ask that it will be reconsidered and that I be limited to only editing or at least limited to editing only George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign as it is close to completion, but I am the only one who edits it. Jon698 Jon698 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics.
  However, you don't even seem to be that sorry for what you did... You've been using this sock of yours since at least 2017 (Diffs from Scott Burley: ). That is long term scrutiny evasiason.
  Have you disclosed all your accounts publicly? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO. Barring any substantive objections, I wouldn't have any problem unblocking you in six months. -- Scott Burley (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• But not likely to happen when you continue to sock with User:DailyVermonter. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Jon, come on... you're really hurting the case here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jon698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hello it has been six months since my block in May and I would like to begin the standard offer process. My provided clear reason is Scott's statement "I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO." and MJL's statement "If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics." Also in the past six months I have improved my understanding of copyright and public domain and I hope to use it to improve the images of political/election articles and I have learned election mapping and hope to improve many Washington, D.C. election articles. The next year will be important for election/political Wikipedia editors and will have a large amount of work and I hope that I will be able to help and participate in that. It has been hard to not edit Wikipedia for six months, but I would still like to thank Scott for the block because it has helped me become less addicted to editing and MJL for helping me get a LPedia account that I could use to edit that site on if I ever had the urge to. -- Jon698 02:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Jon698&ilshowall=1 https://lpedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jon168

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below (Special:PermanentLink/924708850), you are unblocked. Conditions for your unblock include a 6 month topic ban from Articles for Deletion and a reminder to keep aware of general sanctions pertaining to American politics and other areas as you've acknowledged. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really understand how the standard offer process works and I hope that I am doing it correctly. Apologies in advance for any mistakes.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am sorry about the ping, but I have noticed that there is a large backlog in Requests for unblock Jon698 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want your unblock request posted to the administrators' noticeboard, I could do that. Due to a quirk in policy, unblock requests that fail to get consensus at a noticeboard turn into a community site ban. The difference is mostly academic, but site bans can only be appealed at noticeboards. Noticeboard appeals are settled via the consensus of the community (more-or-less a vote), but standard unblock requests are resolved by unilateral action by a single administrator. If you don't like the idea of a bunch of random people voting to ban/unban you, the alternative is to wait for a random administrator to get around to your unblock request. That shouldn't take more than a few days, but it could potentially take several weeks. If you want to speed up the process and increase the likelihood of success, you should list all the registered accounts you've used to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I would rather wait for some random administrator to get around to my request rather than putting it up to a noticeboard vote. The only registered accounts that I used were User:DailyVermonter and User:ImBadWithUsernames. Jon698 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm willing to go forward with this unblock, if checkuser is clean (or you feel it's not necessary) and he agrees to the topic ban for AFDs that he originally proposed 6 months ago in his prior appeal. I would additionally add that he read about General Sanctions and acknowledge doing so by listing the active sanction he believes would apply to his preferred area of editing related to political topics. @Scott Burley: as info as blocking admin. -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: @Ferret: I agree to the topic ban for AFDs and as for General Sanctions sanctions could be placed on areas such as abortion, Eastern Europe, gun control, and other areas like those. Jon698 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Jon, works for me. Also be mindful of American politics 2. This sanction is core to your editing areas. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the correct time to claim points for DYK in the WikiCup is after the hook has appeared on the main page. So you can claim for Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign now, while some of your other submissions have been premature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Thank you for telling me. I am new to Wikicup this year and I will remember to wait for the rest of my DYK hooks. - Jon698 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi-I enjoyed reading your articles; thank you for writing them. I did have to make a change with the William Jefferson Hardin article; he served in the Wyoming Territorial Legislature not the Wyoming State Legislature. The territorial and state legislatures are two different legislative chambers serving different political divisions-territorial and state in Wyoming-many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi-I have to remove the Wyoming Legislature template from the article about Cathy Connolly who served in the Wyoming Legislature. The Wyoming Legislature template place the Members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category on the the article. This happen on some other articles. I had to go through the members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category and there 2 or 3 others this happen. I am not sure why the Wyoming Legislature template is doing this-many thanks-20:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)RFD (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I look at the Wyoming Legislature template; the template covers the Wyoming territorial and state legislatures. This would explained why he members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislatures were put on some articles that should not be put on some articles like the Cathy Connolly article many thanks-RFD (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, Jon698, and welcome to Women in Red. With the enormous experience you have of writing about politics and politicians, it's great to see you now intend to devote more of your time to women. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules and our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about your position on the position of whip. Seems obvious to me. Activist (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Your 6 months ban was a travesty, IMO. It's absurd that such a good editor was hit with such awful sanctions. This is an example of why I totally regret having started WP:AN, which led to the farce that is WP:AN/I. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Vami IV submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Jon698 for Editor of the Week because of their outstanding contributions to our coverage of American politics, but especially US State legislatures. I have personally bore witness to their dedication to the topic, trawling through thousands of Newspaper.com clippings, and their obvious interest and openness about the topic through conversing with them on the Discord server. On-wiki, he has several Good Articles to speak to the quality of his work, such as David Duke 1988 presidential campaign. He has made it his mission in the two years he's been actively editing to vastly improve our coverage of US State legislators, and has not disappointed. For that and his level-headed and humorous conducting of himself I wish to commend him.

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

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Just wanted to give you a heads up of a Wyoming-related state legislator article that I recently created, as I recall you are active in the Wyoming Wikiproject and with American state legislator bios. I unfortunately don't have much more time to expand it further, but there are a number of Newspapers.com clippings that I came across and think offer some good material, if you ever feel the urge to expand it! Connormah (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain why the police stopped Moran in the first place? Thank you. DS (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: The book They Came From Within: A History of Canadian Horror Cinema on page 38 does not give a reason for why he was initially stopped, but I have looked through the author's sources and they corroborate most of his claims. I ordered Filmfax #25 which was the only source I couldn't find online and will check that one out. Jon698 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Apologies for the time it took me to finally get around to editing the article using the Filmfax source. I was unable to find anything about why they stopped it so I removed it. However, the magazine did have a lot of other, more useful, information. This was back on December 7. Jon698 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

	Women in Red 8th Anniversary
	In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

You did a fantastic job with the 2019 Seattle City Council election page! If you have time, could you please help me bring the 2023 election page up to the standard of the one you made? C. W. Edward (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for the invitation to edit. I loved making some of those local election pages and I would love to do it again. I just need to finish a few bookmarks on a book I've been reading recently and I'll be able to get to it. Jon698 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Filmhunter (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the like on my post. I also have autism. How do I add the ASD tag to my profile? I mostly edit Wikimedia content and then put it on Wikipedia pages. So I might put it up there as well. Thanks again for the like. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• @MonkeyBBGB: I put it up on your page for you. BTW would you like to have it formatted to be right-adjusted so that it fits nicely next to your text? Jon698 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  wow thanks! I appreciate that. Yeah it would be cool if you did that. I'm going to tag you on my Wikimedia page, because your stuff is cool. What about my edit of adding that poster caught your attention? Right place at the right time? MonkeyBBGB (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• @MonkeyBBGB: Yeah right place at the right time. I previously made a large edit to the page and have it on my watchlist. Jon698 (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  that's cool. i also look at pages I used to edit too. but most of my wikipedia edits of more substance are from the first few months here. I enjoyed editing about Oswald Rabbit when he became public domain. I made a page with him. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  The only real page I maintain is this one. But it gets my local politics interest and keeps me up to date on cannabis laws in Virginia. And then that benefits others! MonkeyBBGB (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm TheApex150. I saw on the page for the 1984 U.S. Presidential Election that you added additional info to the national exit poll. I wanted to ask if you have access to exit poll info from certain states? For example, an exit poll from California or one from Texas. I know the election was a landslide, but I'm curious to see if there were differences among the states themselves. If you have access to that info, can you please link it to me here? Or you can link it to my talk page. Thank you! :-) TheApex150 (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• @TheApex150: I could do some research to see if there are exit polls at the state level. It would be interesting to see them. Jon698 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Alrighty, sounds good! I'm curious as well. TheApex150 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Have you found anything yet? TheApex150 (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• @TheApex150: I have not started yet. I will notify you when I find something. Jon698 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks! Sorry if I sounded impatient. TheApex150 (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• @TheApex150: Don't worry. I am interested in finding this information as well. Jon698 (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Awesome! TheApex150 (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• @TheApex150: Hello, I have found an exit poll for Utah. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/7R1OON/67MMQU&version=1.0&toolType=PREVIEW Jon698 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nice! That's great you found that. Did you find info on other states? TheApex150 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have access to any of the ones here? https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/ipoll/search?end=1984-12-31&org=a58eef63-ee8d-4636-b321-36f5763c51c9&q=election%20day%20survey&start=1984-01-01&tab=STUDY They're also available through here: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/08368/summary TheApex150 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you for your work on the 2023 election page. There's going to be a city council special election this year. Would you mind making the page for it? I would, but my summer is going to be extremely busy. I have some links for the article.
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/seattle-city-council-appoints-tanya-woo-fill-district-8-seat
https://crosscut.com/briefs/2024/01/here-are-8-finalists-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/05/three-progressives-take-tanya-woo-seattle-city-council-race
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/72-people-applied-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/tanya-woo-launches-race-to-retain-seat-on-seattle-city-council/ C. W. Edward (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for informing me of that. I am interested in doing it. Jon698 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Recently noticed you put up Hundreds of Beavers for GA nomination. Looking over the article, and working on getting the filmmaker's previous effort to FA status, I am impressed with the structure you have on this second film. Though I am still debating about reviewing it, I do want to thow out a few pointers and concerns I have noticed. If you wish to wait for that until an actual GA review occurs I understand. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack Please go ahead and tell me. Jon698 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The sections preceeding the plot are incomplete. While I don't know if you have found every piece of reliable information on the film's production, release, reception, and accolades have a great deal of expansion needed. While that is very strenuous, it is necessary. Not every piece of info is needed, but the film was released to many film festivals and to many awards. You don't need to cite every single one. The best example would be how I structured the release section of Lake Michigan Monster as it covers notable ones while citing how it was consistently screened in film festivals since the original release date. The reception section needs more reviews and should be structured in paragraphs, each one going into each aspect noted (positively or negatively) by critics. It might be a bit more work than you expected, but it helps significantly in fleshing out the article to the high quality we strive for in articles. if you have any. more questions or need advice, just message me on my talk page. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Paleface Jack: Thank you for the information. I have gone to great lengths to find every online news and many print magazine mentions of Hundreds of Beavers since I started this summer. I even have many Google alerts related to it. I have made some edits to the Reception section and plan on expanding the Accolades and Release section using the IMDB page as a launching point for good sources. Jon698 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC){{re|

  Do you require assistance? Paleface Jack (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Paleface Jack: I would be very grateful if you aided me. Jon698 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Will do later today. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jon698:Just so I am not overriding your own style or taking over editing duties, I did a little structure changes to get you off on the right track of the reception section. You can always look at my work on Lake Michigan Monster for a template on structure and make your own spin on that. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jon698:Just looked over your expansion of the article, and I am impressed. With a little more work you have a very high chance of passing this. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jon I’m Ed Adrian former City Councilor mentioned in your Kurt Wright edits. How did you happen to decide to edit Kurt’s page? We are both curious!

Best Ed 2601:19E:8780:5DC7:70B2:1E31:71FA:463A (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I am just interested in Burlington's politics (despite never setting foot in Vermont) and Kurt Wright was one of its major figures for a long time. Jon698 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha, your focus was the citation's info. But whoever included Waltz with Bashir before me might be inclined to include it again, so just curious: Do you think it's worth mentioning at all, or does it veer into superfluous territory?

The reason I created the footnote was because I was finding it difficult to word it eloquently enough, juggling Bashir being the first animated nominated for Foreign-yet-NOT-animated. Might require a hidden note within to deter recurring attempts. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 17:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cinemaniac86: Your suggestion would be fine. I emailed IndieWire to offer a correction for their article so maybe that is a 1 in a 1,000 chance of them updating it to mention Waltz with Bashir. Jon698 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

LOL, I sent an Instagram DM to the article's author as well! (Since he didn't provide his own e-mail.)

Proactive minds think alike. Though I have no clue if he'll even notice such a message, but we shall see… --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 21:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

In the List of tallest people the entry looks unwieldy. Why don't you make it into a separate page. Google appears to give quite a few refs. --Altenmann >talk 07:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: I don't know. I have never made an article like that before and I am concern about its notability. Jon698 (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:GNG, as well as "William Patterson Bane, the Greene County Giant, one of the tallest soldiers in the Civil War, earned an almost mythical place in popular culture of late 19th-century America." --Altenmann >talk 07:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: You know what, why not. It will be pretty interesting to see what I get from Newspapers.com. Jon698 (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, at the second glance google hits are not very promising. Maybe old newspapers help. --Altenmann >talk 07:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Just read the Leland Dudek page. Very well done! Had to click on Who Wrote That?

Kudos. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. The Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality. For your work on editing down a messy article about a messy film.

Bearian (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Centres of governance in the Roman Empire 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 at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Llewee (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Jon698! I just found you reverted my edit in this article. I translated something from the corresponding article in zh-wikipedia (zh: 武维华), where the Shanghai Institute of Plant Physiology (SIPP) is denoted as a branch of the Chinese Academy of Science by using the Chinese prefix "中国科学院." Its official introduction is as follows: CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Plant Science (CEMPS)/Institute of Plant Physiology and Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) was established by the integration of the former Shanghai Institute of Plant Physiology (SIPP) and Shanghai Institute of Entomology (SIE) on May 19th, 1999. You can refer to the official English profile in there: "Introduction"..

However, there is a discrepancy in the English and Chinese versions: The English page conspicuously omits the "中国科学院" prefix used in its Chinese counterpart to describe the SIPP, which indicates and highlights a potential affiliated relation between the two. Please refer to the official Chinese profile: "Introduction".. And in contemporary Chinese context, some public institutions are de jure independent and de facto subordinate or dependent. It is a peculiarity in China that we do place excessive emphasis on specific subordinate positions because explicit and implicit connections and clout or influences (关系 or 联系 in Chinese) override the rest procedures in the daily practice. Therefore, I think that adding an explanation using parentheses is feasible. Thanks for your assistance! --波斯波莉斯 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

On 4 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kurt Wright, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kurt Wright did not seek reelection to the Burlington City Council due to federal regulations that would have made him leave his radio show? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kurt Wright. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kurt Wright), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Dalmatius has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Daniel A. Gilbert has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

On 11 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dalmatius, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dalmatius was murdered by his soldiers during a massacre that killed nearly all the male members of the Constantinian dynasty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dalmatius. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dalmatius), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

On 15 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Melania (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two-thirds of the New York production staff for Melania requested to be omitted from the credits? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Melania (film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Melania (film)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there.

If i may be so bold as to ask, how come you're doing my edits where i got rid of distributors from directors filmography, if there is a solid reasoning for it or perhaps information states what i am doing is not allowed i would like to hear it cos i am open to having my mind changed.

with regards laddyfisher Laddyfisher (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jon698! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of an article. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Happy to work out our issues if you are Laddyfisher (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think your points about uncivil edit summaries and grammatical/formatting/referencing issues are well made, but I don't think the repeated reversion is helping anyone. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

well it takes two to tango so i'm also to blame Laddyfisher (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Laddyfisher reported by User:AntiDionysius. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

On 26 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Centres of governance in the Roman Empire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Maxentius was the last Roman emperor in the 4th century to reside in Rome? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Centres of governance in the Roman Empire. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Centres of governance in the Roman Empire), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369 Online events: New: Countries starting with D, E and F | Women's Works: Written works | Cascading Women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: CEE women Tip of the month: When creating a new article, take a moment to ensure any notable woman is redlinked. Someone might be inspired to create an article for her. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I am not quite clear why my edits on Joel Schumacher were reverted. I didn't remove any sources. I thought I added a little clarity to the wording, first of all. And I removed only redundant links. Yes, it's much easier to just revert something, but I would gladly re-insert some brackets instead of just removing a rewrite attempt to wording. I can't claim to be new at editing, but if I'm doing something wrong, I would like to adjust and conform so I don't encounter this issue. Thanks. --SidP (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

My issue was due to you dividing "Joel T. Schumacher was born on August 29, 1939, in New York City to Francis Schumacher, a Baptist from Knoxville, Tennessee, and Marian (née Kantor), a Swedish Jew. When Joel was four years old, his father Francis died." into its own paragraph with no sources included. I have no issues with the redundant links being removed. Jon698 (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is My sourced edits to an article are reverted continuously, first with no explanation, then with the argument that sources provided by IP edits cannot be trusted, and without engaging in a discussion I opened in the talk page.. I notified you as the editor who started the discussion neglected to do so.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Be (Beady Eye album)

added a link pointing to Shine a Light

Lyla (song)

added a link pointing to FIMI

The Hindu Times

added a link pointing to FIMI

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Be (Beady Eye album)

added a link pointing to Shine a Light

Lyla (song)

added a link pointing to FIMI

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey,

Just thought you'd like to know that in DC we use the term "Ward X" to describe our wards. There isnt really any situation where you would put the number first eg. '7th Ward', it's really all just referred to as combined proper nouns in a single unit eg. "Ward 1" or Ward 6", even when listing a bunch in the same sentence. We also never use the term 'district' to refer to wards Jspace727 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, DC is considered a to be equal to a state-level government, not just a city-level one. Individual council elections have tens to hundreds of thousands of votes, certainly major enough for infoboxes. Not to mention that city-level council elections in American wikipedia are considered notable enough to have infoboxes, as evidenced by the pages for elections in New York

The Core Contest has begun! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes. Although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue working on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings or prizes.

We are now about a week in, and it's worth sharing some issues we judges have noticed in the past:

• Understandability is extra important for big topics like these. Avoid jargon when possible; give context (and of course, citations), even for things that seem obvious; and always consider the age-old adage from Iridescent: "would a bright 14-year old with no prior knowledge of the topic understand this?"
• The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. Instead of asking "what do I want to say in this article", ask yourself: "what do most high-quality, reliable and recent sources say about this topic?"
• Take a global perspective whenever possible. If you're writing about someone from France, consider looking at recent, high-quality sources in French. Amid language barriers, consider the careful use of an online translation tool or *shudder* a language dictionary.
• Plan, plan, plan! Make an outline, a draft TOC, or some kind of gameplan. Big articles are a different beast, and it's worth figuring out structural and logistical aspects early on.

Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

No worries. And now Paulet is on the 100 soles bill. Sigh...

The sad thing is that there were exciting technological developments in Peru in the 19th century. Look up the Ferrocarril Central, or the Toro submarino (which was real, though the Wikipedia page urgently needs citations; see its talk page).

IMHO, everything in the Paulet page sourced only in José Zlatar Stambuk's book should be removed, at least for now. Feketekave (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

On 26 April 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peter Brownell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Peter Brownell won the 1993 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont, despite having less money and fewer volunteers than his opponent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Brownell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Peter Brownell), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The second round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 April. As a reminder for contestants who just joined or are unaware of recent changes to our round-points system, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 2 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; nine scored over 500; and fourteen scored over 300. The top seven contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, waterways, and Gu Yanwu
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,149 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, and featured lists about figure skating, along with many article reviews and two good topics
• Olliefant (submissions) with 830 points, mainly from good and featured articles about television shows, episodes and media, along with nearly four dozen good and featured article reviews
• Gommeh (submissions) with 827 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 106 good articles, 22 good-topic articles and more than 40 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 3 In the News articles, and they have conducted over 200 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372 Online events: New: Countries starting with G and H | Women's scientific works | Religion and Spirituality Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Contest: Destubathon of the Americas Tip of the month: Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk 04:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Quick facts Six years! ...

Precious

Six years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West

We will host an online meeting for Wikipedia users in the Mountain States from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 12, 2026, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We will discuss the new CARUSCA organization and how users in each of our states can help one another. Help is available for new users, and all guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations anymore, please remove your username from our invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Brown caterpillar12. I noticed that you recently removed content from Seamus Logan without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)