User talk:Extraordinary Writ/Archive 6

Hello, I've made 12 edits and had an account more than 4 days. When will I be autoconfirmed to contribute new articles?

Thank you --Official PA Bio (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Official PA Bio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Since your account has made ten or more edits and is more than four days old, you should already be autoconfirmed. If you'd like to check, click here; you should see a box that says "Your account is autoconfirmed." If the box says something else, let me know and we can try to figure out what's wrong. You might also want to take a look at this guide to writing a new article; feel free to ask if you have any questions about that process. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I think I wrote to you but I'm not sure where. I've created my first article ( a lot of work but it was fun) and I'm not sure how to put it through the approval cycle? To ensure non-bias, I substantiated many sources. I need to call out that I am related to the subject so it needs to be checked for bias? How do I do that? thank you Official PA Bio (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you a real person --Kr98k (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Kr98k, I am indeed a real person. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, feel free to ask. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What are you --Kr98k (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Howdy! You may have seen it at FAC on its first nom, but I wanted to notify that Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 is up at FAC again. You did a great GA Review of the article a while back and I just forgot to ping you when creating the nom. AviationFreak💬 20:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've been a bit busy in real life recently, but I'll try to stop by in the not-so-distant future. Hope you're doing well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, EW.

I have written and carefully sourced, a page for my father. So yes, it should be checked for bias, but I don't think there is one:). I wrote it on my user page with the visual editor:) but would like to move it into the queue for evaluation for bias and legitimacy. I think his accomplishments and the substantiation thereof is documented (academically) and without bias. How do I do this? I looked and it looks like I need to put HTML code into publish, but I couldn't understand how I move it from my user page to 'production' through formal wikipedia processes.....can you help? --Official PA Bio (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Official PA Bio – good work. I've added a template to the top of the page to allow you to submit the draft. There should be a big gray box now at the top of the page; if you push the blue button that says "Submit your draft for review!", it should walk you through the submission process. (If you need to submit any more drafts in the future, just copy {{subst:submit}} and paste it onto the top of the draft.) The article will be reviewed by an experienced volunteer, although it can take a while. Could I make a few suggestions? These are things that a reviewer might point out, so you might want to get a head start on them.

• It's really important to make sure that everything is written in your own words—we have a very strict policy to prevent copyright violations. For instance, your draft says serving on the boards of more than 30 non-profit and public-private organizations, and acting as Chairman of the Board of more than a dozen of them at the national, state and regional levels, which is very similar to what this site says (has served on the boards of more than 30 non-profit and public-private organizations, acting as chairman of the Board for more than a dozen of them at the national, state, and regional levels.) If the draft uses the same words and phrases as other sites, you might run into problems (pages can even be deleted if there are copyright issues).
• Many reviewers don't like long lists of awards and achievements because they can make the article look like a résumé. I'd recommend mentioning some of the most important titles and honors in the "career" section and then removing the bulleted lists. A good rule of thumb is to only include information that's been mentioned in an independent source like a newspaper.
• Refer to people by their last names; for instance Lehr earned a bachelor's degree in Business Administration rather than Bill earned a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration

Hopefully this is helpful; if you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is what!!? --ABIR0429 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@ABIR0429, I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you have a specific question about editing Wikipedia, I'd be happy to answer it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Extraordinary Writ I see you have become my "mentor", As I am new to Wikipedia I don't know what that means or what to do as a "student". I was hoping you would tell me what this all means.

-Sincerely Higuys153

PS. Just call me Higuys Higuys153 (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Higuys, and welcome to Wikipedia! "Mentorship" is just a way for new users to get answers to any questions they might have about editing Wikipedia. You don't have to do anything: all it means is that if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I don't currently have any questions but thanks Higuys153 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mentor: How do I set up a page for myself? --Larksfield (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Larksfield, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can read all the details about creating an article here, but the short answer is that you can use the article wizard, which will walk you through the process. Writing an article about yourself is discouraged, though; if you want to go through with it, it's really important that you make sure you're notable, which basically means that reliable sources like newspapers, magazines, or books have written about you in detail. We often say that writing an article from scratch is the hardest thing you can do on Wikipedia, so you might want to try helping to improve other articles before you start one of your own. Hopefully this is helpful; let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll be posting a source review at Rutledge's FAC, but while working on it I suddenly remembered I had a copy of David Atkinson's 1999 Leaving the Bench: Supreme Court Justices at the End. I looked up Rutledge and Atkinson says he was cremated, which I suppose is not necessarily inconsistent with the information in the article that his remains have been removed from the cemetery. If you think that's worth including I can give you the citation information. Atkinson also includes quotes about Rutledge's tendency to overwork; again if you're interested I can give you the details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks—I've responded at FAC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you move it back to mainspace? It has reliable secondary sources and is ready for main page already. Thanks. Dympies (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've done that for you, Dympies; the article is now at Yono Lite. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 

Hello Extraordinary Writ,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

 

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 February 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for Melville Fuller, introduced: "Chief Justice Melville Fuller was, by all accounts, a competent administrator and a kind man, but he also ended up on the wrong side of some of the worst decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever rendered. Leading a conservative court in an era of change, the mustachioed jurist struck down the federal income tax, endorsed racial segregation, and turned laissez-faire into a constitutional mandate. Needless to say, the legal academy hasn't looked too favorably upon his tenure: despite recent attempts to rehabilitate his reputation, Fuller remains inextricably linked with what one scholar called "a far-off and bygone judicial age". Yet that age – one in which an increasingly conservative judiciary faced off against an increasingly progressive society – perhaps bears some similiarities to our own. The story of Melville Weston Fuller remains as relevant today as ever."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

American law and its people

 

Thank you for quality articles around U.S. legal cases and people involved, such as Melville Fuller, Howell Edmunds Jackson, Raymond A. Jordan, Schneiderman v. United States, beginning with Mazurek v. Armstrong, for gnoming, for "I do my best to be neither cumbersome nor worthy of disfavor", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2699 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Congrats, and thanks for Chief Justice Fuller's TFA! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Kavyansh! Hope you're remaining well. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, very much well! Would you take Wiley Rutledge to FAC? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, yes. It'll probably be a while before it's ready (I'm much slower with these sorts of things than you are!), but it would be nice to see Rutledge in the TFA slot as well someday. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if you require any help with any sort of review: peer review, FAC, etc. (and given that you completed the "Wall-to-wall coverage", you definitely are not slow!) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Gerda: that really means a lot to me. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 

On 20 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, decided 110 years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the initiative process? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The article Wiley Rutledge you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Wiley Rutledge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheTechnician27 -- TheTechnician27 (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Extraordinary Writ. I've finally finished the GA review for Wiley Rutledge. I probably should've abdicated the review to someone else when real life started getting extremely busy, but I spent what little free time I've had over the last couple days to finish up this review, and it's finally done. I'm sorry it took so long, and I hope it wasn't too big of a bother to you. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a bother at all, TheTechnician27: I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article thoroughly. Hopefully you found it at least a little bit interesting! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I really did enjoy it! The statistic at the beginning of the 'Criminal procedure' section alone blew my mind a bit. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 

On 16 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Smiley v. Holm, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Smiley v. Holm, the 1932 general election ballot in Minnesota contained 30 candidates for Congress? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Smiley v. Holm. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Smiley v. Holm), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Understandably our old conversations about this have been deleted, and I would not expect you to remember them from about 4 months ago, but basically, you ended up helping me with a rather dodgy effort about removing the page LiveWorkPlay and ultimately it was reversed. Well, it has happened again - despite the page having now gone through multiple discussions and vetting. I don't have the skills or experience to understand how these processes are being utilized but I believe it is much the same as what was unearthed on the previous occasion when this occurred. Basically, the page has been removed under false pretences (again). Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I remember, Iamthekanadian. In a nutshell: The reason the article's deletion was reversed in November was because the wrong process had been used. This time, someone used the "correct" process, and that means it would be quite difficult to get the deletion undone. (If you have any questions about the details of these processes, I'd be glad to explain.) There's some information here about how to challenge deletions, but since there weren't any procedural issues with the deletion it's pretty unlikely that you'd be able to get the article restored. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, and I'm genuinely sorry I can't be of more help. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The backlog at WP:CFD grows steadily again. It would be great if you could close some more discussions, if you have time for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to close a few, hopefully today—thanks for letting me know. It seems to be almost impossible to keep the backlog at a manageable level these days: if only we had a few more regular admin closers. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've closed/relisted a few dozen; hopefully that helps at least a bit. Thanks again for the message, and for all your herculean efforts at CfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I was just coming here after deleting some categories to thank you for closing some of those old CFD discussions. They can pile up so it's nice to have you and others act as non-admin closers. Looks like everything was done well! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your extensive explanation of the consensus while you closed the ISBN move discussion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Why, thank you, PhotographyEdits: much appreciated! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you be willing to give a quick look over Real Estate Bank of Arkansas to make sure I didn't butcher any of the legal stuff? I've been working on trying to repair an article for WP:URFA/2020 and ended up down that rabbit hole to clear up a redlink. Hog Farm _Talk 04:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Glad to: between the blatant corruption, the uprising against the circuit court, and the state legislator being killed in a duel on the House floor, you've certainly piqued my interest! Everything looks more-or-less fine to me. You might specify that the 1853 act ordered the attorney general to file suit: I think that would be a bit clearer. Any idea what actually happened with the bank's debts in the end? It would be nice to have that in the article, although I certainly understand if the sources are silent. By the way, I found this article, which discusses the bank's travails in depth; it might be worth a perusal in case it contains anything of interest. (Pages 379–380 seem to say that the bank's bonds weren't fully paid off until the 1890s!) Great work as always (and a really interesting topic). Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to look at it! I've incorporated that source and another I found - it turns out that we've had an article about a portion of the bank's bonds since 2009, which surprised me. Not gonna be FAC-able, but I will put it up for GAN and see what happens. Hog Farm _Talk 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it's going to be on the main page with DYK in a couple days. I'm largely on wikibreak right now, so would you be willing to watchlist it until it's gone through the main page process, since I won't be able to respond to vandalism there effectively? Hog Farm _Talk 18:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly; I'll keep an eye on it. Hopefully you're having an enjoyable break. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, i see you closed a category about having "...in Czech Republic" in its title. Maybe you overlooked the comments in the discussion but there was an agreement on redirecting it to "in the Czech Republic", so as to have it listed alphabetically correct when editors go scrolling the HotCat list to add the category, instead of looking for it between "Vietnam" and "in the Dominican Republic" at the bottom of it, very counterintuitively position to think about. Can you please do that? There were various methods on how to do it in the discussion you closed. Thank you. --Opencross (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You (Opencross) have misunderstood the discussion. Category:Defunct tennis tournaments in Czech Republic is now a redirect and Category:Defunct tennis tournaments in the Czech Republic appears correctly in Category:Tennis tournaments in Europe by country using the sort key |Czech Republic. Categories for such countries always use 'the'. See eg Category:Sport by country. Or see this for a complete list. There was nothing incorrect about the close: what is incorrect is your own insistence on wasting everyone's time with bizarre proposals. Oculi (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

"There was nothing incorrect about the close: what is incorrect is your own insistence on wasting everyone's time with bizarre proposals. Oculi (talk)".

Then why are you wasting your time replying? Especially when i am talking to others on their own talk pages.

Just bug off. Easy-peasy. Opencross (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Opencross, I left Category:Defunct tennis tournaments in Czech Republic as a Template:Category redirect, which was what was suggested in the CfD. As a result, HotCat does still list the Czech Republic under C: "Defunct tennis tournaments in Czech Republic" is right between "Defunct tennis tournaments in Canada" and "Defunct tennis tournaments in Florida" in the HotCat list. Are you seeing something different? Apologies if I've misunderstood something. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I did see the redirect but not the "..in Czech" on HotCat. NOW i see it also there alphabetically ordered as expected and agreed. It was either you or brownhairedgirl. I don't know whom to thank, so i thank you both. Cheers. Opencross (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Extraordinary WritExtraordinary Writ, I wish to thank you profusely for your indulgence in the absence of Daniel to whom I had marked a communication. The article on Kamla Nath Sharma (an engineer, researcher of Vedic Indian literature, and writer of Hindi language) which was put back as a draft article for further editing, has been thoroughly edited, pruned, improved by me over the last several months. I tried to 'move' it the mainspace, but goofed while doing it. May I request you to kindly consider moving the edited article on Kamla Nath Sharma to the main space, as I am not conversant with the process? @Extraordinary Writ, may I also request you to please 'undo' and revert the wrong changes I did of moving the name Kamla Nath Sharma to User Page of Aaditya Bahuguna and moving it back, to go back to status quo of 21 May 2022. I apologize for giving you all this trouble. Regards. Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Extraordinary Writ, Due to my mistake of making Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace of page on Kamla Nath Sharma to Aaditya Bahuguna talkpage and reverting,the draft page on Kamla Nath Sharma was deleted, as per the policy. I have also requested @Explicit, who deleted the draft page on Kamla Nath Sharma, to please reinstate it, may I also request you to kindly put back the page and undelete it? Regards. Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Aaditya.Bahuguna – hope you're well. This is a bit confusing because the page was moved so many times, but the administrator who deleted your draft wasn't Explicit (who was just doing some cleanup) but instead Jimfbleak, who deleted the page because he felt it was promotional and a copyright violation of this site. I'm not an administrator, so unfortunately I can't undelete the page for you. If you think the draft shouldn't have been deleted, you might want to leave a message at User talk:Jimfbleak. Hopefully this is helpful. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I keep assuming by default that blue redirects have more than one edit, while this time it didn't. Sorry for that. Did the move myself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, not a problem at all, Mellohi! – don't worry about it. Thanks for all you've been doing to clear out the RM backlog. By the way, if you don't want to have to think about the number of revisions in the redirect at all, I hope you'll stop by WP:PERM/PM sometime: we always need more page movers. I see you're slightly below the suggested minimum edit count at the moment, but I imagine that wouldn't be a problem: from what I've seen, you have a solid grasp on our policies and guidelines, which is all that really matters. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear Extraordinary Writ, could you please explain me your decision not to change the title of the article "Kharkov/Kharkiv Collegium"? There were two positions in the discussion and only one independent opinion from user  AjaxSmack , who actually supported my arguments. My Canadian Ukrainian opponent, however, did not agree with it, which was totally expected for me (See: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Consensus between us was impossible, so I assumed that the opinions of independent users will be counted. The title of the essay was not changed, although I proved that in special studies on the history of the Collegium the spelling "Kharkov Collegium" is prevalent, even in studies by Ukrainian researchers. And I even explained why using the spelling Kharkiv in reference to the history of the Collegium is an anachronism. Of course I'm not going to start a discussion again, I see no point here and I have a lot to do, but I would be grateful for any explanation of your decision. Cheers, Ушкуйник (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ушкуйник; hope you're well. I considered the second RM to be an extension of the first RM (as you requested), so if we're merely counting !votes we have two supporting Kharkiv (Mzajac and Amitchell125) and two supporting Kharkov (you and AjaxSmack). Consensus isn't a vote, of course, but I didn't find either side's arguments to be strong enough to overcome the lack of agreement. I did consider your points about the name used by specialist scholars, but titles used by experts aren't always preferred (see WP:RECOGNIZABILITY), especially if "independent, reliable English-language sources" more broadly favor a different title. Moreover, both you and Mzajac made reasonable arguments about which title is most prevalent in reliable sources, and my job as a closer isn't to decide the issue myself: after I discount !votes that are fallacious, at odds with policy, etc., I close the discussion in favor of the side that "has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". In this case, responsible Wikipedians were evenly divided, so there wasn't a consensus either way.
I hope this explanation makes sense. If you still feel I closed the RM incorrectly, you are of course welcome to open a discussion at move review. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Writ. About six months ago, you brought Dietrich v The Queen for a review of its featured article status. At the time, I tried to save it, but being brand new to Wikipedia had no idea of the monumental effort doing so would entail, and naively thought a few hundred words of expansion would do the trick. Well months later after spending many hours on the article, I now know that to be not so. I have almost finished re-writing the entire article, line by line I re-typed what was there, redoing the referencing (I used the style of referencing you did in Melville, cheers for that), and have been slowly working my way through the feedback provided at the FA review. I eventually want to re-nominate it at FA, but before I do please would you consider going through the article briefly and letting me know what you think of it now compared to when it was put up for review? I think there is still a long road to go, and I may be better served getting it brought up to GA before FA, but would like your thoughts. Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello MaxnaCarta—good work! It looks like the article is in much better shape than it was when I first nominated it for review. A few suggestions are below. (I'm certainly not an expert on the Australian legal system, so feel free to take my comments with a grain of salt.)

• When you have things like As noted by Garkawe, it's generally best to make sure the reader knows who the person is; for instance by using something like "As noted by the legal scholar Sam Garkawe..." the first time the person is mentioned.
• The end of the "conviction and appeal" section probably needs a citation.
• Dietrich v The Queen is regularly cited in the High Court of Australia. Australia's highest and most supreme court regularly citing a decision it made nearly three decades ago demonstrates the lasting legacy of Dietrich v The Queen, as it is typical for the Court to change its perspective on an issue during such a long period of time. – is there a source for this?
• I think you've done a pretty good job of addressing my original concerns about comprehensiveness. You might want to see if there's anything in this article by Brian Fitzgerald or in this one that's worth mentioning.
• The article's structure strikes me as a bit confusing in places. A lot of the material in the "High Court appeal" section that discusses what the Court actually held would fit better in the "Judgement" section, I think. In other words, discuss the parties' arguments in the "High Court appeal" section and then discuss the Court's holdings in the "Judgement" section.
• It might be worth mentioning somewhere what happened with McInnis—was it overruled?
• Perhaps the "Judgement" section could go into a bit more depth about the justices' reasoning? (There's some information on pgs. 83–85 of the Fitzgerald source I mentioned above that might be useful here.) This is a pretty important part of the article, so I'd probably spend at least a few paragraphs on it.

Hopefully this is at least somewhat useful. I'd encourage you to run the article through the GA process first: even when I'm planning to take an article to FA, I always submit it at WP:GAN just to get some feedback from the reviewer. In the past, I've also found it useful to have someone at WP:GOCE/R copy-edit the article: they're very good at fixing the little stylistic problems (like using the correct kind of dash) that sometimes crop up at FAC. Anyways, nice work so far: I look forward to seeing the FA star restored! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

So helpful. Will do all of the above. Thanks @Writ! MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ by the way - where are you searching for sources please? I think one of the issues is I am a lawyer in Australia, and we pretty much only use LexisNexis - this database is exclusively law, and I think my Wikipedia articles will need to go further than just law sources. The Fitzgerald article is a human rights focused piece - that will not come up in Lexis. Which database are you getting that and the other books from? Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I found the Fitzgerald article through Google Scholar, which can be quite useful for finding sources. There's also Google Books, which contains previews of all sorts of books, and the Internet Archive's Open Library (search here), which allows you to search and "borrow" online copies of books. Another thing: are you familiar with the Wikipedia Library? It gives Wikipedia editors access to a wide variety of subscription databases. Two of the most useful are HeinOnline (available here), which contains thousands of law journals, including over a hundred from Australia, and JSTOR (available here), which contains numerous scholarly publications on a variety of topics. Finally, if you find a potentially useful source that you don't have access to, you can leave a message at WP:REREQ, where there'll usually be someone who can send you a copy. Hopefully this is helpful! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Writ! I am most familiar with HeinOnline, Westlaw, and Lexis Nexis. Guess what, I actually went to my old law school library, to the bound leather section and found the Coper (1997) source you mentioned in the FA delisting. I legit did undergrad and postgrad law without once going to the old leather bound book section and instead using online databases, yet Wikipedia took me there. It's an adventure, this place. Anyway, thanks for all the help @Extraordinary Writ, I have heaps to do before noming it for GA review. Are you an attorney? Or just interested? Must be an interesting time in Washington right now with the SCOTUS decision. I wish I had been a fly on the wall of those justices as they all drafted their opinions...anyway thanks and stay safe - MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. You shouldn't have any serious trouble with the article at GAN, I don't think: some reviewers are stricter than others, but the criteria are pretty straightforward and the majority of articles pass. (The wait time can be pretty bad though—Melville Fuller took four months just to get a reviewer.) Once you're happy with everything, I'd just nominate the article and see what happens. Best of luck! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 

On 16 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ex parte Yarbrough, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Rogers Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Ku Klux Cases was its only ruling "markedly favorable to black voting rights" in the post-Reconstruction era? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ex parte Yarbrough. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ex parte Yarbrough), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Are there any reasons you can think of as to why a RfA would go south? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, interesting question, TheresNoTime. Let's see: I've only really been editing actively for about 16 months, my percentage of semi-automated edits is uncomfortably high, and I've certainly made my fair share of mistakes. I honestly don't know how an RfA would end up going: perhaps it would be smooth sailing, but more likely I think I'd end up with a fair number of opposes along the lines of NOTQUITEYET. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts, as well as those of anyone else who'd like to chime in. At the moment, I don't think I'd be comfortable running for a while longer, and even then I'd probably still require a fair amount of prodding. But you've certainly piqued my interest, and I'm very much grateful that someone whom I respect thinks I might be qualified! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 16 months isn't necessarily a problem. I passed mine last year with only about 14 or 15 months' experience, and none of the 10 non-struck opposes were really tenure-based (9 based on a series of NPP School-related CSD screwups, and one that isn't fully comprehensible that I think may be related to nominating a series of Thomas the Tank Engine articles for deletion). Barring a deep, dark secret I'm not aware of, I'd support an EW RFA. Hog Farm _Talk 19:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find RFAs to be unpredictable. There can be very random Opposes based on a single edit that hits a nerve with an editor. But I think it's important to encourage promising candidates to consider taking an RfA on. Personally, I waited until I hit the 2 year mark as an active editor, I do think a certain length of tenure is important with some editors and I'd hope for at least 18 months. What I really look for, in addition to general competence, is editors with an even temperament who can keep cool in a conflict. I think you pass that bar so keep it in the back of your mind as a possibility in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I second Liz's comments about keeping it in the back of your mind. I'd be willing to co-nom, although you'd probably do better to find a higher-stature editor than me for that. Hog Farm _Talk 22:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for the advice and encouragement. I don't think I'd even consider running for a few more months at minimum, but I really do appreciate your feedback and kind words. If any passers-by have anything more to add, whether positive or negative, I'd be glad to listen: it's very useful to hear a variety of perspectives about RfA-related matters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this when leaving a comment about something else - EW you are an editor I as a newbie have interacted with in an FA review and that time I did an incorrect AFD closure, always been so helpful. I think that is demonstrated in that I came to you specifically for advice on getting an article to FA. You are polite, knowledgeable, and imho I do not see why you should not have a mop for helping out where you desire. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Stumbled upon your user page, and was a confused for a second when I couldn't locate the admin topicon. Hope you're still considering an RfA :). Femke (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

 

On 2 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David J. Brewer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. Supreme Court justice David J. Brewer had "a sweetbread for a brain" and was a "menace to the welfare of the Nation"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David J. Brewer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, David J. Brewer), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,652 views (471.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

how do I create a new page for a public figure? --Ctvfarah (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ctvfarah, and welcome to Wikipedia! The Article Wizard will walk you through the steps of creating a new article, although you might want to read this page first for an explanation of the process. It's really important that the person you're writing about is notable, which basically means that reliable sources like newspapers or books have written about the person in detail. We often say that creating a brand-new article is the hardest thing you can do on Wikipedia, so you may want to try working on other tasks (click here for examples) first. Let me know if you have any more questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 

Congratulations, Extraordinary Writ! The article you nominated, Wiley Rutledge, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Congrats! What's next? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Kavyansh! I've currently got David J. Brewer in the GAN queue, but I've spent most of my time over the past few weeks working on Thurgood Marshall: it's an awfully important article (plus it's even in Million Award territory!), so it'd be nice to bring it up to GA- or FA-level. Any plans for once you finish Mr. Bean? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like both Brewer and Marshall could be FA, and of course, you are really good with Supreme Court articles! I currently have the List of presidents of the United States at FLC (the highest read list on the entire site, with over annual readership of about 6.67 million). And after Mr. Bean, I was thinking about Monique Luiz, but it needs some fixing. I'm trying to bring obscure figures like Abbott, Bean, etc to GA/FA status. I'll see if I can help with reviewing Brewer. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

 

Hi Extraordinary Writ,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello mentor, I am trying to write this new entry but I have difficulties adding an image. When I upload the file and info, it says its a duplicate (impossible as I took it myself today). Do you have any suggestions about what went wrong? Thanks, Martin --Stratoartcaster (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stratoartcaster, and welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like you've successfully uploaded the image, so now you just need to add it to the article. After you click the "edit" button, click the "insert" tab and then the "images and media" button. It should show you your image (under "your recent uploads"), and if you click on the image it should walk you through the rest of the process. If that doesn't work, let me know exactly what you're seeing so I can try to figure out the problem. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Extraordinary Writ, many thanks for getting in touch! It worked, for some reason I thought it would travel automatically but I had to copy/ paste the link - all sorted now. How much time, you reckon, will it take before the article is good to show up? Many thanks again, Martin Stratoartcaster (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear, Stratoartcaster. I've added a grey box to your draft; once you're ready for it to be reviewed, press the blue "submit the draft for review!" button. The main thing that a reviewer is going to look for is whether Green meets our "notability guidelines", which are our rules about which topics get a Wikipedia article and which ones don't. The best way to show that Green is notable is to find several reliable sources (things like books, magazines, newspaper articles, and trustworthy websites) that talk about him in detail (see this short explanation for more information). If there aren't any such sources available, then unfortunately the draft is unlikely to be accepted. Once you've found some good sources and cited them in the draft, you can submit it for review, and a reviewer will either accept it or explain what still needs work. This process can sometimes take a few months, although other times it's much quicker. Feel free to let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article David J. Brewer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 

On 3 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harry Lipsig, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "King of Torts" Harry Lipsig persuaded a jury that a man had been scared to death by a car? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Lipsig. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Harry Lipsig), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde 00:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Hi, we met again. Your advice brought me back to continue with English Wikipedia. you deserve it. Jyoti Roy (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, TTP1233, and welcome back! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

		The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
		For exemplary service at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) Thank you for your quick respond at my request. It makes me feel we, all WP users, are a team! :) Cinadon36 20:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Cinadon36—always glad to be of assistance! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thurgood Marshall you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vocem Virtutis -- Vocem Virtutis (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I find all of the barnstar stuff a bit cheesy, but I just wanted to thank you for the impressive work you've been doing at SPI lately. Spicy (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Spicy, I appreciate it. And thanks as well for all of your impressive work at SPI—there's certainly enough nonsense floating around to keep us both busy... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, how do I get my IP hidden on here? --Ghostonapillow (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ghostonapillow, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you made edits before you created your account, then you should: click on this link, ask in the "message" box for your IP address to be hidden, and click "send". Make sure to say in your message what your IP address is. Someone will then remove it from public view, and you should get an email confirming that. (If you didn't make any edits prior to creating your account, then you have nothing to worry about: as long as you're signed in whenever you make any edits, your IP address is always hidden.) Let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to Update the image on this page. --Teampurdy (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Teampurdy, and welcome to Wikipedia! For copyright reasons, we have to follow some fairly strict rules about images: with a few exceptions, we can only use an photo if the person who took the photo is willing to let anyone use it for free. In practice, that means that 1) if you took the photo yourself, you can upload it, 2) if another person took the photo, that person can upload it, and 3) if the photo has already been freely licensed, anyone can upload it. If there's an image that meets one of these criteria, please click on this link and follow the instructions to upload it. Once you've done that, let me know and I'll show you how to add it to the article. I know this process is a bit of a pain, but Wikipedia has to follow it for legal reasons. If you have any questions, feel free to ask—I'd be happy to help! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear sir my id suspended i am not 3third so please recover my account uid:5465647685 --Md Abdullah saki (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Md Abdullah saki. Unfortunately, I can only help you with problems having to do with Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. If you're having problems on another website, you should ask for help on that website. Thanks, and I hope you can find a solution to your issue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The article David J. Brewer you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:David J. Brewer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Because the GA bot once again did not leave a notice on the TP of the editor who's article I reviewed, I am leaving this here to let you know David J. Brewer has been promoted to GA status! Congratulations! I also thank you for your tireless article contributions that are an example for others to look up to. The countless hours you have spent ensuring those who are interested in law have world class articles to cover it are acknowledged. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Well the bot did end up working but have a star anyway! MaxnaCarta (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words, MaxnaCarta—it's been a pleasure working with you. Best of luck with Dietrich! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your help with Skeeter Reece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

More thanks:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 

On 15 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael H. v. Gerald D., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Ruth Marcus, the facts of Michael H. v. Gerald D. "more closely resembled a soap opera synopsis than a typical Supreme Court case"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael H. v. Gerald D.. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Michael H. v. Gerald D.), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for helping me out. I am trying to write an article about my career, as I see no mention of it. I also wanted information on getting a page on me. I see many of my colleagues have pages so i wanted to see if I qualify. I know my job must qualify. I am a set medic/ studio first aid. My IMDb page for reference https://m.imdb.com/name/nm2090343/ --Eloylarajr (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Eloylarajr, and welcome to Wikipedia! The main question we consider when deciding whether a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article is: have sources that are independent and reliable (things like books, newspapers, trustworthy websites) written about the person in detail? (You might want to read this simple explanation of what these terms mean.) It doesn't generally matter what someone's job title is or whether other similar people have articles: the coverage in sources is what we care the most about. It's a pretty high standard, and most people don't meet it, but if you've received a good deal of coverage by reliable sources, you may qualify for an article; feel free to read this page for information about the process. If not, then I'm afraid you're not likely to be eligible for an article. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I've redirected the newly created Chaudhary Ranjeet Singh page to the original page, Ranjit Singh Chautala. The politician is commonly known as Ranjit Singh. Chautala refers to his birth place, Chaudhury refers to his father (as a hereditary caste title). In this person's case, the latter is used very infrequently in sources compared to the former. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Goldsztajn. The reason I requested the histmerge was just to clean up the copyright issues that occur when someone does a cut-and-paste move—I don't have an opinion what the title ought to be (although I imagine you're right). Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw you closed the RM as a consensus to move, but the article hasn't been moved. Was that just an oversight or does the old redirect need G6'd? Hog Farm _Talk 04:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, Hog Farm—the script was misbehaving and I just didn't notice. Now taken care of. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hiya - Just wondering, in a spirit of friendly enquiry, why you passed Edwin S. Cohen at AfC? If you wouldn't mind taking me through the thought process for a minute or two I'd genuinely appreciate it, 'cos I'm struggling to review it as 'patrolled' and think I might learn something! Thanks & best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Alexandermcnabb, glad to. When I'm reviewing at AfC, the main question I'm trying to answer is "Does this article have a decent chance of surviving AfD?" In this case, I thought the answer was yes: the article cites two in-depth staff-written obituaries in prominent American newspapers (available here and here), which in my experience is usually enough to convince AfD regulars to !vote keep on GNG grounds. (There also seem to be other sources out there, e.g. this NYT article.) The second question I have to answer as a reviewer is "Is the article in such poor shape that it doesn't belong in mainspace?", and I thought the answer to that was no: it does rely much too heavily on Cohen's memoir rather than third-party sources, but I figured tagging with Template:Third-party would be sufficient. Hopefully this is helpful; feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, that's helpful. He does rather sit on the borderline, IMHO, but these are calls we have to make!!! (and OneI reviewed 'im, so there we go!) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, would you recommend including citations as I am writing the article or including citation all at the end? --Lunger21 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lunger21, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'd recommend including the citations as you're writing: if you wait till the end, it's easy to forget which sources you've been using. That said, it's totally up to you, so feel free to do whatever seems most natural: as long as the citations are all there by the time you move the article out of your sandbox, that's all that really matters. By the way, if you need any help with figuring out how to add citations, just let me know—I'd be happy to help! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello ExtraordinaryWrit, I was wondering if you would please help me move the article Major League Baseball on FS1 to MLB on FS1? My source for this proposed change is found here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: done. By the way, if you need any pages moved in the future, you'll probably get a quicker response at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, although I'm happy to take care of requests here as well. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Thank you! I have yet another request: could you please move List of Major League Baseball on Fox broadcasters to List of MLB on Fox broadcasters for me on my behalf? I would do it myself, but for some reason, I can't move that page. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That one's now done too, Charlesaaronthompson. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Thanks again! You're the best! Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Extraordinary Writ, FYI your notifications about the Political History of India FAR point to archive 1, not archive2. Best, CMD (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Oops, now fixed—thanks for letting me know, Chipmunkdavis! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Answering here, because that discussion just got atoped. Though maybe it's something that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators because how you define this will impact the actions that admins can or cannot take when involved? I do not believe the "any" in INVOLVED is using definition 1b. My reading of the relevant paragraph of INVOLVED is:

In straightforward cases, including but not limited to blatant vandalism, the community has supported the obvious action of any involved administrator (definition 1a, i.e. any random admin) on the bases that any other reasonable administrator (also definition 1a, i.e. any other random admin) would probably have come to the same conclusion. However, despite the exceptions on straightforward cases, it is still considered best practice that when an administrator is considered to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboard.

In the first instance, you cannot use definition 1b, because wheel warring aside, ultimately only one admin can undertake a given action at any time. In the second instance, you cannot use definition 1b because a set of all reasonable people will naturally disagree on any given choice. To require unanimity, which is implied by definition 1b, in the second instance, would I think prevent every involved admin from undertaking an action in most straightforward cases where there is some disagreement about how to handle it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th—thanks for stopping by. I've always thought of on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion as meaning something like "on the basis that no reasonable administrator would likely disagree with the action". I agree that that's a pretty high standard due to the diversity of views that reasonable administrators might hold, but I think that's the point: if there are legitimate, good-faith arguments for and against something, they should be weighed by someone who doesn't have a horse in the race, not someone who's potentially incapable of making objective decisions. The exception is focused on cases that are "straightforward", "obvious", and in the same class as "blatant vandalism", and cases where reasonable administrators could disagree don't fit the bill, I don't think. You're certainly welcome to start a discussion at WT:ADMIN if you'd like, though, and I'd be happy to support clarifying the wording if it turns out that there's a lot of confusion about what "any" really means. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The article Thurgood Marshall you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Thurgood Marshall for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vocem Virtutis -- Vocem Virtutis (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Thurgood Marshall (estimated annual readership: 1,050,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

• New collections:
  • Edward Elgar
  • E-Yearbook
  • Corriere della Serra
  • Wikilala
• Collections moved to Library Bundle:
  • Ancestry
• New feature: Outage notification
• Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow that was some haul of socks. Good work. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, HighKing. Sockpuppetry at AfD is a lot worse than most people realize: recently I've been working on this SPI, which has seen more than twenty accounts blocked. Always glad to have thoughtful !voters like you around to compensate! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Good morning

I'm new here. I would like to add to Luis Jardim's vast work. He has just finished touring with Marillion on their UK and European 'An Hour Before It's Dark' album. How can I add this? --Christa57 (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Christa57, and welcome to Wikipedia! Once you've decided where you want to put the information, just click the "edit" button in the upper right-hand corner of the page and type your addition in. Don't worry if you make any mistakes with the formatting: I can try to fix anything that goes wrong. You might also want to add a citation to a reliable source, like a news article, that backs up what you're writing: to do that, click the "cite" button and copy the news article's URL into the box. Let me know if you run into any problems or if you need any more help. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone I am Derhasad Basumatary --Webderha (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Webderha, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions about editing, feel free to ask. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have an article (faculty psychology) that I'd like to edit but I don't know where or how to start. Any tips? Thanks! --Ranceur (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ranceur. It looks like your group has already done some work on this page drafting the edits, so I'd suggest looking at that and seeing what can be improved. (Is there anything that can be worded more clearly? Does Lisa Feldman Barrett's book say anything else about faculty psychology that might be worth including? Are there other reliable sources that can be cited?) Some of your classmates have left some comments here, so I'd also suggest incorporating those suggestions into the draft too. Once you're finished, you can go to the Faculty psychology article, click the "edit" button in the upper right-hand corner, copy your draft into the article, and click "publish changes". If you have any more questions, I'd suggest either asking your instructor or leaving a message for Ian (Wiki Ed), who's an expert on helping students, at this link. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)