User talk:Reywas92

I have no idea why you reverted that edit but you appear to have re-introduced unsourced, incorrect info.^[1] Please be more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Because it’s not incorrect. fettuccini al burro, as a named in the lead, is in fact an Italian dish and the original version is correct. The fact that the name “Alfredo” is used in America and the dish in Italy is not made with cream doesn’t mean the concept is not Italian. Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Please keep in mind, noting how a restaurant operated during the COVID-19 pandemic is a part of its history. Some restaurants closed temporarily or permanently, others operated via take-out or drive-thru, etc. I don't think we should all just assume what a restaurant did during the pandemic, when sourcing describes specific strategies and methods of operation. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The article itself doesn't even discuss Jade Garden, it just mentions it as using take-out in a photo caption. Why such mundanity belongs in an encyclopedia article in general is beyond me. I think we can also assume by omission that it didn't just close. Why not use the more concrete – and specific to this restaurant – fact that it lost more than 60% of its business? Reywas92^Talk 17:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, there is a discussion posted in Talk:2022 California Proposition 1 that could benefit from you responding. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of coal-fired power stations in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk about blocking both. Moxy- 04:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2034 Winter Olympics 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/2034 Winter Olympics 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 until the discussion has finished.

Elijahandskip (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

In 2019 you participated in a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastique Tiara, which resulted in a consensus to redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). I have now taken the article to deletion review, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 28#Plastique Tiara. I am informing everyone who participated in the deletion discussion, except two indef-blocked accounts and an IP address which last edited two years ago, in case they would like to contribute to the deletion review. JBW (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

More information Bloomington, Upcoming events around Indiana - Nov. 1: Environmental Justice editathons 2 locations: Indianapolis & Bloomington (and virtual option) ...

Bloomington	Upcoming events around Indiana - Nov. 1: Environmental Justice editathons 2 locations: Indianapolis & Bloomington (and virtual option)	IUPUI
	You are invited to join us for a multi-site editathon organized by Indiana Wikimedians at IUPUI University Library in downtown Indianapolis and the Herman B Wells Library at IU Bloomington (with virtual option). Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors, with faculty subject matter experts, will collaboratively improve articles on environmental justice in Indiana and globally. Join us at either location or virtually! Tuesday, November 1st from 11am-4pm, at... Indianapolis: IUPUI University Library, Ashby Browsing Room (2nd floor) Bloomington: Indiana University Bloomington, Wells Library, Hazelbaker Hall, room E159 (1st Floor, East Tower) [Visitor Information] Virtual: Via Zoom (please register on Eventbrite for link) Visit the meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more. We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic & Jere

Close

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC).)

I have requested a WP:3O on the National University of Singapore page with regard to the ongoing dispute. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize the Patrick Murphy source was from 2018. I used the same source that the main 2024 election page used in their description for the Florida election! So thank you for catching that! Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

thank you for recent reviews of AfDs I filed. What about Lake discharge problem?

I haven't looked at each individual article (since you have edited a couple dozen or so), but I would advise you to reconsider doing mass changes like removing the date on the elevation statistics or the specific maps that an island appears on. Strong Island, for example, no longer exists (it was removed from the river channel during dredging operations in the later 20th century). There are others for which this information changesnas well: many of the leveed river islands of the California delta experience considerable internal subsidence, and still others have changed shape and size drastically over the last couple hundred years. jp×g 15:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Except these aren't dates of elevation measurements, they're the dates that someone copied information from topographic maps into the database – they're simply interpolated from the topos . It's perhaps misleading and not necessarily accurate or helpful to give that year of data entry. About Strong Island (Michigan): the map it said it appears on uses a different name I'm not going to write here! It says the same on the 1942 map, though renamed by 1967. The island disappears but the label remains on the 2011 version. Simply saying it appeared on one map isn't really quality information. Every physical feature ought to appear on every USGS map, and just pointing out it was on the 1927 map doesn't provide any context of river dredging! It's funny to look at this one though since I've been there to River Raisin National Battlefield! Reywas92^Talk 15:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm -- concerning. When I was putting together these articles, I figured that the GNIS citing elevation data to 1981 at least meant that there had been a field survey at the time, but if this isn't true, the information is much less useful. I guess that, to me, the best argument for including at least something (i.e. "the USGS gave its elevation as 69 feet in 1981") is that it at least avoids the implication that this is a current figure -- the data might be from 1981 or 1931, but we know it isn't from 2001. As for the "appears on a topo map from 1927" stuff -- the reasoning behind this is less that the specific year provides a full picture of its history, and more that it provides at least one point of data and facilitates later expansion of the article (into something like e.g. Island_No._2#History or Bull_Island_(California)#History). If you think that is dumb, though, I will not complain if it is cut.

(As for the 2011 stuff -- this is about the time that USGS quadrangles went from being beautifully detailed works of art to low-quality gobbledygook cobbled together from GIS data, US Topo and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. I try not to use US Topo maps if I can help it; the thing you mentioned where it randomly shows "Strong Island" on an empty patch of river is a good example of this!) jp×g 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

For sure about the newer topos, much less detail about buildings and developed areas! You know the issues with place names, retained on newer maps but stripped of locational context even when real communities. The history sections in those two articles are great but that's with a lot more prose sources beyond interpreting maps without context. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Reywas92. I'm just posting to let you know that National Trails System – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 25. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

More information Nov. 11-13: WikiConference North American Meetup! IUPUI University Library (and around Indianapolis) ...

	Nov. 11-13: WikiConference North American Meetup! IUPUI University Library (and around Indianapolis)
	Registration is now open for WikiConference North America 2022 (Nov. 11–13) held jointly with Mapping USA! If you would like to experience this virtual event in-person, you are welcome to join our meetup in Indianapolis! We will be meeting at IUPUI University Library for the weekend, with AV set up for conference streaming and presenting (for those who've submitted proposals). Anyone is welcome to join, we will have some light refreshments and are planning evening activities. Feel free to join us for an activity, a day, or the whole weekend. Please let us know you are coming via the meetup page and please register for the conference. We will share more about in-person activities on the meetup page as they are finalized. Visit the WikiConference North America site for the schedule and visit our meetup page to sign up and learn more. And don't forget to register for the conference! —From the Wikimedia Indiana team!

Close

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 17:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC).)

Thank you for helping to revert the irrelevant additions to so many articles by a seemingly Mormon-POV pusher. If they continue to do so, especially with them lacking enough relevance like they've done for predominantly Catholic areas, should they be taken to the ANI noticeboard? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they probably should be if they revert my edits and/or make many more. Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

If or when it does happen, will you be able to initiate the notice since you've caught their disruptive contributions first? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, currently on vacation and not as active as usual. Thanks for helping. Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! That was an impressive list of sourcing you provided on the Announcement chime AfD. I just closed that discussion as a "keep." Would you mind copying that sourcing over to the talk page with whatever commenting you think would be helpful? Joyous! | Talk 20:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92,

In the past day, you have draftified 15 of Another Believer's stub articles. Since they have been editing for over 15 years and have 500,000+ edits, that seems very pointy to me. They have written tons of articles and are not a new editor. Plus, they just move their articles back to main space so your actions only serve to annoy them.

Please use draftifying tools responsibly, for articles by inexperienced editors when they can work on their newly created articles in Draft space. It shouldn't be used for articles by our experienced content creators. Please do not target editors like this in the future.

If you believe an article should be deleted, then use one of Wikipedia's deletion process but don't mass-tag a lot of articles, that will only serve to overwhelm our system and our admins' workload. Don't let a difference of opinion on poicy spill over beyond talk pages. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

These articles were most obviously not ready for mainspace, being a single sentence long and lacking significant sources. Draft or user space is the appropriate place for these until he gets around to expanding them, and experienced content creators are not exempt from needing articles to be halfway decent quality to be in mainspace. They should know best that one copy-paste sentence with one passing-mention source is not adequate, regardless of an opinion of notability. Reywas92^Talk 04:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Would you please stop focusing on me and my work? Even if you are not, it feels like you are following me and interfering with my attempts to improve this project unnecessarily. Based on User:Liz's comment, seems I'm not alone in my thinking. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you please not write one-line microstubs that merely state existence? Would you please start in draft space if you can't write more than three sentences? Would you please improve existing articles and only make new ones when actually justified by substantive coverage and the depth of content (WP:NOPAGE)? Reywas92^Talk 00:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 FIFA World Cup awards, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 FIFA World Cup awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2006 CO Proof.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2006 NE Proof.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2007 ID Proof reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your work on keeping the NPS sites up to date. I was wondering if you'd share what sources you follow to keep up on the NPS news, especially the legislation regarding the parks. You had the latest updates from the Consolidated Appropriations Act before the NPS made an announcement--very cool! I'm a big fan of the parks and would love to be up on the news like you are. Thanks again! OneEarDrummer (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and for your help as well! There's just so many places that need updating of names and counts and dates across the lists and articles whenever there's a change! There's at least Template:National Park Units on a few pages, but then there's other languages and Commons and whatnot that I don't have time to get all of. The Appropriations committee released the final version of the bill last week when Congress voted on it so I was able to get everything teed up ahead of the NPS's news. Reywas92^Talk 22:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Awesome. So is there a specific place you go to follow bills through Congress or is there another way you track NPS-related legislation? OneEarDrummer (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@OneEarDrummer Well it's mainly just following the news and occasionally reading sites like https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org//, but I know appropriations bills often have additional bills attached to them so I had to check once it was put together! The NPS also has a legislation page, and in getting that link I just found the Interior testimony page which is interesting! Reywas92^Talk 02:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I recently worked on some of the templates on the main NPS page. I added "Brown v Board" to the NHP template, but I don't have the chops to add a pin to the map. Do you have that ability? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:National_Historical_Parks_of_the_United_States OneEarDrummer (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Done! The map template is a bit annoying since you have to use relative pixel positions, but you can estimate from where others are. Reywas92^Talk 22:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hats off to you. That's way above my abilities. Thanks! OneEarDrummer (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Reywas92-Good day to you. Can you please double check the math for the NPS National Monuments? I'm coming up with one less for the NPS monuments after you added Springfield 1908. I count 86 listed, with 85 being official units. However, it's been a long day teaching and I might be missing something. OneEarDrummer (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The list was missing Avi Kwa Ame, which is also not a unit. Thanks for catching it! Reywas92^Talk 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Reywas92,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Civility is required on wikipedia. Calling @User:Dream_Focus "Dumb" as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of poems does not seem civil. Please be kinder. CT55555(talk) 14:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555 No, I said the possibility that I wrote – dividing a long page alphabetically – would be dumb and indiscriminate. Dream Focus is a smart and engaging editor whom I disagree with here and may have a better suggestion he could implement than that. Reywas92^Talk 15:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. I apologise if I misunderstood your intent. CT55555(talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid for independent sources? And permitted does not mean that it is the preferred option. Please read WP:RS. The Banner talk 17:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I started a thread on the article's talk page so why are you here again? There are no original research or unreliability issues by saying "AnadoluJet flies from SAW to Hamburg" and verifying that to the fact that AnadoluJet's website shows they fly from SAW to Hamburg and that you can search for and buy a flight with AnadoluJet to Hamburg. Just because an independent newspaper doesn't feel the need to publish an article saying "BREAKING: Route continues operating" doesn't mean this should be removed or have an utterly useless tag on it as if Wikipedia's facts may be wrong here because we don't trust the source. This may be a WP:PRIMARY source, but it's a reputable publisher and we are making verifiable statements of basic facts without interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. Should we just add Google Flights as a source to all of these or something? Even if you prefer a secondary source, these tags are worthless and misleading. Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I assume this was created by accident? WiktionariThrowaway (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the speedy is appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks on the list pages, and thanks for your work on lists. I apologize to my fellow Wikipedians for not distributing such good lists sooner! Lots of the lists of individual animals hadn't been done (and jewels, and trees, and on and on...) so I got to them in August and afterwards. Am glad I worked them into the See also's, lots of interesting pages along those trails. Just got done distributing Presidential memorials in the United States to top off a good list distribution day (am selective in which lists I've added to See also's, not every list would fit. Only problem I've ever had, and this was years ago, was 'List of vegans' and 'List of vegetarians' where it was decided only the really publicly dedicated vegans and vegetarians should have a due weight listing at See also). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well thanks for keeping all these pages connected! Maybe I'll check back in a month and see if the page views have improved! Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The national monument page hasn't improved much, which is unusual, as most list pages added to See also usually see a quick expansion of readership (the Presidental memorials page is picking up the spike). Only other one I checked I've done in the last week or so was List of tallest structures built before the 20th century which has the spike which, if consistent with other pages, will last. I still am surprised that these readership spikes occur, as I didn't think readers dug that deep into pages, but learned that they do during that 'List of vegans' situation. More readers than you'd think play off the See also listing to explore Wikipedia topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example of a recent list distribution views uptake, this one at List of hairstyles. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow that's a decent jump! Maybe because that's a little bit more esoteric so a list might not have been expected and also gives other sorts of ideas to people, whereas people are more interested in a particular monument than others generally? Reywas92^Talk 17:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Most of the lists I've done this with have good percentage increase in views. Lists of individual dogs, cats, trees, monkeys, apes, horses, diamonds, etc., and many others, nice jumps which make the tedium of adding the link worth it. It kind of surprised me when I did the vegans and vegetarians, how much of an increase in views it brings. Since a list has to be closely applicable to the page, even a bit tangential could open the way for many almost-unrelated list additions, I'm selective in which ones I put on pages. Good talking to you about this, it's not an everyday conversation topic with family and friends. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh hey, will you look at that! Guess we were looking at it too soon. National monument (United States) also saw an initial jump, which I suppose has to be from people using the link at the top of the list. Thanks :)

And wow, Presidential memorials in the United States has even sprung ahead of those but an initial bounce. That page could use some organization, maybe to distinguish or split up those that are actual memorials that don't have a direct connection to the presidents and those that are residences or libraries. Reywas92^Talk 15:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Reywas92 can you give me an opinion about this geographical area Yonges Island in South Carolina? There is no Wikipedia article. I wanted to get your opinion of the notability before proceeding. It may just be a neighborhood? Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Best source I found was and there are other mentions of people being from there. The map also looks like it's actually a peninsula rather than an actual island. The peninsula is almost entirely within the town of Meggett, South Carolina though, so it would just be a neighborhood and I don't see other substantive sources suggesting it would need a separate article (already mentioned in that one). Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated. No article needed. Lightburst (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank as the article was previously defended in an AfD discussion. If you would like to merge the page, I suggest that you create a merge request. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

STOP MAKING NEW ARTICLES WHEN PAGES DO NOT NEED TO BE SPLIT! Reywas92^Talk 19:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92. You have new messages at Talk:Salton Buttes.
Message added 07:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92,

You closed this discussion as Redirect but you didn't follow through and turn this article into a redirect. If you are going to close AFD discusions, please do not just archive the discussions but take care of the article under discussion as well. You didn't use XFDCloser that typically handles these steps so you'll have to do this manually. Thank you for seeing to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Liz Hmmm, I did use XFDCloser but I realize now it didn't automatically redirect since I added the "speedy" to it as a custom close, thanks for letting me know! Reywas92^Talk 05:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92. Thank you for your work on Castner Range National Monument. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice job on the article. Thanks for creating.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

On 2 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Avi Kwa Ame National Monument, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Avi Kwa Ame National Monument, protected as a national monument since March 21, is a significant habitat of Joshua trees and threatened desert tortoises? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Avi Kwa Ame National Monument. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Avi Kwa Ame National Monument), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Sorry I forgot to send this when I deprodded. BhamBoi (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC) BhamBoi (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Oops, Scott S. Hall btw. BhamBoi (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2006 CO Proof.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2006 NE Proof.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

On 14 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Castner Range National Monument, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that to open for recreation, Castner Range National Monument (pictured) in El Paso's Franklin Mountains still needs to be cleaned of live munitions since closing as a weapons test site in 1966? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Castner Range National Monument. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Castner Range National Monument), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there - you removed the article I started for List of Japanese American Confinement Sites. In your edit, you suggest that it will simply be duplicative of the main article on the incarceration but I intend for this article to contain more information about the sites including the National Park Service program to maintain them. The main article is also quite long so it makes sense to break out this also-notable topic into it's own article. Thoughts? DCsansei (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I also modified your change at National Park Service because Japanese American Confinement Sites is a grant program, not a management program. Your statement on the list "Of the 67 sites, most are now largely managed by the Japanese American Confinement Site program within the National Park Service" is incorrect; the NPS only manages Amache (soon), Manzanar, Minidoka, Tule Lake, and Honoliuli. JACS provides grants to media and educational projects as well as for restoration of the sites which NPS doesn't manage, but I don't think this program is significant enough to need a separate article on it. I appreciate your efforts, but I think a description of this on the main article is better than having a new subarticle. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you not agree that the main article, as it stands, is quite long and unwieldy? I'm not sure what the harm is in breaking out the list of sites into its own article describing them and their management (point well-taken on the JACS program). I think between all of the information about the JACS program and coverage of Congressional authorization/history of the funding, there's more than enough to base signfiicance on. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCsansei (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say the list of sites is one of the most important things that people come to the article for and should be the last item split to a separate page. Write what's appropriate in the main article, then propose a split. The NPS has a lot of grant programs, these don't get much independent coverage to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92,

You tagged this article for Proposed Deletion but the article creator didn't receive a notification of this tagging. I see you use Twinkle which should have posted a notice. Please check your Twinkle Preferences so that "Notify page creator" box is always checked off. It's a very important step of the deletion process, especially for PRODs where the editor can address concerns in the deletion rationale. Since you do a lot of deletion tagging, please make sure that these notices are posted in the future. Thank you for all of your contributions for the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW I have nominated it for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Funny how you say you want to start a discussion but then call the tag worthless. Talk about being civil. Talk to me like that again and I'll get admins involved. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's *your* responsibility to start a thread to explain a tag you add and re-add to an article, not mine. The tag is in fact worthless without context to why the length is a problem or what should be done about it when WP:LENGTH is not actually a problem here. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We may have discussed this before, but it seems like most such lists (when we have a stand-alone list article) are in sentence case, e.g. List of national forests of the United States, List of national monuments of the United States, List of wilderness areas of the United States, etc. The following are in title case:

• List of National Wild and Scenic Rivers
• List of National Wildlife Refuges

Do you support moving these to sentence case? Mdewman6 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I do like capital letters for formal names but you can move them, that's fine. Reywas92^Talk 15:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Willie L. Phillips, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for noticing the changes. Keep up the good work! SiniyaEdita (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

On 15 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bahsahwahbee, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that three massacres of the Western Shoshone took place at Bahsahwahbee, a sacred grove of swamp cedars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bahsahwahbee. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bahsahwahbee), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

I noticed you merged Rochester Institute of Technology, New York to RIT using easy-merge. From what I can tell, the CDP doesn't match the population of RIT and is part of the Template:Monroe County, New York which has a few additional other CDPs listed. Can you help me understand when these should be merged?

Wozal (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The CDP represents who lives on or immediately near the RIT campus. A map can be found at https://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerweb2020/ (check "Places and county subdivisions"). As a purely statistical entity created by the census, the CDP is not notable on its own and should not have a standalone article, so I merged the content to provide better context about the on-campus demographics. If you don't think this table should be included in this way in the RIT article, you are welcome to reorganize or remove. I'll be merging St. John Fisher College, New York as well; the others represent actual communities. Reywas92^Talk 13:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It also seems sufficient to say that the CDP includes some areas from off-campus. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

If you boldly move a page without discussion, and another editor disagrees (in this instance M.Bitton disagreed, not me), the expectation is that the move will be reverted, at which point you should open a WP:RM if you wish to proceed with the move.

WP:PMR#Conduct expectations:

The page mover right should never be used as an advantage to gain an upper hand in titling disputes. Editors without the right are sometimes unable to revert moves performed by page movers, such as in the case of "round-robin" moves. Therefore, unilateral decisions should be avoided, and moves should be reverted upon request if they prove to be controversial. Finally, never wheel war with administrators or other page movers.

Please re-revert your round-robin move at MENA/Middle East and North Africa. SilverLocust 💬 22:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Why have you deleted the section about off-river pumped hydro? This is the most important section - pointing to the ~million off-river sites around the world (no new dams on rivers) with low environment impact and low cost and using entirely off-the-shelf technology that has been deployed at 200GW scale.

The global off-river pumped hydro atlas is at the heart of storage to support solar,& wind in quite a few countries. Tens of billions of dollars worth of new projects are underway using sites derived from the atlas.

For context, I am a professional expert in pumped hydro.

Please leave the wording as was. Zolwind (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This content wasn't really right for the WP:LEAD since for a longer article it doesn't summarize the article's subsections. Also the external links shouldn't be like that inline and are better as footnoted sources, so try to format it appropriately. Were you involved with the atlas? I also don't think this is appropriate per WP:COI to promote your own work. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please leave the text as written. The global atlas happens to be a truly significant development. It magnifies the importance of pumped hydro to support solar/wind by 100X by finding all the million or so off-river sites around the world.

The Atlas had a major impact in Australia (conversations with the Prime Minister, $15 billion in new projects), India (conversations with the top person in the Ministry for Power, re-working of storage plans to support high levels of solar & wind, tender put out to use the atlas to identify viable sites in Andhra Pradesh), World Bank ("This is the map that the ANU has made for the potential for pumped hydro and the good news is that it appears to be enormous ..."), dozens of invited presentations at international conferences, hundreds of highly favourable comments.

As for my credentials: these include the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering (one of the World's top prizes), a Eureka Prize (top Australian prize) and numerous others. 121.45.203.179 (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this information can be included in the article, but it must be formatted, written, and organized in an appropriate way. The WP:LEAD may not be the right place for all of this, as that should summarize the rest of the article. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"The lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading."

Off-river pumped hydro is breathing fire back into pumped hydro. We don't have to put new dams on rivers - which has been the biggest impediment to pumped hydro. The fact that there are vast numbers of really good off-river sites is critical information - far more than needed to support 200,000 Gigawatts of solar & wind as we move to zero emissions.

I'd really prefer to leave the paragraph as is. Zolwind (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, can you start with fixing your bad in-line external links (WP:EL) and replacing them with citations? Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Electric grid security has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 30 § Electric grid security until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument 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! Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi! While I’m not going to object to your PROD, I just wanted to point out that the relevant guideline for a lake would actually be WP:GEONATURAL. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92. Thank you for your work on Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Now I know that the proposed deletions blooper says to not be angry if one of my pages gets cited for deletion, but you cited three. One of them, Bethel, Grant County, Oklahoma, makes sense considering there isn’t much available online about it, but the other two, Beck, Oklahoma, and Alhambra, Oklahoma make no sense! If you look at List of ghost towns in Oklahoma, you can see that the source I use is cited for most of the towns on the list. It’s a bit annoying because the list tells me that the source I’m using (which comes from Atjeu publishing/ghosttowns.com) isn’t reliable? I at least want an answer. Thanks. DannonCool (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ghosttowns.com is absolutely not reliable! https://www.ghosttowns.com/states/ok/beck.html says "Submitted by: Pam Bales" Who the heck is Pam Bales? At https://www.ghosttowns.com/states/ok/alhambra.html, who is Curtis K. Hughes? This is considered WP:UGC since there's no actual editorial review or fact-checking mechanism, just content submitted by random people...recounting something about their great-grandfather? Every link to this website – and statement attributed to only it – should be removed from Wikipedia completely. The site design that hasn't been updated since the 1990s should have given it away... A post office or a name does not mean a place is a notable community that should have its own article. Reywas92^Talk 04:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I was simply using the source cited on the list. I made a page out of it. You can’t blame me for that. I personally don’t think the pages Alhambra, Oklahoma and Beck, Oklahoma should be deleted. Best regards - DannonCool (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not casting blame, but I'm saying this source should not be used and these places are not shown to be notable. Reywas92^Talk 13:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I found a better source for Alhambra, Oklahoma. I also understand why you put those there, and I am not as angry now. Thanks - DannonCool (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

May I please be allowed to remove the WP:RS for Alhambra, Oklahoma? I got a reliable source. DannonCool (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the placename book, and it describes Alhambra as a "post office". In the days before RFD (and for some time afterwards) it was common to have a "4th class" post office in a house or store or railroad station where there was no settlement otherwise, because people had to come to the post office to collect their mail. this created a lot of false "towns" after the fact because people in later days weren't aware of this practice. I took a look at the area which GT.com gives, and there is just nothing there from the mid 1950s on. I'm generally willing to use them to check if there is a trace of a place still there, but when they say there's nothing, they just aren't useful. There's also no GNIS entry, which is a very bad sign.

I also want to make a philosophical observation. The point of WP is to provide readers with accurate information. Therefore our mission isn't to try to save articles. It's one thing when good sources just get missed; it happens all the time and those discussions get closed as "keep", and for my part, I don't submit deletion requests when aerials or the like show there's a town there, even if text sources don't say anything significant. But when we have a place that we can't really locate, with no information other than that it was the name of post office, I really think it needs to be admitted that there's no evidence for a settlement, and that since we don't record every post office out there, it ought to go away. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You reverted an edit by another editor on my talk page. It seems you have been on WP long enough to know that should never be done. If you want to ask me not to comply with the request they made, that's one thing, but to show up on my page and delete something that isn't even yours is offensive. Do it again and to admin we will go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 I also know that this was not a legitimate request to you, it was a spam post made on a couple dozen users' pages including mine, and the user has now been blocked by DMacks, who also reverted some of their other spam posts..... Apologies for not including a summary in the rollback... Reywas92^Talk 15:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a known LTA (headed towards 2 years now), and WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS blesses removal of such. There is a note that WP:DENY is a preferred approach for this sock-drawer. But no harm in asking for clarification if it wasn't obvious what was happening. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If that is truly the case then you should have just said so and allowed me to do my own investigating and deleting.

DMacks I do not read WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS the way you do apparently. It says there is no need to copy edit others' posts. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

In the essay WP:DENY I also do not find the recommendation to edit another editor's post, even if it is vandalism, on someone else's talk page.

Simply explaining would have been the better choice. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

In OTHERSCOMMENTS "§Examples of appropriately editing others' comments" includes "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism" and "Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block". DMacks (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that on your own talk page? How do you know this was vandalism? To me, it seems to be a pretty big leap to jump from "not legitimate" to "vandalism". At any rate, doing so without explanation was un-good imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I wonder if you can look at a few recently NPP approved geo articles for which I am unable to find sources. I sent one ( Wirgnia) of them to AfD. An editor recently approved the following during the NPP backlog drive.

• Orzechy
• Głusza, Wałcz County
• Piaszczyte, Stargard County
• Orle, Wałcz County

I am probably not going to send them to AfD, but I would like to ask you to help me make a determination. Thanks and I hope all is well with you. Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mangoe: if you are around maybe you can weigh in also, thanks! Lightburst (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My immediate reaction is that a bunch of these ought to face deletion. The one source that all of these use appears to be the exact Polish equivalent of GNIS, and I'm seeing the same pattern of dissimilar spots and single houses and the like being tagged. Of course the bigger issue is that now we have yet another geostub mass creation to deal with. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mangoe: Thanks for the message. An administrator reviewed them and I was hoping for a discussion with them about Wirgnia but they reverted the message. So I do not think I will try to deal with it beyond the first AfD I started. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your objections to it saying "Nonpartisan" since many of these politicians very much are partisan. But please replace the party=____ with colour=c0c0c0 so the barrier can remain. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Done! Reywas92^Talk 02:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have referred this matter to mediation. DeoVindice (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

On 23 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that local tribal nations will be involved in the management of Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument (pictured), which includes hundreds of cultural sites? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are you adamant on removing content from 2016 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, but not when it comes to 2012 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 2008 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1996 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and [[1988 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]] and 1980 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1976 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1968 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1964 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1960 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1952 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1948 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1944 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1996 Ross Perot vice presidential candidate selection and 1992 Ross Perot vice presidential candidate selection and 1980 John Anderson vice presidential candidate selection and 2020 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 2016 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 2008 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 2004 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 2000 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1992 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1988 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1984 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1980 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1976 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1972 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1968 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1964 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1960 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1956 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1952 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1948 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection and 1944 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection. Matthew McMullin (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not complicated, YOU MUST HAVE SOURCES! Most of those have sources provided, but if not they should be removed too! Even if there are sources, a simple list of names is useless. There should really be more context about the extent of the consideration. They should ideally be people the presidential candidate actually considered. Just because some talking head said some hypothetical names does not mean it should be on Wikipedia unless there is significance to it. There's no encyclopedic importance to simply giving the name "Charlie Baker" without also providing to the reader what he actually did with respect to the selection process beyond being an officeholder, that multiple sources provided substantial consideration of him rather than just name-dropping. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

An article that been involved with ( Hardeep Singh Nijjar ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. 2402:A00:152:85D3:61B4:3AA2:6876:1690 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I need to review Special:Contributions/Hissrap18 for new "unincorporated community" pages, unless you want to have a go. I've been skipping the ones that say CDP, or that have self-evident school or placename book sources, or more than substub content. Although all of the CDP ones need "unincorporated community" taken out and all of the school ones need fixing to what they actually are. (Louisiana actually has villages, so maybe some of these are villages.)

For me, that's enough Louisiana for today; I need to fix Perry County Kentucky, apparently. ☺ I remember how much effort cleaning up just one Fork of the river was.

Uncle G (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I deprodded Crow and the Canyon here, hope you agree with my logic. There's coverage of their African tour by several African newspapers as well as U.S. State Department. By the way, how did you happen to find it? Since it is an orphan I'm wondering if I missed an opportunity for a cross-link somewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I skim Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/New articles National occasionally. I really do not think a band merely going to another country to perfom makes them notable – that is not what that provision of WP:BAND is meant to cover. These are short news articles with limited content about the band and provide more notability to The Rhythm Road: American Music Abroad. Maybe this could be be described there instead as an example of what the program supports. There's a lot of small groups that have participated and who may have also gotten some minor coverage (), but getting this grant doesn't mean they would pass WP:BAND, especially for a group with no labeled releases and which broke up shortly after. Reywas92^Talk 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please direct me to where the merge discussion for Saint Paul Island (Alaska)‎ took place? I'm intrigued as to why the island was merged to the city rather than the other way around. Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:MERGEINIT: "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it." The whole island is incorporated as the city, so it seems clear to me that there's no need to divide duplicative information across two pages, better to keep the overlapping info together so a reader can access everything in a more cohesive manner without redundancy. I put it at the city's name since I also knew of Bainbridge Island, Washington and Vashon, Washington; skimming List of islands of the United States by area I also see pages like Drummond Township, Michigan, Vieques, Puerto Rico, Vinalhaven, Maine, and Marco Island, Florida. I would not necessarily be opposed to having the title be at Saint Paul Island (Alaska)‎ if you think that's better, though! Reywas92^Talk 04:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

While I understand the merge, I do think the article would be better located at Saint Paul Island (Alaska). Where did you read that the whole island is incorporated as the city? Having spent much time on the island, I can assure you that the city only occupies one tiny corner. ;) MeegsC (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It's in the article that the city's land area is 42 square miles, the same size of the island. You can see it on Google Maps too, the whole island is outlined when you search for the city. https://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerweb2020/ is also great for seeing borders. Even in other places where the incorporated area is limited to the settlement, it can be good to keep the history, geography, landmarks, etc. together. Key West and Block Island have coterminous cities but a title as the island so I'd say switching the merge destination is fine, can do that. Reywas92^Talk 05:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Willie L. Phillips".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I changed had changed the article title, but now I see that the title has been changed back. I guess there was no need to disambiguate! --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1189275686

I see that you've caught a few of these already. Uncle G (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have to go through his creations some more! Thanks for flagging. Reywas92^Talk 20:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

can you upload the file i did to the older one your talking about because i dont really know how to do it thanks Skunkcrew (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Per Flag_of_the_United_States#Colors, there's not a single official version of which digital color code should be used for the US flag: "These colors form the standard for cloth, and there is no perfect way to convert them to RGB for display on screen or CMYK for printing." Therefore I don't think there's a basis for slightly different shades in the state flag files. The "Flag of X" files are fairly universally used, so you should propose changes in a discussion somewhere before replacing a whole bunch of files with one you made yourself. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

ok thanks beffore changing if you deside to do so what do you think of the seals I did for texas and arizona I wanted to base them on their sos websites for a more accurate look Skunkcrew (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Those seem reasonable, but it would be better to upload a new version of the original file rather than a new file. That way it automatically updates everywhere it's used. You do that by clicking "Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of the "File history" section. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

i have tried that but it wouldnt work Skunkcrew (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

can you update the original arizona seal file with the one i have modified I have tried several times i couldn't get it to work can you also do it with my version of the texas seal Skunkcrew (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

can you update the original arizona seal file with the one i have modified I have tried several times i couldn't get it to work can you also do it with my version of the texas seal Skunkcrew (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The redirect 209 Woodland Drive has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § 209 Woodland Drive until a consensus is reached. Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Sunnya343 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Balko, Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd say that this was a record, but it probably is not. It cites the GNIS, two GNIS regurgitators, and on-line maps that use the GNIS. And the icing in the cake is that List of ghost towns in Oklahoma has it as a ghost town, when the actual article gives it a current population, from one of the GNIS regurgitators, and claims that it is still there. (The entire article is fiction. It's a town, and I can source that from an Arcadia book on Beaver County, but everything currently sourced in the article is database-sourced computer-generated fiction. If I haven't kerrrzappp!ed it soon, feel free to remind me. I'm still doing loads of post offices and creeks in Kentucky, though.)

Given that the Morris Ghost Towns goes straight from Avery to Beer City, all of the entries in between on List of ghost towns in Oklahoma are probably false like this. How can Baker, Oklahoma be "thriving" per its article and yet a ghost town?

Enjoy Project:WikiProject Minnesota/GNIS cleanup, by the way.

Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Reywas92! I noticed that many of your edit summaries use aggressive and hostile language, such as "Says who??", "THIS IS ALREADY IN THE MAIN ARTICLE! WHAT IS THE POINT ...", "what's the effing point of this?", "Avoid this useless passive voice!". This can come across as quite offensive to other contributors, especially when your edits are reverts. Going forwards, can you make sure that criticism is constructive and polite? This is not a comment on whether the substance of the edits are correct, as civility applies whether or not you are "right". — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I echo the above. Sometimes I agree with your edits, but your routine use of three consecutive question marks and the other examples of your comments given above make me rather unwilling to admit it. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I acknowlege the all-caps and swear are coarse and I will avoid those in the future, but your indication that the infobox can only have a location map and not a diagram map (and removing it altogether rather than moving out of the infobox where it was in 2022) came out of nowhere without precedent and this complete bafflement warranted question marks. Reywas92^Talk 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but I did not randomly remove the diagram without a word; I gave an edit summary explaining my reasoning. Assume that I am making an edit in good faith that I have tried to justify, and we can talk if you disagree with that justification. Anyway, the question-mark issue is not that big of a deal compared to the other types of comments you have made, which it is good to hear you will avoid making in the future. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nah mate you're all good, those summaries are nothing. --Golbez (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I am notifying you that I requested a third opinion regarding the FAA diagram in the Las Vegas airport article: Wikipedia:Third opinion § Active disagreements. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Reywas92 :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the CLA page! Ghosa108 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

...this, I reverted back to before the banned user started fooling around. That impacted some intervening edits, so it's possible those edits need to be restored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed your proposed deletion tag because you cite a factual error. This case in my memory received national news coverage. If you have additional reasons, or contest my memory of the facts, please go to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You may have noticed the improper comments I made in the List of British Airways destinations AfD. This made me reflect on another improper thing that I had done, which was not being honest about my decision to start a closure review for the RfC on the tables of airlines and destinations. I did indeed notice the discussion that you and others were having on A. B.'s talk page, and I apologize for plotting against your plan to challenge the close. I talked more about this here on A. B.'s talk page and should've pinged you there at the time. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In regards to this edit, yes, it is in a separate county. However the board of directors of that YMCA intentionally changed the name from Vineland YMCA in 2001 because they wanted people in Cape May County to come to the Vineland YMCA.

I found that the newspaper of Atlantic City, New Jersey reported on it, so I will go back and cite that newspaper article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There are 2,650 YMCAs in the US. I do not think these should be catalogued on county articles at all, much less discussing those in different counties. A generic community center trying to attract people outside its immediate area is totally irrelevant to a high-level article like this. Reywas92^Talk 13:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

1. I see that the county articles are judged high importance by Wikiprojects. By views, I notice small town-oriented counties tend to be viewed much less compared to urban counties, let alone on major cities (which get the bulk of attention and prominence). This comparison of page views show that Newark, NJ (New Jersey's largest city) gets around 1,800 or so daily page views. Essex County, NJ gets around 300 or so, and Cape May County, NJ gets 80-100 views.

2. While there are thousands of YMCAs, they are mostly in heavily populated places. There is only one - just one - in three counties: Atlantic, Cape, and Cumberland. That's why the Vineland one changed its name, because there are no others in the area. The name of the YMCA intentionally is on a county basis, naming all three counties, as documented by the newspaper articles. This differs from urban YMCAs which may be relevant to one or two particular neighborhoods in a large city.

3. I'm not aware of Cape May County's government operating their own community center. The county lists municipal and township senior centers. Other municipal facilities I am aware of include Ocean City Community Center, two by middle township, Sea Isle City's upcoming community center, Lower Township Recreation Center (which would be covered by that respective township), Cape May Convention Hall maybe? (which is a city facility), etc.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant. If there are urban YMCAs in Newark in particular neighborhoods, maybe they could be mentioned in those respective neighborhoods' articles, but they wouldn't be in the articles for adjacent neighborhoods or Harrison, East Orange or Irvington even if they also serve residents there. Woodbine is still a 33-minute drive from the YMCA in Vineland. Even if the YMCA in Vineland serves residents in Cape May County because there's not another location there, this is not appropriate for the Cape May County article. I don't see an issue including municipal facilities in the county article since those are geographically relevant. User:Hurricanehink sent WP:THANKS, perhaps he has thoughts. Reywas92^Talk 13:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Reywas92 and WhisperToMe (talk · contribs). Yea, I liked the removal of the YMCA. That seemed a bit too commercial-y to include that, since it's not like that particular YMCA is all that important to the county as a whole, especially since it's not even in the county, and there are tons of gyms and similar facilities in the county. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this change, the page always indicated "Italian-American cuisine", even before my edits; don't change this (it's wrong to write "Italian cuisine", it's a dish of Italian-American cuisine); your other changes aren't wrong. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You have lost all credibility if you're going to say certain recipes enjoyed by millions are objectively wrong. You are objectively wrong to think these closely related recipes cannot be described together. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Reywas92: calm down, what you said here makes sense: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fettuccine_Alfredo&diff=prev&oldid=1219157881. "You have lost all credibility if you're going to say certain recipes enjoyed by millions are objectively wrong." What are you talking about? Chicken on pasta? If you're referring to chicken on pasta, if millions of people eat this """recipe""", it doesn't mean that it's, for people with a food culture, a respectable combination; numbers don't always determine quality (e.g. the number of sales of a song doesn't determine its value (economic value yes)). JacktheBrown (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

And you're losing even more credibility if you're saying only Italians have "a food culture" as if Americans don't. I hate pineapple on pizza as much as some Italians do, but I'm not so pretentious to say it's "objectively wrong" or isn't "respectable". Reywas92^Talk 15:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Reywas92: perhaps it would be better if we decided to end this conversation, because it could end badly for both of us. Anyway, I respect you as person. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of the United States National Park System official units 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/List of the United States National Park System official units 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 until the discussion has finished.

Zkidwiki (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I could suggest you could close the AFD as a keep. as per instructions here: WP:WDAFD.

Thanks, and happy editing

- Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=14&lat=44.72518&lng=87.67871&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME&visualizationUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fsh.dataspace.copernicus.eu%2Fogc%2Fwms%2Fa91f72b5-f393-4320-bc0f-990129bd9e63&datasetId=S2_L2A_CDAS&fromTime=2024-06-06T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&toTime=2024-06-06T23%3A59%3A59.999Z&layerId=1_TRUE_COLOR&demSource3D=%22MAPZEN%22&cloudCoverage=30&dateMode=SINGLE

It's using 680W panel and was built along with dunes. It's the largest single PV station so far. There is a 4GW underconstruction and will be finished Oct 2024. Driftboating (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Driftboating Wow, I had spent so much time looking around on Copernicus for it but that really blends in! User:Eduardheindl added different coordinates that point to another new project nearby; I was confused since that's not in Midong (and didn't look like the dunes photo in the press release) but it also appears to be around 3.5 GW. Do you know anything about that one? Reywas92^Talk 13:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

http://www.xjmd.gov.cn/P/C/27465.htm

This is their local goverment planning map. The purple area is which is launched on 2024.

https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_27586805

It includes the drone photo.

This is the 4GW station under construction. It will replace Midong as the largest single PV station.

https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=12&lat=38.88555&lng=88.26553&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME Driftboating (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow again, thanks! So it looks like these areas add up to 18 GW by 2035?! Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's reasonable. There are total 12GW(20x660MW) coal plants on the north part of this desert(ZhunDong Industry Park). There is a plan of the second UHVDC line based on PV, wind, coal plant together. Midong is planning a 1.2-1.4GW PSH to support its plan. Driftboating (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

the geo coordination Eduardheindl provided is located in Fukang. There is a reserved CSP project in the middle of PV station. It's in a 100GW plan of Fukong. The station with 100MW CSP is 900MW. There is another 600MW station finished nearby according to news. Driftboating (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There are more PV parks should belong to TOP 5 largest PV Parks.

1. planned 4GW

https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=12&lat=40.26604&lng=109.66003&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME

2. planned 4GW

https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=12&lat=40.39559&lng=108.88069

3. planned 32GW

https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=11&lat=36.74741&lng=93.57536&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME

China government has a 455GW clean energy project. More and more mega PV parks will be built before 2030. Driftboating (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Amazing and exciting to see! Hard to keep the article up to date with all of these expanding with all their sections. Do you have a link to the Fukang project or plan? Maybe that should be added to the list too. Reywas92^Talk 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I only can search it in Chinese news.

https://www.xj.chinanews.com.cn/dizhou/2023-06-12/detail-ihcqiqqx0671192.shtml

https://m.bjx.com.cn/mnews/20220711/1240176.shtml

It's not easy for them reach this goal before 2035. The grid doesn't support such big goal. They will slow down before 2027. No more capacity to adopt PV, wind. I found their plan on 2400 square km reservaed land. But there is no detail support technical feasible on this plan.Driftboating (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I looked at your change and agree that that's a better way of handling including the information, I don't think a talk page discussion is necessary. Jasavina (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Reyvas, I responded to your quote on the deletion request for German Pennsylvania. Aearthrise (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you were the nominator for United States congressional delegations from Indiana, and commented that you were interested in reviewing other lists of this vein in some of the other nominations. I've nominated two of them at FLC, Arizona and Idaho. I would really appreciate if you would take a look at them and provide any feedback! Thanks for your contributions on Wikipedia and have a great rest of your day. Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

His Wikipedia said he was deployed overseas for months. He was never deployed. This needs updated. 2600:1009:A023:6FA1:A4FD:A033:3FB0:BC19 (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You may bring this up at Talk:Tim Walz with sources. I don't know where you got this idea because says "During his two decades, Walz was part of flood fights, responded to tornadoes and spent months on active duty deployed overseas." Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this, your claim that the articles linked are merely "inappropriate partisan attacks". They're quotes from his direct superior and the officer who replaced him. Can you please explain why these key firsthand accounts are not considered substantive? Count3D (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because it is not neutral or balanced. The Western Journal is a POV outlet, as is "Alpha News". I merely focused on WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS in my edit summary without noting the others. It is an attempt at swiftboating based on some sour grapes and does not capture the truth of the situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Why should anyone even care what they have to say? He had already served twenty-four years, was a teacher at home, and was launching a run for Congress. He had every right to retire, doing so is plainly not "stolen valor", and any claim of such is a bad-faith partisan attack. Reywas92^Talk 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Because Julin was actually there, seems reasonably credible and was Walz direct superior in this matter. That should carry some merit, but it seems most of you disagree. Count3D (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I clearly made a mistake with the George Santos article, but was the aggression necessary? People make mistakes all the time, especially in the CE portal, and procedure is to mention that in your edit summary and move on. Thanks. Dmhll (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

On 23 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mammoth Solar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the United States' largest planned solar project, Mammoth Solar, is named after mastodon fossils rather than its size? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mammoth Solar. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mammoth Solar), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92,

Please revert your closure here so I don't have to. A nominator shouldn't be closing their own AFD unless they are withdrawing their nomination and there are no Delete votes. This discussion was only open a day and you closed it as a redirect. You were free to Redirect this article before the AFD but not as a result of this AFD because it was too soon to establish a consensus. Please revert this action at your conenience but relatively soon. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This might seem bureaucratic but what I'm suggesting is reverting your closure, then withdrawing your nomination and closing the discussion as a Speedy Keep. After that, then a Redirect can be discussed on the article talk page. But we can't have the appearance of not abiding by the AFD closure guidelines. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

...then I understood the move log vs the AfD timing. The more I think about it the less appealing an IAR draftification has become. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of second-level administrative divisions by area is discussing its deletion or retention. Arguments either way are welcome 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 03:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92. Since you commented on a previous FLC for this article, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at the current FLC spearheaded by The Herald and myself? We've addressed the issues in the previous FLC (including the lead, which was rewritten by The Herald) and I believe this article is ready. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 03:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You prod-ed John Quincy Adams (Bingham) and I had considered it myself except when I checked what linked to it there were a bunch of articles that link to it (it seems the articles use the painting as an image of Adams.) I don't know if that changes your opinion about prod. RJFJR (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It was added to Template:John Quincy Adams but no article text links to it. I searched for it and don't see any basis for notability. The image itself, one of many portraits of JQA, is only also used at John Quincy Adams#Smithsonian Institution and Portraits of presidents of the United States. Reywas92^Talk 03:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. RJFJR (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Reywas92! Why did you merge Coordinated Lunar Time to Timekeeping on the Moon? I saw there was a previous move discussion on Talk:Coordinated Lunar Time that closed with consensus not to merge and I just wanted to check if I missed anything. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I did not see that discussion before, but there's not a very strong consensus. I see two votes to merge, two not to, and one suggesting Coordinated Lunar Time is the better title. As of now, Coordinated Lunar Time is just a proposal and there's overlap within the topic (with the Timekeeping page having been a stub). For now readers would be much better served with all content in one place; I would be fine having Coordinated Lunar Time be the title, but separate pages aren't needed, at least not until LTC is actually established. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, can you check what I wrote? I'm not sure I wrote in excellent English: . Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@JacktheBrown Yes that all seems fine! Reywas92^Talk 02:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello...I noticed that you're doing a lot of edits changing "Visitor Center" to "Visitor's Center". I reverted one of the edits because the location calls it a "Visitor Center" and not a "Visitor's Center". The signage for the facility is also "Visitor Center" and considering that is the proper name for the building, don't you think that we should use that? Can you stop editing that until there can be some agreement on whether it's proper to rename them like that? Dbroer (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dbroer Please look at my edits closer, they are removing the apostrophe–s.... User:StAnselm subsequently undid your change that made it wrong again to match what I did. Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize. I read that totally backwards for some reason. You'd think I'd know better after all these years. Dbroer (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reverted my three edits on Tony Hinchcliffe's page seeking clarification of language. I believe your points about the proper use of "denigration" and "disdain" are fair, but to put them in the proper context of roast comedy as you mentioned, it's relevant for unfamiliar readers to know that his appearance as a comedian was to perform stand-up material and not deliver a speech, which may lead readers to believe he intends to be taken literally. I will make the single performance clarification but leave your other language in place as you left it. Neighborhood Review (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I should add that I will give you time to respond here first before I make the edit in the controversy section, but the language you used in the introduction, "jokes in a monologue", I believe is very appropriate and leads me to believe you won't take issue with my proposal.

By the way, I see that you like working on lists, those are also my favorite pages to edit here in addition to bibliographies. Neighborhood Review (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Neighborhood Review Hi, yes that seems reasonable, thanks! Reywas92^Talk 13:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Andrew Gower (programmer) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 25 § Andrew Gower (programmer) until a consensus is reached. — Hubcapp (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent work on Thanksgiving dinner, you beat me to it. Not sure what was up with all the listicles there. Sarsenet (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello there! I noticed you recently participated in a discussion of a requested move for the article Brian Thompson (businessman). That discussion was closed without an ultimate consensus decision for procedural reasons. There is a new discussion open on the article talk page, and all participants in the prior move discussion are encouraged to participate. Thank you! Flip^andFlopped ツ 22:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I won't oppose this proposal, but if anything else is controversial, go to WP:AfD instead. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added a lot of more sources and a bit of history. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Source 10 didn't mention this church but one in PA so I've removed the line. Several others are pretty short but this seems adequate, thanks. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2023 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the insinuation of a bad-faith argument in a discussion, especially when I cited a policy that, in my interpretation, disallows lists of things that are always changing (i.e. airline routes). You are free to have your interpretation, but to call that out as "not a good faith argument" because something else does not presently exist (but could easily be created) feels just as much in bad faith.

I will be honest and admit that I had considered replying to your comment in the RfC, but I'd rather not hash this out on a much more visible forum that a user talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the insinuation and have reworded the comment. I don't see anything in the policy that prohibits things that change (and most routes don't change that often) – that's the beauty of Wikipedia that there are a lot of people dedicated to keeping things up to date. Certainly there are other topics where editors can't actually keep things current, but I'd say it's editorial discretion to avoid that, not disallowed by NOTDATABASE or NOT. Reywas92^Talk 16:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit to the comment. I agree that part of the beauty of Wikipedia is the amount of people dedicated to maintaining currency, and I should realize that there are people who are just as passionate about maintaining aviation articles as I am about maintaining international association football articles. Should a similar RfC come up again, I will keep in mind the comments made in this one. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you've taken charge of this page and the tables (which I commend; I've done the same elsewhere), so I'd like your permission to add a column for Bodies of Water. Do you think that would be okay? I don't want to do a lot of work only to see it rejected. After that I would put in the full History/Heritage table I tried to add the other day that you partially reverted then I'd break out Marine Parks into their own table (completed, but waiting). I've contributed to this table since 2015 when I moved Images to the second to last column and see that in 2021 you moved Images to the second column, which is fine by me. No interest here in beefing or competing, only want to make tables more useful and manageable. Harold Angel (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your previous work there! I don't mean to take charge of it especially if you want to improve it further, but I noticed the new table was inconsistent so I wanted to keep the images in the second column. In terms of water bodies, I think it can be better to mention that in the description column when relevant rather than as another column. A lot of the parks are of course not even on water, and some are just incidental (e.g. Peace Arch is entirely land-based and doesn't even include the beach on the bay; Olmstead Place has a creek but it's not the primary component of the park like, say, the marine parks), but I could see it work for those where the water is a significant part of the park. Cheers, Reywas92^Talk 05:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The advantage of a separate column for Water is that it can be sorted alphabetically. But what to do with parks without significant water has always been a good question. Lots of really minor stuff gets listed at times. I'll only add the Water column to the marine parks table for now. Cheers. Harold Angel (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi - have left this a few days to reread, but I remain in disagreement that this was a clear consensus for keep. There's only one keep !vote that actually asserts a GNG pass (but provides no detail), the vast majority are variations on "but it will happen" devoid of p/g discussion other than waves of CRYSTAL, of which only one editor responded with four sources, all of which were contested. There's no community consensus that because other articles exist, that should preserve seemingly similar articles. Can you please elaborate on your weighting of the discussion? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There were 15 !votes to keep, 1 for delete, 1 for draft, and yours for redirect. I am baffled how anyone could possibly close it anything other than SNOW keep. These comments about precedent are right, we always keep articles for immediate next major elections, your mention of a 2048 election being irrelevant, and it would be unhelpful to get rid of this page at this point. Every time one of these pages is nominated, it's a waste of voters' time because it's clear that Crystal is not violated because there is no "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions", and item 1 specifically calls out an immediate next election as being expected and appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 14:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the reply. Please AGF and I think we would both wholeheartedly agree that AfD discussions are not about numerics but about the relevance of points to policy and guidelines. I do not really get a sense from your response of how you've weighed the !votes.

The keep !votes are almost all variations of (1) it's a good idea, (2) it's going to happen, (3) there's precedent. The first two are irrelevant in terms of policy and guidelines, and in the case of (2) all but one failed to address a core element of CRYSTAL: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented ... not appropriate [...] if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research."

In terms of (3), precedent can contribute towards a discussion but cannot *determine* an outcome, there still needs to be sourcing. Nevertheless, what is the actual precedent that is being asserted? You've linked to over 100 discussions at AfD, but about 40% of them are not about elections. A more accurate listing is here. There the results are actually far more mixed than the suggested overwhelming precedent asserted in the discussion (delete, merge, no consensus, draftify examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). Of the "precedents" cited in the discussion, 60% were not actually accurate: five of the 10 were about *delayed* elections, one was a dated election (2028 US election), only four were "next" in the sense of undated future events.

The actual discussion about sourcing to satisfy the GNG only had two participants (initiated by Alektor89, refuted by me) of which no counter-refutation or further related contributions were made. Nor was NOPAGE addressed.

Given your response above, this appears a supervote rather than an assessment of the discussion. FWIW, in principle, I have no problem with these types of articles, (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election) but only where there is reliable sourcing that justifies them.

My view is there was not a consensus to keep and a no consensus close or relisting with a comment seeking further contributions that address the discussion on sourcing would have been far more appropriate. Would you reconsider your close, please?

Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, Crystal doesn't apply since the article does not contain speculation or original research. Your example 1 was 12 years ago (CCC) and was about the lower-profile and indirect presidential election, not a general election for which polling is already being conducted. Example 2 was at the level of a small state rather than a large country and was, of course, recently recreated. Example 3 is also state-level and had zero sources when nominated. Example 4 had just one sentence and no sources when it was nominated and was only marginally better when draftified, then, of course, restored to mainspace just a couple months later. A supervote would be to do anything besides what the supermajority called for, but you are welcome to waste more people's time at DRV. Reywas92^Talk 00:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I find your response contradictory, you're agreeing with me that it is acceptable not to keep an article when there is an absence of sourcing. How does this justify your keep close? Other than IAR, which was never mentioned, I cannot see a policy or guideline that assists in justifying a failure to satisfy the GNG as reason to keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Orbiter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 8 § Orbiter until a consensus is reached. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#c-Reywas92-20250328022900-Graywalls-20250327230800 Please do not correspond with tones like "Why are you making up irrelevant crap?" . Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add straw man items that are different than what were were discussing, it was in fact irrelevant. Reywas92^Talk 00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Please be aware that you are sailing very close to the wind now. Try to learn from your previous block. Deb (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I removed an edit you'd made to User talk: Franamax adding a notification of a WP:PROD for Solar-power fountain. Kudos for your diligence in notifying relevant users, but that user passed away 10 years before you added that, so it isn't appropriate to be placing notifications in their talk pages. Just wanted to let you know that in the future it would be a good idea to check talk pages for memorial tags at the top. Thanks for your hard work on the wikipedia project! JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I use Twinkle to place PRODs, and it will automatically place notices. I don't usually waste time checking the author's talk page first. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This hamlet does exist on Open Maps, but is really just a neighborhood or extension of Julian, West Virginia. Do you mind if I redirect it? Bearian (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, Droop Mountain, West Virginia can be redirected to its nearest larger hamlet, Rorer, West Virginia, also in Greenbrier County. Bearian (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and being bold. If it upsets you then we can go to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

There are at least three other hamlets that you nominated that appear to be ghost towns. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

One last one: I redirected West Junction, West Virginia into Van, West Virginia. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, thanks for letting me know. Reywas92^Talk 18:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in the featured list review for the Amusement rides on the National Register of Historic Places article. I believe all of them have been resolved, so if you'd like to declare your support for its nomination, please do so on the review page. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 13:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Reywas92. I'm just posting to let you know that National preserve – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 23. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Before I formally propose this, I was curious what you would think about merging National monument (United States) into List of national monuments of the United States? It would mirror the case of National Park (United States) and there is already a lot of non-list content at the monuments list article that could easily accommodate the content at the non-list article. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The list is already extremely large with a good sized intro so expanding that isn't a good option, I think. But there's actually a ton of additional information that could be added to the article, like elaborating on some of the paragraphs about controversial monuments and lawsuits, on the diversity of monuments and how many have become parks, and on management practices and the historic reasoning for creating them. I've actually considered merging National monument (United States) and Antiquities Act, though there does seem to be enough information to justify separate pages there too. I know it's unusal that national monument is the only type with separate article and list pages, but I'm certain someone with time could write a good national park-specific article too, beyond what's in History of the National Park Service et al. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I would be happy if the national monument (United States) article were expanded, so leaving them separate for now is good. I agree Antiquities Act should be kept separate, and also would support splitting (back?) out national park (United States) if there is enough non-list content created to warrant it. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

I believe that there aren't many statements in the lede which need to be supported by citations, especially since the body elaborates on them. Furthermore;

Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

which would not be followed if i hadn't moved the mentions of the indeterminate growth and the ventricle model into the article body.

I'm reverting to the lede version that i wrote as that one flows better; clarifying that neoteny isn't unusual in salamanders and that related species may be confused for the axolotl, the geography of the axolotl's habitat before the hydrological engineering projects, and explaining that virtually all axolotls alive today are captive bred and originated from laboratory specimens. Feel free to alter the lede with adjustments that you feel are necessary, but please try to maintain the structure that i've established Anthropophoca (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to quote that to me, I had quoted from that section myself. The issue was your claiming that the MOS "dictates that the lede should be free from citations". I suggest re-adding any sources removed from the lead, but I respect your structural changes. Reywas92^Talk 15:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Anthropophoca, I see in your contributions that you have made this claim several times. Please refrain from removing sources or content from the lead just because of this. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your work, but redirecting this article to Chicago-style pizza because it currently has the same content is not a reason to merge. Please feel free to add sentences and sources to either article! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The ed17, There is absolutely no reason for the exact same content to be on two page, so yes, reason 1. WP:DUPLICATE and reason 2. Overlap are actually very good reasons to merge! There is not enough content to warrant a separate page here (WP:NOPAGE). Reywas92^Talk 14:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to expand the content we have. This isn't WP:REDUNDANT; the topic is separately notable. Although there's probably an argument for turning Chicago-style pizza into a dab page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

So why shouldn't I just expand the content at Chicago-style pizza#Tavern-style pizza? These have the exact same paragraphs, so I'd say this certainly is WP:REDUNDANT. The sources discuss tavern-style as being Chicago style and/or compare it with deep-dish, so it seems reasonable to have one page for this there. This page got 20,000 views last month, so cutting it up into a dab may not be the best idea. Mudwater, you restored the content to the main article after Ed did the split, any thoughts? St. Louis–style pizza and Minnesota-style pizza also use cracker-thin crust and square slices, so IMHO I don't think we need another stub on every single variation but should instead explain differences holistically. Reywas92^Talk 17:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The dab idea came because tavern-style and deep-dish pizza are separate items and separately notable (you might want to have another look at the available sources on the former), and WP:DAB tells us that dab pages are available for when article topic names are ambiguous. I've just done some editing on the tavern-style article such that they are now different. I don't have a view yet on whether St. Louis-style and Minnesota-style should be folded into tavern-style, but I'd oppose folding them into the Chicago-style article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi - as you were the one who originally nominated it for deletion, I just wanted to get your view on whether this article should be recreated. In the time since it was deleted (April 2024), the Pizza Meter seems to have received a lot more attention from various media outlets in the context of current events ( ). They aren't clustered around a single event, either, so I think it probably passes the threshold of notability at this point.

Amusingly, the article was deleted less than 2 weeks before all the renewed interest began in mid-April 2024, leading to this conspiracy theory on Quora. Theknightwho (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I still think this is incredibly stupid, just people making correlations up out of thin air, honestly even stupider than before. The actual pizzeria owner saying his stores literally made late night deliveries to the Pentagon was actually a real anecdote, now some idiot on Twitter is looking at Google's unreliable "busier than usual" status, which attempts to count how many people's phones are somewhere (in this case the ground floor of a large apartment building), and thinking it means something, but why the hell would a small take-out restaurant have a lot of people inside it when theoretically a delivery driver is just making big deliveries to a certain different location miles away? In a neighborhood that's seen massive population growth? When Pentagon workers would be getting more than just Domino's? Google Maps doesn't measure size or destination of online orders.
These are not reliable sources whatsoever. Like euronews looks at a tweet which says "the Papa Johns closest to the Pentagon is far busier than usual", and the idiot "journalist" concludes "And wouldn’t you know it, on 13 April 2024, there were unusually high pizza orders from not only the Pentagon but also the White House and the Department of Defense." He doesn't know where these orders are going! This AS website I've never heard of repeats "On April 13 there was a surge in pizza orders from U.S. government buildings such as the White House, the Pentagon, and the Department of Defense" with literally zero evidence. And of course anyone only notices after something happens in the Middle East, not when the restaurant might allegedly be busy at other times. You'd need reliable newspaper-type sources to recreate, not these shitty meme websites that don't employ real journalists. — Reywas92^Talk 15:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue is notability. Three points:

• It doesn't matter if you and I both think it's meaningful (unlikely) or stupid (certainly). Plenty of notable topics can be described as "incredibly stupid, just people making correlations up out of thin air" (Wind turbine syndrome, the 2016 clown sightings etc), but that isn't relevant to whether they're notable at all, so I can't agree with you there.
• I agree that those two articles you mention are poor. Since my last comment, the WP:TIMESOFINDIA have published a short article () which seems doesn't seem to fall into the same traps, and also satisfies your condition of being a "reliable newspaper-type source". I've also come across a 2024 piece from the WP:DAILYDOT () which addresses the issue of whether the meter is actually reliable or not. In fact, you're even mentioned in it. The only real flaw I can see is that it cites a tweet of a screenshot from this 2016 Slate article in the section "Pizza Meter Theory origins" instead of the article itself, which is a silly oversight, but not a big deal given I was able to track the real source down.
• WP:NSUSTAINED is clear that sustained coverage is an indicator of notability. This is beyond question: at a bare minimum, the sources from the early 90s in combination with the two articles I mention above show that this wasn't some flash in the pan, and the link is confirmed by the fact that both articles refer back to coverage ~30 years ago.

Theknightwho (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

These aren't reliable sources. There's no byline on the Times of India page, which basically just copied its content from Euronews, including the uncertain statement "The theory was popularized by food culture site The Takeout". It also has the BS "Reportedly, Soviet intelligence once tracked food deliveries in Washington to assess American crisis readiness", which has no basis in reliable sources they actually did this. Then it says "online users scanning delivery maps" and "netizens again flagged pizza order surges" – no, online users are scanning Google's store busyness charts, not deliveries or orders. No need to waste any more time on this nonsense. Your other two links have much more coverage and reporting in actual legitmate sources, not churnalism about fake internet trends. — Reywas92^Talk 15:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Reywas92 I simply don't agree - the Times of India is the Indian newspaper of record, and you completely ignored the second link. It's not clear that you would accept any sources here, given you still seem to be under the impression that the reliability of the meter itself is relevant, for some reason ("fake internet trends"). I will be recreating the article at some point. Theknightwho (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This closed with the article not being deleted. You had a comment for actions to be taken in such a case. Figured to let you know. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

In the interest of lowering the temperature a bit, I think it would be best if you avoided communicating with this user unless absolutely necessary, or doing anything else that might give them cause to suspect you of hounding them. That said, I think your most recent messages were fair and reasonable. But let's try to avoid throwing gasoline on an open flame. If you do run across them doing something you think requires some kind of interaction, just pass it on to another experienced editor to handle. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Can do, I see that the Move to Draft tool I used can have the notify creator option unchecked. I just don't get how AB has been asked many, many times to actually write substance to new articles yet still shoots off pages like that one and dozens like Enclos (restaurant) with virtually no content or that can fit in other articles. He often complains about "unnecessary deletion nominations" but that can seem to be the only way to get anything written on them. I want AB to continue his good work and I don't intend to be disruptive, though I also want new articles to have something actually to them and be encyclopedically informative. — Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

As I said, and told them as well, I think the concerns you raised were legitimate. Thanks for your work here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted this to the old name for now. Given how many bridges over cross over the Connecticut River, I'm not sure this is an obvious enough move to be done without discussion. I'm not necessarily opposed to a move, but it needs an RM. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a note that I greatly appreciate your edit assistance on the GCNRA article. Cordially yours, Tom RRFWTommartin (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Hobierugger (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Courtyard Philadelphia Downtown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Reywas92, I am requesting assistance on the article I am trying to publish. It was denied based on it read as an advertisement, but the article includes mostly information on the history and architecture of the building, citing different websites outside of anything we created, citing the architecture firm and history websites. All of the other cites about the hotel are purely informational, we do not mention any offers for the hotel, only the location, amenities and other information that a person may be searching for in regards to the hotel. What can we do to help get this published? Should we remove the citing from the Press Release and hotel website? Thanks for your help!

Hobierugger (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hobierugger, yes, for a topic like this you should generally avoid citing information to the hotel website or press releases that are not independent of the subject. Details about amenities like the brand of coffee makers (lol), fitness center and the brand of bikes (lol again), breakfast, and the location are highly promotional – just saying in your edit summary that this is "purely informational" doesn't make it true. The page is a WP:REFBOMB, which means nearly all of the citations are totally irrelevant. You need in-depth, substantial sources that are specfically about the hotel and the building and relevant content that derives from them, not a bunch of links to other things the the architect did, definitions of Georgian architecture, etc., or info only available on the hotel's website. This fails WP:GNG. It's very obvious you're just here to promote the new hotel and you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest ("anything we created") – paid editing must be disclosed – so I'd suggest not writing about it at all here. — Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for your response. Have a great weekend! Hobierugger (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing helpful explanations and suggestions re: Bath, New York Kyle4344 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Confederate patriotism has been nominated for deletion. If you would rather expand it, describe on the Talk page. Julian in LA (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not just a random list of people not seeking the office by running for something else, but a list of people specifically named in RS as a possible candidate who decided to run for something else. This is very common across election articles and if you want that changed you should start a very broad discussion somewhere, or at least get consensus locally. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

331dot, you must have sources that specifically say that the person declined to run in that particular election. does not mention anything about the Senate race, and has zero substance about Pingree and the Senate race, just a rote "running for reelection". A lot of other articles misuse and overuse these sections as well, but they are not for politicians who are simply participating in a different election, for whom the broad, basic concept of "not running" applies, they're for people for whom there was substantive consideration and speculation in running, with sources providing that depth. These sources completely fail to establish the relevance between these individuals and this election. We don't have to list every person who is merely not running, you and our readers are smart enough to determine that someone not listed as running isn't running without it being explicitly listed! — Reywas92^Talk 21:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

It provides context as to the process. Golden was named as a potential candidate for governor and senate(and he said himself he was thinking about where to run). Pingree is always mentioned as a possible candidate simply due to being a longtime house member. As I said, it isn't a list of everyone not running, but those specifically named as a possibility in sources. I have seen this done for years across many articles without a problem. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You need better sources for that. Again, the Golden source literally doesn't even mention the Senate race. Any House member could always run for another office, that's not a reason they need to be listed as not running when simply not being listed as a candidate tells the reader the same thing. If there are no substantive sources that explain why anyone should care that they aren't running, then they shouldn't be in the article. Yes, it's done in most articles, but (a) it is done improperly quite often and I have often had to remove candidates with no evidence of relevance to the race and (b) just because it is done appropriately in other articles doesn't mean it's done properly here. Add sources with substance or they need to go. — Reywas92^Talk 22:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Not everyone reads articles the same way, or makes the same assumptions. If you would like to talk about this further I would suggest the article talk page so others see it. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean, you could have started this on the talk page in the first place. But I've removed Golden, whose source does not show why he's relevant. You are welcome to re-add with a source that actually discusses this election. — Reywas92^Talk 03:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on you to justify a change, not on me in removing it. I didn't think I needed to as over my years of experience I have seen this sort of thing across election articles unchallenged. I think the source was fine the way it was, but I replaced it with one specifically stating he was contemplating running for Senate.

If you want to tighten the rules around who can be named as declining to run, you should have a broad discussion in a central forum(as was done to establish WP:ENDORSE) 331dot (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Not true. Per WP:VNOT, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If you want to include the disputed content, I'm not sure why it was so hard to just add sources that actually mention the topic at hand. Not much substance to the new source but it at least has something. — Reywas92^Talk 14:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Reywas92, thanks for your comments on the FLC for List of protected areas of Peru. Just checking in to see if you're still interested in finishing the review. Best regards, JustEMV^🦙 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it wasn't going to end in a SNOW keep, but you should know that 5 keep votes is far from a SNOW keep and closing it in this manner leaves it open to a potential Deletion Review. I think this was more of a matter to report to an admin about the nominator making disruptive AfDs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Why waste any more than 5 people's time on that? That kind of obviousness is the whole point of SNOW, whether I call it that or "speedy keep", and if the nominator opens a DR, that should also be speedy closed. — Reywas92^Talk 22:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, SNOW close is very much not a speedy keep, and I'm not particularly certain it would live up to any of the speedy keep rationales either. Hence my suggestion to report the user rather than necessarily close the AfD itself. That would happen naturally if an admin decided they were being disruptive. I'm just noting that I believe it was a BADNAC even if it would have probably turned out the same way eventually. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No. This was a "foregone conclusion" that was not going to get any votes of any other kind, two of which agreed on the keep being speedy, and now you're wasting both of our time that I saved anyone else from having to participate in something disruptive and very obviously unanimous. — Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that a close was unmerited, just noting that it was closed incorrectly. You say that people agreed it should be speedy closed, but you didn't state speedy close in your closing rationale at all or which rule of WP:SK it actually fell under. When you are going to stand in for an admin you should try to be precise here. I'm also not trying to start any argument here, you are the one being combative. Just a "oh, oops, my bad" would suffice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree with your rationale that my addition of the aquaculture section being "blatantly false." Even the wiki definition of aquaculture is "the breeding, growing, and harvesting of fish and other aquatic plants, also known as farming in water," and my sources, while relatively newer developments, talk about the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology being responsible for maintaining and raising 10 generations of squid. I'll link one of the examples: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/04/japan-makes-squid-farming-breakthrough-as-wild-catches-plummet

As for the Jumbo Flying squid technically being a "wild fishery" that is also considered a form of aquaculture: "Alternatively, they can be conducted on well-sheltered shallow waters nearshore of a body of water (inshore aquaculture), where the cultivated species are subjected to relatively more naturalistic environments; or on fenced/enclosed sections of open water away from the shore (offshore aquaculture), where the species are either cultured in cages, racks or bags and are exposed to more diverse natural conditions such as water currents," as quoted from the wiki page. Though after further research I can understand how my calling it aquaculture can be misconstrued. The definition of a wild fishery as per Wikipedia is, "a natural body of water with a sizeable free-ranging fish or other aquatic animal (crustaceans and molluscs) population that can be harvested for its commercial value," so I am more than willing to update this portion of my addition.

My source on hatcheries was relevant in explaining the cultivation methods that can and are used in cephalopod aquaculture. I understand that it is an older source but some of my other sources support this evidence. This is a source directly from the OIST depicting how they have cultivated their aquaculture system(s): https://groups.oist.jp/innovation/sustainable-squid-aquaculture-system-no-0199#:~:text=1.,water%20flow%20and%20tank%20designs.

The same can be said for my source about seine fishing, it is simply referenced to help the reader understand how it works.

I understand that squid aquaculture is a relatively new development, so there is little to no documentation or writing about it in Wikipedia. I am more than willing to modify any information further into the future if/when it is updated. I am also willing to discuss any further edits or comments you have on the topic if you have any questions. Bluefish89 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I disagree with your reverted edits which I added previously and you reverted.

• Was not outlandish and wrong, Montreal-Mirabel Int'l Airport was the largest airport in the world at the time of its opening in October 1975, at 98,000 acres. The buffer area does count in the overall area of the airport (the facility was 17,000 acres and the buffer area was app. 81,000 acres). YMX held the record for largest airport in the world until 1999, in which they eventually did sell off land after that. The wikipedia page states all of this and go to reference #12 for the history of the airport.

• DFW Airport is 17,207 acres in size, according to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) documents, has been for years, according to FAA Form 5010 for DFW. The FAA is the gold standard (along with SkyVector) for all info about an airport, especially the acreage of a facility and now you are going to say its totally false info? How can you tell the actual size of an airport from a photo on google? So the FAA is wrong about every other airport's area in the USA as well? You reverted the area for Denver Int'l Airport as well, what the FAA says is accurate, it is 33,531 acres, its their property, whether there is airport infrastructure or open land, they own that land. Theairportman33531 (talk)

Theairportman33531 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It's false to say Mirabel was the largest airport in the world, rather, YMX held the record for most property owned by an airport authority. The airport authority owned a lot of land it could expand into, but that doesn't mean the airport itself was the largest since most of it remained farmland. Same for Denver, just because the airport authority owns that much land doesn't mean much when it's mostly farmland. Dallas and Fort Worth may own 17,207 acres of land surrounding the airport, but that doesn't mean the facility itself it that size. Google Maps has a measure distance function that will give you the area – drawing a huge rectangle that matches File:DFW Airport Diagram.svg is only about 12,000 acres, and even that includes a ton of highways, forested land, warehouses, and neighborhoods. 'Property owned by an airport' ≠ 'airport'. So I'm not saying the FAA is wrong, but these statistics, if used, should have the proper context without false or misleading comparisons or emphasis that aren't actually meaningful to readers. — Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Aeroroutes is not a reliable source. The information in the article is properly sourced. If it is out of date then a reason should be give. Aeroroutes cannot be believed. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Why are you adding false/outdated information? The reason is that the flight is no longer operating and the content was not accurate. A source being an SPS and not optimal for sourcing within the article does NOT mean it's unbelievable and can't be mentioned outside of the article or as a basis to then look at Volaris.com, Google Flights, or other sources. — Reywas92^Talk 15:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

If a valid source can be found then fine, but again, aeroroutes cannot / should not be trusted. We need to be as careful when we remove information as when we add it. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I have seen no reason it should not be trusted. Just because SPSes should be avoided within articles does not mean this site is inherently untrustworthy when it cites its own source. The accurate removal was much more careful than your reflexive revert that added incorrect information. Reywas92^Talk 15:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a different source - that's all it needed. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Imam Khomeini International Airport, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. This is effectively what you are doing by restoring this edit - there are dozens of routes that have no source, and you’re restoring unreliable sources that were legitimately removed. I absolutely want the routes to go back in, but they must be properly sourced with reliable sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, again. Why did you revert the data that I placed about the size of DEN, they own that land, I specified that, but you left the facilities section data alone, which was in the lede paragraph.

I entered the data (area) for DFW airport, and you changed "Covering" to "Owning" which I dont have I problem with that at all. You let my entry for DFW Airport stand. So whats the difference when I specified "Owning" for DEN Airport? Why didnt you let that stand? There is an inconsistency here. Lets come to a compromise here.Theairportman33531 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not a fan of including this statistic in the lead of the DFW article either. It's not actually meaningful to anyone that the airport property includes so many square miles when it's mostly farmland or used for other purposes, so there's not much point to having it in the lead. For this particular sentence for Denver, it's misleading to combine both the size of the property with the comparison in the same sentence, particularly a comparison that mentions a global statistic involving another airport that also owns a lot of unused land but is actually physically smaller. For DFW, it is still the second largest in the US when considering only airport infrastructure, so the rest of the sentence was still accurate, but including the property size doesn't really aid in understanding since it's not an appropriate basis for the comparison. It doesn't actually inform readers to use this number to say it's the largest or second largest airport because it lacks the context, so I think it's better to include that statistic in the body of the article. Do you think the important thing is to include the statistic or the superlative? — Reywas92^Talk 01:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The statistic. One request, can I insert the acreage (33,531) for DEN in the Facilities section where the data is now?Theairportman33531 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that would be optimal! — Reywas92^Talk 17:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a good day. Theairportman33531 (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, for your information, as you were involved in the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists or the RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT at WT:NOT, I wanted to let you know that the discussed broader RfC has been opened at WP:VPP#RfC - The inclusion of destination lists in Airport articles. If you wish to contribute, please feel free. Many thanks! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Since the previous discussion, because of my poor judgement at grouping together unrelated sources, was a mess and was archived with no outcome, I've started a fresh, targeted, discussion about FR24. Pinging you because you were in the old discussion :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Look, I have absolutely no problem with destination lists existing providing they’re well sourced, which many are. But you cannot keep restoring destination lists which have zero sources, such as at Hermosillo International Airport or Springfield–Branson National Airport. It’s basic WP:V that these need reliable sources, and it is current community consensus, as much as either of us may disagree, that independent sources are used - WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT links directly to the last RfC that was held on these lists, and the consensus is clear at least to me. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

It's a whole lot easier to add sources to content that exists but lacks a source than it is to rebuild from scratch. Again, Wikipedia does not require unsourced content to be removed on sight – content should be verifiable. Blind adherence to the worst RFC closure I've ever seen and removing accurate, non-controversial content is not improving the project or better informing readers. Reywas92^Talk 16:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, here's the problem - you or I might not like an RfC, but deliberately ignoring it is tantamount to disruptive editing. It was an open RfC (one which I didn't participate in I might add, so I have no horse in this race), and it was closed with a consensus. If you disagree with the closure, then feel free to start a closure challenge. But for now, that is community consensus whether we like it or not.

As for removal of unsourced content - it's my opinion and many others that it should be removed, as it shouldn't have been added in the first place. That aside however, it's explicitly not permitted to add or restore unsourced content - that's the fundamental principle of WP:V. And it is that that you did in the two articles I linked. The others I agree are far more nuanced, as many sources were removed and removed, so it's not just unsourced content… I'm still unsure what that particular editor is doing. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The question for that RFC was "Should airport articles include tables that display all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to?" It was not "What sources may be used", and most people did not answer the question that way. There was rampant misunderstanding of primary/secondary/independent/non-independent sources, including from the closer who inappropriately expanded their closure beyond what was asked and addressed. That was not community consensus. We already have an RFC going, and it seems you want to do another regarding sourcing, but I doubt it will be productive since adding artificial restrictions to a particular type of content beyond what Wikipedia actually requires to verify it only makes things worse. GeogSage put it well. If you think unsourced content should be removed, you're welcome to start with a random page in Category:All articles with unsourced statements – why focus on deleting information that is accurate, uncontroverial and trivially easy to verify? Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said above - if you think the previous RfC was flawed, then follow the correct process and open a closure review. You are not judge, jury and executioner - you cannot make up your own conclusion because you think an RfC was flawed, that goes right in the face of what Wikipedia is about - working as a community. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

There was already a closure review by the person who started it, who wanted it overturned so that everything should be deleted. It's two years later and we have an ongoing discussion that is showing clearly that the community wants this content. Reywas92^Talk 16:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

There is an RfC yes - we cannot draw conclusions from an ongoing RfC however, especially when the question being asked doesn’t involve how the lists are meant to be sourced. The RfC being discussed here is unambiguous in how it was closed. Quite simply, you’re deciding to ignore that community consensus because you either disagree or don’t like it - and I’m sorry, but that’s disruptive.

I’ll repeat myself one last time - if you don’t like an RfC closure, then open a closure review. If that doesn’t work, then sorry but the community consensus didn’t go the way you wanted it to - and we have to live with that. We don’t unilaterally decide to ignore it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The closure review was a no consensus, if I recall properly. SportingFlyer T·C 13:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Which simply means there's no consensus to overturn the closure - so the closure stands. Remember I'm saying this from the standpoint of someone that also doesn't like the closure. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

What is it you don’t seem to understand about community consensus? Wikipedia is a community project, and that community decided on something. The fact you’re deliberately ignoring that consensus is distinctly disruptive. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

No, our policies show that this information can be verified this way and this was in no way a consensus that can override that. You are deliberately making Wikipedia worse and being disruptive by removing veriable and verified information. Reywas92^Talk 16:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

At your edit at Mexico City International Airport you've yet again completely and conveniently ignored that this consensus exists, and cited the entirety of Aeromexico to the Aeromexico website. You're an editor with vast experience, so why are you willingly choosing to ignore the fact that this consensus exists? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish so this doesn't get dragged into ANI Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)'

I added seven independent sources that verify the content. More sources are better than fewer sources or deleted content, regardless of an unnecessary preference for a certain type of source. Reywas92^Talk 16:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a preference - it is community consensus. And a community consensus which you know full well about, and seem to ignore regularly. I also don't like the outcome of that RfC, even though I didn't participate at the time - but we're all bound by it the same. If you don't like it, then open a new RfC - don't just pretend it doesn't apply and carry on as normal. And I'm not talking about the independent sources you added - they're why I haven't simply reverted the edit. Thank you for adding those. I'm talking about the non-independent sources you've added, blatantly ignoring a consensus you're very well aware of. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

For one, that closure did not ban the inclusion of airline sources (which would be absurd), it said that routes should have independent sources. We can and should encourage the inclusion of both. For example, an independent source may provide additional context about the significance of the route and secondarily verify the airline, while the airline source will still also verify that the content remains up-to-date and give interested readers information about the service. You know you aren't required to be a hardcore enforcer of everything though? You can also add sources or not remove information that you admitted in the talk is accurate. Reywas92^Talk 17:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

As quoted by @ScottishFinnishRadish in the ANI thread - After reviewing the !votes and discussion, it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. There is not a consensus for wholesale removal of such tables, but tables without independent, reliable, secondary sourcing, and where such sourcing cannot be found, should not be in the articles. Tell me where there's any ambiguity here - tables may only be included in articles when supported by independent, reliable, secondary sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

And there's still nothing saying airline sources are banned from inclusion altogether in addition to other reliable sources. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

So explain to us how you believe airline sources meet independent, reliable, secondary then - the above is absolutely crystal clear in stating that those are the sources that are required for these tables. What's your logic here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying they are independent, which is why I did add seven non-airline sources to MEX. But airline sources are not forbidden in addition to independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 17:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Airline sources may be reliable, but rarely independent or secondary. This is one of those topics I dread wading into, but I see Danners430 and ScottishFinnishRadish as absolutely correct here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

And yes, RFCs that are closed as valid are controlling as one of the most powerful indicators of current consensus. If someone is brought to ANI for regularly ignoring an RFC, I will very frequently support a community-issued topic ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The RfC close was contentious and was reviewed, and the review was no consensus-ed. I for one don't think the close was justified based on the discussion, but the community doesn't have consensus on that. Still, the problem here is that we could fix this disruption entirely if we added "citation needed" to the routes instead of deleting content which has been in place for years. SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

So as of right now, the close stands and is valid. Yes, none of us like it - but it stands until such time as it is overturned. My hope is that will be soon, but until then… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Alqueire (measure of land) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 28 § Alqueire (measure of land) until a consensus is reached. GobsPint (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect The Lonesome Place (short story) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 28 § The Lonesome Place (short story) until a consensus is reached. GobsPint (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Could we redirect this as ATD? Bearian (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

To where? I often like to do that but it's not mentioned in East Goshen Township, Pennsylvania or elsewhere, nor did I find a basis to include it, though that would easier than an AFD. — Reywas92^Talk 14:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed critique showing me examples of where the articles was going off the rails. I was motivated to distill the commonality of what the researchers were saying on particular topics out of the thought that it would give some nutshell concepts casual readers could hang on to from the article subsection. It was an ex- literature student's vanity speaking. I have removed them with the thought that such summaries might be supported using anthropological or ethnographic textbooks or related online sites as sources. If none exist, then they don't belong and the continuity and pedagogic objectives will just have to suffer. Anyway, I realize that you were only listing some examples, and I will be looking at it closer to identify more. J JMesserly (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you please be more careful when reverting? You’ve removed a number of perfectly good sources, re-added Routes Online (which is also covered by WP:AEROROUTES, but understandable - it’s not obvious), a number of primary sources (you know what I’m referencing there), and a large number of routes with no source at all. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Again, primary sources are not banned, but we are working on adding independent sources as well. Moreover, I added added several general sources, so nothing will be unsourced or unverifiable. Removing routesonline. Reywas92^Talk 17:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  My friend, they are when it comes to these destination lists. I don't know why I have to keep going over this - there is community consensus at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, which was established through an RfC, that independent reliable sources are required for these tables. How many times do I have to point you to that consensus? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Where does it say these reliable sources are banned? Where??? Just because we want to add independent sources does not mean other reliable sources must be removed. I'm working on finding more independent sources, but as you know, it benefits no one to remove verifiable content and the sources that verify the content. The independent sources at the top of the table also verify the routes. Reywas92^Talk 17:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

    airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. What are you adding? Non-independent sources. How is this so difficult to get through? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

    • How it is so difficult to get through that that still doesn't say that non-independent sources are banned? Independent sources should be added, but that doesn't say non-independent sources must be removed. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

      No it doesn't say non-independent sources must be removed - and that isn't what is being discussed at all. However it says they can't be used, as only independent sources can be used. You are adding new primary sources… as well as adding unsourced content. The first isn't allowed per the aforementioned quote, the latter is just basic Verifiability. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Administrator note Ideally this discussion should take place on the article talk page so other interested parties can contribute. That said, please do not restore contested edits until WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. Thank you (both) for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I've initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements.

Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking other wiki users, the page is suggested for deletion and the reason is explained, you can't just undo without providing a valid reason: You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Why did you restore paragraphs that don't have a source? ~2026-45400-4 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect "the Anti-Heros" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 29 § "the Anti-Heros" until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Greetings Reywas92,

Since you've nominated the article Father Jerzy Popiełuszko Street for deletion and I've added sources that I'm doing my best to make it notable, why not merging it into Father Jerzy Popiełuszko article or creating an article of the lists of cities named after Father Jerzy Popiełuszko? I'm just giving suggestions. Thanks!

Best regards, Inajd0101

Inajd0101 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Inajd0101, yes, I think merging it to Jerzy Popiełuszko#Monuments would make sense. The sources you added don't really establish notability for the street itself; lots of road are named in memorial of people. Seeing the other articles you've created, I think splitting that section into a List of memorials to Jerzy Popiełuszk could work well too! — Reywas92^Talk 01:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend putting monuments, places, and memorials dedicated to Father Jerzy Popiełuszko to List of memorials to Jerzy Popiełuszko because it would be a better choice since it wouldn't be interesting that the monuments are all in Father Jerzy Popiełuszko article and also it can be too much to bear in my opinion. I'm just suggesting. I understand that the article isn't notable enough; but at the same time, no need to nominate the deletion of this article since there are sources I put already.

However, no biggie since I understand now. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McGhee Tyson Airport, a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Eagle was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted your bad edit again. If you want to continue with it, please discuss on the talk page, explaining, among other things, why you think all references to London should be removed from the article. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not a bad edit, that was a bad intro because that's not the most important thing to say. I also added a reference to London later, so that's wrong. — Reywas92^Talk 15:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Logoshimpo. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Template:Maryland that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is for the WP:TE edit summaries restoring {{Largest metropolitan areas of Mexico}}.

Also calling me a liar.

I also said to "consolidate" not any links were "consolidated". Logoshimpo (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

"Already linked" does not describe the removal of more than a dozen relevant links. By your removal, they were no longer linked at all. That was false. — Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You will see my reply at my talk but I'm posting here as well to ask that you not comment when on fire. As you know, there are many frustrations in life and particularly here. We have to live with them and not get excited. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion about templates was archived. Logoshimpo (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, No. If you don't like the templates you can convert them to embedded tables, but I remain utterly baffled why you don't like those either. There is absolutely no reason not to list a country's largest cities in the country's article. Only a link to the full list is not an acceptable alternative, as the main country article should summarize that. — Reywas92^Talk 14:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Please don't remove templates or the listing from CP. Even though that you are right that it's a US government work, you could have just noted that on the listing. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 09:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Reywas92. :-) Could you advise me at Talk:Kai Newkirk? Tom Haws (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Scientelensia has asked for a deletion review of Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy. Because you participated in the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Orange sticker (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Best wishes, Scientelensia (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to add – I know you have been notified already, but Spartaz, with some incivility(!), made it quite clear to me that I should too – I took no chances. Apologies for the bother. Scientelensia (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

What was your reasoning behind merging the Pershing t-shirt and the portrait of Rachel Reeves? Both were suffiecent IMO to stand alone as articles. We need more articles on creative endevours by women and this has harmed that metric. I was planning to nominate the Rachel Reeves portrait for DYK. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe they should be separated from their context as standalone pages. The sources are not particularly substantive and the content fits perfectly well in the main articles. Portraits are pretty generically common and have been made for many Chancellors of the Exchequer, so it's not clear why this one needs its own page especially since there's a page that can cover all such aspects of the chancellorship including artistic representation. Coverage of the T-shirt fits in well with Hamnett's activism as a whole in context of other shirts. Her biographical article is improved with this information there rather than hidden through a wikilink. We need more content on womens' creative endeavors and you've done great there, but you don't need separate articles to do that and article count is a poor metric. — Reywas92^Talk 14:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of orbital launch systems. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dncmartins (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)