User talk:Z1720

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

300 years ago, a Bach cantata was born: happy new year! - Lets get more culture to OTD, - I like that! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

... inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Mozart music for today! - I'm not sure that you got what I wanted to express by the Bach example: that the music that is performed in religious services is nothing newspapers (journals, thesises, ...) write much about, but it's the key thing church groups give to the world. I could just cut the uncited paragraphs but that would leave the concerts alone, with undue weight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: I think sources, especially those on classical religious compositions, will comment on what occasion the composition was created for. As for where it is performed: I don't think Wikipedia needs specific mention when a random church in California performs the piece, but if it is part of a major event mentioned by newspapers, it can be included in the article. Is there a specific example that we could take a look at to help clarify? Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  We don't talk about an article about a musical piece, but about a church, not only its architecture, but also its people - congregation - choirs ..., that form it and give it character. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  • @Gerda Arendt: Sorry about that: I was thinking of the wrong article! For church articles, especially those that don't receive significant coverage, there might be less text about their activities because secondary sources do not consider them notable. Information about the congregation or parish might be published by the Catholic eparchy, and church architecture might be published in various sources about local buildings or region churches. Since Wikipedians are not considered reliable sources, we can only rely upon what reliable sources have said. Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow) might be a good article to look at how one church article cites events at the church. I hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

    There are sources about the architecture, there are sources about the organ, there are sources about the concerts, - there are no sources about the music in the services, and this has been like that for centuries as I tried to say by the Bach example. One mentioning of a cantata, while he wrote about 200, and that one not saying anything specific about the music. Back to the question: I could just cut the uncited paragraphs but that would leave the concerts alone, with undue weight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

    20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor (see my story, and thanks for the main page position!) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) - I'm on vacation, not in the mood for digging up refs. I may work on the St John Passion when getting into Lent. - Good luck for becoming TFA delegate, I just hope that you'll still have time for the OTD improvements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello there,

I've never asked for help before, despite being an editor since 2008, so I'm sorry if this is not the proper place or way to do this, but after reading around, I was directed that this is the best course of action for this situation.

There is a user attempting to edit war with me, frequently reverting my edits which I am making in good faith and I believe to be worthy additions to an article. This user has continued to revert my edits despite the fact that I have tried backing my edits with the appropriate policies and guidelines offered by Wikipedia.

The user has then taken it upon themself to bring this into my talk page and leave me a message saying I could potentially get blocked and banned for edit warring... when it is this user who has begun this situation in the first place.

I removed their message from my talk page, and the user reverted that back too. Aren't I allowed to have complete freedom and control over what goes onto my talk page? Is this harrassment? How do I get this behavior to stop, and were my edits to the article in question okay?

Article in question: Adam the Woo

User in question: User:Magical Golden Whip

I have also noticed other people complaining on this user's talk page of other disruptive and unhelpful edits and reverts to their edits as well.

Thank you so much for your help and I appreciate your time, and if this is not the appropriate avenue to resolve this, than I apologize and would appreciate further guidance on how to resolve this the correct way. Devann (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Devann: Commenting without looking into the situation at the article in question: My suggestion is to outline why you think the information should be in the article on the article's talk page. This will allow the other editor to explain why they have reverted your edits. Do not add the information back into the article until there is consensus to do so. If you need help getting consensus, WP:3O or WP:DRN might help to get additional editor opinions.

Yes, you are allowed to remove whatever you want from your talk page, but that means you cannot add the inforamtion back into the article without getting consensus to do so: you'll probably need to engage with this editor to get that consensus. If you do not want the editor to comment on your talk page, kindly request that they stop (or ask them to direct comments about the article to the article's talk page instead.) Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I stopped reverting the changes and engaged in discussion as to why the edits were valid on the talk page of the article in question. They were still refuting my claims with no good reason or proof that what I was adding wasn't worth adding. Despite the fact I stopped editing the article and moved discussion to the article's talk page, they persist to edit my personal talk page. Devann (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Devann: I see in your talk page history that they haven't re-added a message for several minutes. If they do it again, I suggest keeping the message up for a little bit, but respond below it that they should post on the article talk page instead and that they should stop posting on your talk page. While you may disagree with their reason, it is valid to say that information should not be supported by a YouTube link: it just depends on whether the video is a reliable source. At the end of the day, it is a content dispute and if you think the information should be added, I suggest opening a discussion on DRN to try to find a resolution. Yes, this will take some time but it is better than edit warring and getting topic banned from the page. Another solution is to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to editing another article on the site. Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  The content that was being posted to my Talk page was some sort of warning about edit warring and being blocked from editing for doing so, which I believe would not be appropriate to be placed on an article's talk page.

  So the information that was added was done originally by another user. The information in question is the following:

  "Justin Scarred, a close friend, publicly honored Williams’s life and work, describing him as a significant creative presence."

  The source for this statement was a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXnBzjuGSBw) of Justin Scarred talking about Adam the Woo.

  So I'm confused. Does a video uploaded by the person who himself described Adam as an influence to his work not count as an authoritative source?

  Additionally, as I said, there were other people complaining on this user's talk page of this user doing the same thing to other people who were also making good faith edits to other articles. Devann (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Devann: In my opinion, I don't think that information should be added to the article. I think it's too much information and a non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards) friend's opinion is not really noteworthy for an article, regardless of where the source came from. As for the user's talk page: if the user is being disruptive over multiple pages, you can file a case at WP:ANI but be warned: your behaviour on the article page will also be scrutinized, and in my opinion there is evidence that you were edit warning on that page. Z1720 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  Understood. Thank you very much for the info. You were very helpful! Devann (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  Hey @Z1720, I would like to follow up on this. A month later, or four days ago, this same user took it upon himself to look through my contributions, and revert something I added to a completely separate article for absolutely no reason other than what I can assume is to intimidate me. Hasn't said a word to me, haven't communicated with this person since last month when after I communicated with you, the incident ended and I removed myself from the situation. I logged in today to find that this random and completely innocent edit that I made in October and has been there since was reverted on January 31 without reason or explanation.

  A precursory glance at this user's talk page will immediately show a few incidences of people asking why their edits were also reverted without reason or explanation.

  This user has done this to multiple people, refuses to explain why he does this, and apparently nobody has pushed this situation further, so he just keeps doing it.

  Please advise on how to best deal with this, because I genuinely don't understand why this particular edit was reverted. Devann (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Devann: I am unsure why the edit was reverted, but it might have been to avoid WP:EASTEREGG. Have you tried messaging them on their talk page or the article talk page? That should be attempted first. Also, your statement that the user looked through your contributions is a very serious statement that requires proof. How do you know that the user looked through your contributions, and didn't just stumble upon the page through their own editing? If you think WP:HOUND is taking place, I suggest submitting a complaint on ANI, but there needs to be significant evidence of this in order for action to be taken. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey Z. I've been feeling like I'll hurl the past few hours, so I don't think I'll be able to make it to the event tomorrow. I'd appreciate if you sent my regards to everyone. I desperately want to be there but I know in my heart that it's not the best choice to make. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Clovermoss: I'm sorry that you aren't feeling well. I will send everyone your regards. Feel better soon! Z1720 (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  I slept until almost 3 pm today, so I think I made the right call last night. Hopefully everyone is having fun. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Are primary sources like references #48 at the article Tidus acceptable as a sources at our modern FAs? Probably not right? (I don't want to tag it as potential article to be sent at FAR to avoid conflict). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Boneless Pizza!: I looked at what this citation is supporting, and I think a better source can be found to support that information (Tidus is a blitzball player from Zanarkand). Afterall, those are his primary character traits at the beginning of the game. If this was at FAC, I would have (as someone who knows this game extremely well) asked the nominator to find another source. By itself, I do not think it is enough to send to FAR. Z1720 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Unrelated topic but do you think a newly promoted article that was poorly reviewed can be sent to GAR immediately right? I'm talking about ChatGPT. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Boneless Pizza!: Yes, you can, but I would probably bring it up at WT:GAN first since it passed GAN to ensure that others agree that the review needed to be more thorough. FWIW, there is a "citation needed" template in the article and the entire "Education" section is uncited, so I wouldn't have passed this review at this time. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Long221220 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[Tôi tố cáo Nvdtn19 cố tình sửa đổi bài viết của tôi Gang Hyeon (https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Hyeon)]

• @Long221220: Can you post the discussion heading below? I'm not sure which conversation you are referring to. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Xin lỗi, tôi khá tức giận lúc đó giờ tôi mấy biết mình sai! Long221220 (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed that your unlock of Benlisquare on July 21, 2023 was never logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Unblock conditions. It was recently amended to narrow the topic ban. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Why on the football ones, do you just write, Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Can I ask why you don't do a proper analysis? I've asked you before about your process, frankly, but I don't mean to be rude, but I find your whole process very unappealing and fundamentally not helpful on the workload you do. Certain area's on wikipedia are ghost towns, surprisingly football articles and top tier ones like Pep's gets a lot of editing and users to it. So I do question your overall goal. You also have the ability to improve those articles instead of doing a flat! Lets reassess! So I really do question what you think you're going to accomplish here. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Govvy: GARs do not assess every aspect of the GA criteria. Instead, it is assumed that if the reviewer doesn't mention something, the article fulfills that aspect of the criteria. Keeping an assessment short allows interested editors to quickly read my concerns and address them: when I have given long assessments in the past, editors have stated that I am being too nitpicky and creating walls of text. I use this script to highlight uncited text in an article, and if asked I can add citation needed templates. Z1720 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I see that I am the only one that responded in effort to improve the article and I was told to wait without any further instruction or list of improvements to be made. Now the discussion has been closed and the article has been demoted from GA status. It appears the other editors had no interest in participating or meeting GA guidelines. I made changes and offered to remove the banners, but I was told to wait. What is going on here? DN (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Darknipples: I recommend using the WP:PING system on Wikipedia to get editor's attention. Also, editors are volunteers and they don't have to respond on the talk page. If you want, you can fix the article yourself, then remove the banners. As for why it was delisted, I would reach out to the editor that closed the discussion and get more information from them. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I added Wanda Perdelwitz to the anniversaries because of the frustrating DYK nomination. Yes, it's no round birthday, but nor is 1980. Do you understand? I would like to avoid having to make her GA, - there are so many other open projects. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: Is this person moderately or significantly notable? Has she won any special recognition? For actresses, since there are so many at OTD, I try to limit appearances at OTD for those who are significant in their field. I also see that she was at ITN in October 2025, so I would want to wait a year until she appeared on the Main Page again. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Have your year or two or three. She was on ITN for not even 24 hours while others get five days. I wanted to make up for that by DYK, - it caused the usual frustration. She was on a highly popular TV series, but popular in Germany which seems to "count" less. In 2017, she received a RTV Award, naming her "Coolste Kommissarin" for the role". How notable is the singer who has her career still ahead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  • @Gerda Arendt: I try not to put actors at OTD that are only notable for being on a popular TV show. Instead, I try to include those who have been given a major award or other notable achievement. I don't know why Perdelwitz was featured on ITN for a short time, and what the concerns at DYK were, but OTD is not a consolation prize for articles that didn't appear elsewhere. I included Mami Kawada because Asian and female biographies are underrepresented and her achievement was her songs used in various anime theme songs. I'll admit it's a weak rationale, and would probably replace it if something better came along that respected article diversity. I also suggest that you place articles in the eligible list (not in the template itself) when adding articles, as sometimes when I swap hooks I assume that the articles in the template were the ones used in 2025. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

    Thank you for explaining. The reason why she was on ITN for a short while is that many others got eligible, which happens. Deaths are not planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Tamás Vásáry today, who began his career with a Mozart concerto at age 8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Today something new: a 100th birthday of someone alive, György Kurtág! In 2004 I was there when he and his wife played for the Rheingau Musik Festival where he was the featured composer. They played as the 2019 DYK said, on an upright piano, - listen, the last piece was the same. - More pics uploaded, enjoy. And Rosiestep shows the latest cat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Today's main page features four biographies I helped to bring there, two women and two men, three opera singers (one pictured) and an actor, - a record for me, I believe ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

You kindly left note on my talk page about GAR's that you opened on my talk page and I did nothing about about most of them, because I was mostly inactive. I'm sorry, but I think that the GAR of Monifieth was - sorry, to put it impolitely - a "drive-by review" by the user:TompaDompa, and that it was not reviewed in accordance with GAR and GAN. Your only comment on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Monifieth/1 was "Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Education" section. The "Demography" section also needs to be updated with the latest census figures".

Going through them in reverse order: the article states: "Accurate demographic information for Monifieth is complicated by the town's inclusion in the Dundee locality in the 2001 census. Estimates from 2020 put the population at 8,860 [Ref 1].". Well yes, but there is a citation 1 which leads to https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/publications/population-estimates-for-settlements-and-localities-in-scotland-mid-2020/ . Census in the UK are normally taken in the first year of a decade 2001, 2011, 2021, e.g. but the 2021 census in Scotland was taken in 2022. I would suggest that mid-2020 information is as good as the latest (2022) Scoland census.

I happen to agree that the whole of the Education section is unreferenced. Now I might regard the statement "The once well manicured grounds where pupils used to play now lie overgrown with weeds." as contenious, but iterestingly no one marked it as such. There would have been a much stronger case for delisting the article if it had reviewed it against Wikipedia:Good article criteria and failed against those criteria./ The User TompaDompa appears to have failed the article against your words of 3rd January "Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Education" section. The "Demography" section also needs to be updated with the latest census figures". There is no evidence in the Reassessment page that it was reviewed against Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment - particularly this criteria: "The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible".

My advice would be restore it to GAN, and then open a new GAR - and review it correctly.Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Pyrotec: The notice on your talk page was a standard notice given to editors connected to a good article. You are not required to respond to them.
• Unlike a good article nomination (which an article receives before it is deemed to have reached GA status) a good article review only states concerns an editor has with an article adhering to any of the GA criteria. If you would like this to change, I suggest posting on WT:GA, but I would oppose changing a requirement that GAR be full reviews as it puts an undue burden on the reviewer and would prohibit reviewers from posting new GARs.
• GAR states "Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened." I am not interested in bringing these articles back to GA status. I am willing to help any editor who is interested by adding citation needed templates where applicable and re-reviewing articles.
• While some editors wish I was more detailed in my reviews, I think that would not be the best use of my wiki-time. Furthermore, there are hundreds of good articles that require lots of edits to meet the GA criteria. I decided long ago that I cannot fix them all myself, so I post them to GAR to see if any editors are interested in resolving concerns. You are always welcome to re-nominate articles to GAN.
• Editors are welcome to post concerns with my reviews at WT:GA to receive additional input from other editors. Z1720 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  My concern is with a GAR that you opened on th 3rd January and another editer Closed and delisted the article on the 18th January using your comments. I don't beleive it was reveiwed against the criteria of the GAR/1: your citeria was that it should contain data from the latest census figures - that is a personal requirement not a GA requirement and clearly it did to refer mid 2020 figures - reference 1 had them, can I reopen the GAR? Pyrotec (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Pyrotec: That might be a question for WT:GA. I was also concerned that the article had numerous uncited statements and paragraphs. Those would need to be resolved. I am not sure reverting to the 2010 GA version would resolve my concerns, as that version also contains uncited statements and paragraphs. This is why, if it was asked to the community, I would probably oppose reopening the GAR until those concerns were resolved. Z1720 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720, I think we are in agreement that the article as it current stands does not comply with the standard for GA. - you commented on the Education section 'it was unreferenced ....' - I'd go much further: it was un-encyclopedic in places e.g. comments about unkept grounds / grass [uncut], a teacher was mentioned by name (quite possibly a living person - so that must be referenced).

  The Demographic section had three paragraphs, two of which were referenced, the final one was unferenced; the first paragraph specifically mentioned the 2001 census and had a link to the wikipedia article on the 2001 UK census; but the end of paragraph citation [1] was to a paper published by the National Records of Scotland on 31 March 2022 and covered Scoland's population up to mid-2020 and that citation was referenced as being retrieved on 31 March 2022. So, the comment "The "Demography" section also needs to be updated with the latest census figures." had no validity. Looking at the article's history, in July 2020 the Demographics section was citing 2008 population figures, I beleive that the Mid-2020 population data went in on or before 12th January 2021. This version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monifieth&oldid=999936960 has mid-2020 data and that five years before this review.

  However, it's the process of reviewing that I am also commenting on. You opened it, so you are the lead reviewer; but it was closed by another editor and delisted two weeks later - 'no progress' (which was almost a true statement, the article had been updated from 2001 population data to 2008 population data to mid-2020 population data and it was referenced with a citation number "1"). Pyrotec (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Pyrotec: I can only account for my actions, which were to open the GAR (after leaving a talk page notification and waiting at least two weeks), posting my comments (which I intentionally leave short to avoid tldr and getting bogged down in details) and commenting when progress has stalled (because GARs can't stay open indefinitely). The best way to avoid an article losing its GA status is to monitor it and ensure everything is updated and cited. Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your conversations, above and elsewhere. I've recently come back after a 3.5 year gap, so I've not been reading my talk page for that amount of time. I did a lot of GAN reviews (close to 500), but only a few GAR reviews; but I treated the GAR review the same as I would a GAN review. I don't like the new system of GAR reviews, which in my (biased) opinion reverses the the former system - use editor-inertia to quick fail GAs and then move on. When I have a bit more free time, I'm going to work on half-a-dozen delisted GAs and resubmit them to GAN. Seems to be a total waste of reviewers time, but that seems to be the system. Pyrotec (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for reviewing the article, even if it resulted in a quick-fail.

I'm a little lost on which element of the article criteria it's a "long way from meeting," (emphasis added) per GAFAIL.

You noted that there were a couple issues with citations, both there being too few inline citations in certain paragraphs and the issue of duplicate citations, but those are both easy to fix and relatively minor—I counted a very small percentage of paragraphs without at least one and all were surrounded by citations that shared the same information. In other words, it's hard to say that the article is a long way from meeting criterion 2 on that basis.

Similar with your comment on there being a lot of one-sentence paragraphs. Though I think the notion that 4-6 is somehow required for GA (or that it, by rule, helps the flow of the text to have all paragraphs be the exact same length) is an incorrect reading of MOS: Layout (which only notes that too-short paragraphs and too-long paragraphs could be bad), it's also a pretty simple fix for the relatively few one-sentence paragraphs.

Last is the reference to the length. That is not an easy fix, so if that's the issue, I can understand a quickfail. The issue is that, per GANOT (which, yes, is an essay, but still helps define the GA criteria),

"These criteria do not impose arbitrary size restrictions (in terms of kilobytes, characters or readable prose). Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic: WP:SIZE is not a good article criterion. However, size issues may be indicative of genuine GA problems with coverage (3a), concision and focus (1a and 3b), or the use of summary style."

So the only piece of the quickfail criteria I can't easily fix is something that is not meant to be itself a GA criterion. If you had feedback on those other areas, I'd be happy to hear it, but the advice of splitting a biography (of an old, generally accomplished person with a lot that could make a WP page) doesn't really sound right. I can't find much interest or value in spinning off, for example, an "Early Life of James Baker" solo article.

I understand that there are a lot of GA articles to review and that this one is an especially long (and thus especially hard to review) one, but it's not particularly helpful to have this bit of feedback. There are a reason that the criteria don't ask GA nominators to go through every single one of the MOS to qualify, so it would be better if reviewers understand which rules are required and which MOS guidelines are just recommended.

Either way, none of this is of course your worry going forward. I don't ask you to revisit your review, it was what it was. But I wanted to communicate that I found it somewhat unhelpful. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dizzycheekchewer: Some comments below:

• If the article was close to meeting the GA criteria, I would not quick-fail it. There are over 600 nominations at GAN: to maximize reviewer time (which is at a premium) it is important that nominators post articles that are as close as possible to meeting the criteria.
• GAs require more than a citation in every paragraph: every statement in a GA (with some exceptions like the lead) needs a citation after the statement that verifies the information that comes before it. This means that there needs to be a citation at the end of every paragraph to verify the information that comes before it. Upon a quick skim, I counted over 50 statements that were uncited, including entire paragraphs. If you would like, I can add citation needed templates to statements that need them. I do not think this is a quick fix.
• This article has more than a couple of one-or-two sentence paragraphs. There are numerous places where there are short paragraphs that make the article feel more like a list and difficult to read. Most of these should be merged together.
• The GA criteria 3b states that an article, "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." There are no arbitrary limits, but WP:TOOBIG gives a general guideline and this article is far from the 9,000 where information should be trimmed. When skimming through the article, I found many instances of information that was too detailed and specific for an article that is a general introduction of the topic. No, this is not an easy or quick task, which was one of the reasons why this was quick-failed.

If you believe that I misinterpreted the GA criteria, you can post on WT:GA. Z1720 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I was planning on nominating this for FA and I was wondering if you could take a look. (I'm guessing this is way too short notice for a 14 May appearance?)--Launchballer 22:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Launchballer: I'm scheduling April right now, so there's still time to get this for May. If the nomination is going well, sometimes you can give co-ords a heads up on the TFA talk page that you would like to have an article for a specific date. That said, I'm not sure from the article why you would want to nominate for 14 May. Also, TFA in the past has been hesitant to put adult film stars on the Main Page, so it would be a good idea to give the co-ords a heads up if you want it to appear on the Main Page. If you open a PR I'll leave comments there. Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I opened the PR. Re 14 May, there was an RfC last year as to whether to include that as her birthday, though the account it used has since been deleted. There have been numerous discussions on DYK that have found adult film stars suitable for that section so I'll dig out a list before I head to the TFA talk page.--Launchballer 00:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I’m on the road. Will look at the toadies on Friday. Sorry for delay. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I am also busy for the next little while, so no rush from me. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Big Black River Bridge (May 17, 1863), Battle of Plum Point Bend (May 10, 1862), and Battle of Jackson (May 14, 1863) are all FAs which have never run at TFA. Clearly, no more than one of those would be appropriate to run as TFA in the same May. Plum Point Bend might be a May 2027 candidate and Jackson a May 2028 candidate (to align with the 165th anniverary) although that isn't a super significant anniversary. Would the TFA scheduling philosophy be more inclined to run these on any anniversary, run these on an anniversary year that is a multiple of 5, or run these on a date other than the anniversary of the battle? Perhaps more of a headache would be Second Battle of Newtonia (October 28, 1864), Battle of Byram's Ford (October 22 & 23, 1864), Capture of Sedalia (October 15, 1864), Battle of Little Blue River (October 21, 1864), and Second Battle of Lexington (October 19, 1864). So that's at least 5 years of TFAs if they all run on the battle anniversary, and that's assuming I never get around to taking Battle of Mine Creek (October 25, 1864), Battle of Marmiton River (October 25, 1864), or Battle of Westport (October 23, 1864) to FA. I'd like to be fairly proactive with running my old FAs for TFA given that with some ongoing (positive) life changes I can't predict how much time I'll have for Wikipedia going forward and I think it's beneficial to have the FA nominator still at least somewhat available for when the TFAs. Courtesy ping to @TFA coordinatorsUser:Wehwalt User:Gog the Mild User:Z1720 as well. Hog Farm _Talk 04:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I think my view would be, nice to run on an anniversary if you or I or someone thinks of it, not losing any sleep over not marking a 166th anniversary (or whatever) if not. Five doesn't make a significant difference.Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Hog Farm: Similar thoughts to Wehwalt. Also, many articles listed above concern military history of the American Civil War: if they are scheduled too close together some editors may question why that is the case, so co-ords might use a bit of discretion to have a couple of months between TFA appearances. If you made a non-specific request for an article you wrote, I would try to honour it (as the article's writer has expressed that they don't care when it runs). If you post intentions at WP:TFAP for a specific date, co-ords will see it, although there are no guarantees that it will be scheduled for that date. Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hog Farm. I currently schedule May: assuming this continues I would be happy to run one of the FAs mentioned above each year. Given the positive changes you mention it would be helpful if you could queue them up in Potentials, even if this takes us to 2030. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Heya, nice seeing you at the WikiDiaspora event today. I have a photo of you giving a presentation about Commons, and I just wanted to ask if you were cool with a picture of yourself being uploaded, since it doesn't look like you have a picture of yourself there yet. Best, —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm fine with photos of me uploaded to Commons. It was great seeing you there! I hope you had a great time. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Z1720. I found your name at WP:WREQ - I see you haven't been too involved with edit requests of late, but I would be grateful if you would take a moment to help out at Talk:Bill Ackman#Support of Israel section. There appears to be consensus (proposed here by The Gnome), but we need an uninvolved editor to implement it. Thanks! FMatPSCM (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey there! When you have a chance, I would appreciate your input on this thread on the SpongeBob talk page. Have a great day. 😊 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I hope you are doing well. It was unfortunate to see that the nomination for Bankers' Toadies incident was archived. I look forward to reviewing it at PR and FAC when you list it next time.

Meanwhile, I have an open nomination at PR. Any comments, especially regarding the sources used, would be much appreciated. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! If you're able, I'd love to have your input on this thread. We're not sure whether photo captions from Getty Images are reliable enough to support facts on the page.

Also, just FYI, you have a typo on your user page: "I most working on articles concerning Canadian history." OrdinaryOtter (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you be willing to request the FAC be deleted (i.e. so it's not a fail)? I only ask because I've found several reviews that can be used to strengthen it. Unless you think you can add them to the article quickly, of course. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, looking it over, it'll probably be quick enough to handle without derailing the FAC too much. I'll post what I find there. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Cukie Gherkin: If you post the links below, I can help with adding them to the article. Let me know if you want to be a co-nom and I'll add you. Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I see you created all the pages for April 2026 TFAs, and left {{TFAFULL}} out of most of them (only Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 4, 2026 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 30, 2026 included it). This template is necessary for AnomieBOT to populate Template:TFA title/data.json and the per-day pages like Template:TFA title/April 1, 2026, which it's starting to try to do now. Anomie⚔ 23:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Anomie: Thanks for letting me know. It's my first month as TFA co-ordinator so I still have lots to learn. I added the template to the April 1 TFA. Can you please ensure that it was done correctly? If so, I will do the same thing to all the articles that month. Z1720 (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me, and it caused AnomieBOT to property create Template:TFA title/April 1, 2026 and Special:Diff/1345969653. Anomie⚔ 13:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Err, I see you added the template to the rest of the month, but didn't supply the necessary parameter holding the article title (which you did do for April 1). Anomie⚔ 23:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Anomie: I think I completed this for each date now. Let me know if I need to do anything else. Z1720 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  The ones I checked look good. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 00:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed not using the template was a deliberate change (though I haven't had the time to check yet). The template was also used by Article alerts bot. I noticed entries on reports reappeared, so I checked and I saw you readded them. So I guess I can keep using it instead of finding another solution for parsing the page name? —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

AnomieBOT used to look for the bolded link. Which was a pain, because sometimes people would do the bolding like '''[[link]]''', sometimes <b>[[link]]</b>, sometimes [[link|'''text''']], sometimes [[link|<b>text</b>]], and still sometimes other formatting would confuse the bot (e.g. people doing [[link|"'''text'''"]] despite MOS:AMU). I was glad to switch to the template after noticing it existed in April 18, 2022 (which did like '''{{lang|it|[[link]]}}'''). Anomie⚔ 11:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Apologies for the random message. just wanted to thank you for your work on the Rugrats: Search for Reptar article. I grew up playing this video game, and I have so many fond memories of it, so it was nice to everything that you have done for the article. I unfortunately do not have the time to do a FAC review (and apologies for that), but I still wanted to post a message to thank you for your work on this article. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

hi. Are unreliable sources being used at development section is okay for FAC as long as it is not used excessively? I heard this before that we can. Thoughts? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:49, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• @Boneless Pizza!: Depends on the article, the source, and the context. Which article is it for? Z1720 (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  For Ashley Graham (Resident Evil). The source for development section. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• @Boneless Pizza!: Why is this source considered unreliable? I'm struggling to open the link right now, but I'll try again later. Z1720 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Its more like a fan interview to developers 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you ever use {{FAR}}? It looks like a subst-only template but with no /doc and no way to tell if it's actually used I'm not sure the best thing to do with it. Thanks. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think so? What does the template do? Z1720 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  It looks to preload the "next in the series" for {{Featured article review}} (e.g. if there was an /archive3 it would give a link for creating /archive4). Primefac (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)