Archives

1 Apr. 13-Oct. 10, 2006 2 Oct. 25, 2006-Jan. 1, 2007 3 Jan. 1-Mar. 3, 2007 4 Mar. 5-May 12, 2007 5 May 16-Sept. 18, 2007 6 Sept. 15, 2007-Jan. 25, 2008 7 Jan. 25-Sept. 4, 2008 8 Sept. 9-Dec. 31, 2008 9 Dec. 28, 2008-Jun. 9, 2009 10 Jun. 10-Dec. 31, 2009 11 2010 12 2011-2013 13 2014-2019 Current

Just saw you when I was in an AfD. You of course had the correct rationale! See you around. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Reywas92^Talk 02:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, been a long time. Lightburst (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for deleting all those articles on barren rocks for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, any of these listed as a ledge is almost certainly just a shallow area and not a "barren rock". Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Upcoming Indianapolis event - July 28: Food Deserts & Food Policy
	You are invited to join us at Ruth Lilly Law Library for an edit-a-thon on Food Deserts & Food Policy hosted by Ruth Lilly Law Library and United States National Agricultural Library. Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on food deserts, nutrition, and related local and federal food policy. Thursday, July 28th from 11am-4pm, in Room 235G, Inlow Hall, 530 West New York St. Indianapolis, IN 46202. Visit the Wikipedia/Meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more. We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic, Jere, & Jamie

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 08:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC).)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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!

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Best source I found was [2] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On 8 August 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Reywas92. The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles and redirects needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help. I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines. Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions. If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here. Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	This barnstar is given to you for suggesting a smart solution for list of cities in the Netherlands Antilles at its AfD and for many other awesome contributions to Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ([3]), 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)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Special:Diff/1189275686

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

...this,[4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Driftboating Wow, I had spent so much time looking around on Copernicus for it but that really blends in! User:Eduardheindl added different coordinates [5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You may bring this up at Talk:Tim Walz with sources. I don't know where you got this idea because [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi, can you check what I wrote? I'm not sure I wrote in excellent English: [7]. Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]