User talk:Renamed user 150tcy3tya3ql

Hi AllegedlyHuman! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Wesley Bell 2014 - edit2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the work on the Ohio 11th page—it’s in so much better shape now. If you feel like applying the knowledge further, the Virginia 2021 races could really use it. I started on the Governor’s race but the Lieutenant Gov and AG races have the same issues. No pressure, just if you’re inclined. Meanwhile congrats on the featured picture—what a great image! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for pointing me to those VA pages — I will definitely take a look at them and see what I can do. Right now, a lot of my focus has been on the thankfully lower-profile upcoming mayor race in St. Louis and adjacent articles (though as you've seen, I tend to get sidetracked quite easily!). I've gotten Tishaura Jones up to GA-nom quality and I'm planning to expand other candidates greatly soon; I was set to work on Lewis E. Reed but noticed a paid-editing issue that required admin to get involved. I'll hopefully begin tackling that article more in the days to come. Also, while you're here, I want to thank you for color-correcting the Nina Turner image I added, which made it look a lot better. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well done sussing out PAID. It’s a drag but so important. And thanks about the Nina Turner pic! Afterward I saw the original and it totally made sense that one wouldn’t think to adjust the color/light—the tone on that jacket, wow! Only because I saw the close crop first did it occur to me.
Meanwhile good luck with the mayor’s race articles (it is nice to work on something less heated!) and if you have a spare moment, great but no worries if not. Thanks for all your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, thanks so much for your work and lending a second set of eyes—you’re catching stuff I hadn’t even noticed! (It was even worse than I thought, yikes!) Much appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you for adding stuff back with reliable sources! That's exactly how this process should be done. I took more of a slash-and-burn approach to this one — the rules at WP:ENDORSE are clear enough to warrant that, I think. I removed mostly tweets and campaign websites, but there were also a few I was unsure of — as a non-local, I couldn't immediately tell if the Blue Virginia website was a WP:SPS or not. It will definitely take a finer eye to go over more thoroughly. Glad to help in any way I can. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slash and burn definitely warranted especially as there will be plenty of people motivated to add back in anything they can, so it’s not like anything truly legit going to be lost (and hopefully now that so much of the excluded endorsements are cleared out, it’ll be much easier to check additions). As for Blue Virginia IMO it’s kinda borderline, but at minimum looking at your cuts made me realize how much was sourced to the Blue Virginia tweets which is definitely not ok. Collaboration FTW! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the mass re-addition, I’ll get on seeing which of the Gov endorsements I can find a source for so that doesn’t keep happening. Thanks for taking care of the revert. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting story behind that Lord Fairfax endorsement, but WOW the first minute of that video was uncomfortable. Again, nice job with expanding stuff. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Jennifer Carroll Foy; I checked her WP page to see whether she would be under C or F, and the article refers to her as simply Foy (in a similar manner to Hillary Rodham Clinton to "Clinton," for example). However, you have been looking at a lot more recent Virginia news sources than I have, and if the consensus there is "Carroll Foy," then the BLP should be edited to reflect that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good call. Yes here for instance is a recent WashPost piece, or one from Richmond Times-Dispatch which are the papers of record here, more or less. I will get into the bio altho maybe not until tomorrow. Happy new year! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you as well! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987, I came across a user at the page for the upcoming Anchorage election who has been very domineering about what they want the page to look like, even ignoring rules such as WP:ENDORSE. They have been rather defensive and hostile in their previous edit notes. I wanted to bring this to your attention due to the discussion we've had about ENDORSE. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo boy the fun never ends! I will read the page history and then add as constructively as I can. WP:OWN situations are very tough. Thanks for the ping. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well per the request in the edit history, I went through all the sources. Page actually much better now, I think—a lot of those bad refs weren’t needed anyway so no content removed other than endorsements. Hope the page stabilizes. Fingers crossed. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your work. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RS vs SPS[edit]

May I solicit your opinion on a source? The Republican Standard for the VA 2021 Gov race endorsements. Here is the article in question. I’m not at all familiar with the site and can’t find a masthead; it seems to exist mainly on Facebook and then their newsletter is on Substack which I have the impression it tends to mean no editorial oversight, but I suppose that’s not necessarily the case—just can’t find evidence to contrary. So I’m inclined to treat as SPS but would love another opinion if you have time. Thank you as ever! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found: The Republican Standard is linked to the Republican Governors Association, and Ed Gillespie, who was the Republican nominee in the last Virginia gubernatorial election.^[1][2] Critics (including some Republicans) have called the site "fake news" or "propaganda."^[1][2] Its senior editor (as of 2017), Shaun Kenney, was also executive director of VA's Republican Party.^[2] I definitely would not deem this a reliable source, given the close association between the website and the party and potentially some of the candidates in this race. I'm not sure how widely this source is being used outside of this page, but this might be worth taking up higher, because this essentially looks like an arm of the party with zero editorial independence. Thanks for the question; glad as always to help. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, good finds—that explains a lot! Thank you so much and yes I will check around to see where else it’s used and for what. Thanks again! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I hadn't checked the category page for what their local criteria were. I usually work with static cats, so I didn't think to do so. Thank you for reverting my edit, which was apparently erroneous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's no issue — it happens to the best of us. Thanks for the note. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. No problem. Wikipedia would obviously be a far better place were most editors willing to admit when they erred, and with that in mind, I try to acknowledge when I do make a bad edit, and likewise acknowledge helpful edits. Regardless, thanks for implementing "housekeeping" edits such as this, as well. Far too many articles out there that haven't been reviewed and changed, even some BLPs. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I composed that edit about 10 hours ago, grabbed some sleep and a bit to eat, then returned to post it. Before finishing my edit, I looked again at the section to make sure no one else had edited it, actually changed "said" in my original to "observed," and no duplicate warning came up in my reference since I was quoting the editorial directly, and hit "publish," meaning to go to the Post Dispatch to see what they had to say and also for a reference to Danforth's comments. When I went back a few minutes later to add the P-D quote, I found my edit gone, and reopened the whole article to see what had happened. I don't think you and I differ much in our views on what merits inclusion in the Hawley article and think I may have edited his article in recent weeks, regarding his vaunted reevaluation of old untested DNA in rape kits. I looked at an article in the Anchorage Daily News at the same time and found they spent $1.5 million analyzing old rape kits and found exactly one prosecutable case, that only thanks to a fairly unique state law that extended the statutory limit for prosecuting such specific violations. (That article, arising with a collaboration with Pro Publica, found that mandated rape kits had rarely been done in most jurisdictions in that state, and DNA analysis found that only the victims' DNA was identified from samples, and that only partial DNA samples were found in other cases, potentially left by the alleged assaulters.) About that time I did edit Eric Schmitt's article because he joined 16 other A.G.'s in filing as amici in Paxton's efforts to overturn the election results in GA, PA, WI and MI or AZ. Derek Schmidt in neighboring Kansas had joined so the difference was only one letter in the last name, referencing the KC Star article. Oh, and I think my use of the term observed was not incorrect, which I'd preferred only because "said" in referring to quotes becomes a bit hackneyed IMHO. I don't have any problems with your edits. From Google definitions: ob·serve /əbˈzərv/ Learn to pronounce verb past tense: observed; past participle: observed... 2. make a remark. "“It's chilly,” she observed" I hope that explains the situation and glad to see your enthusiasm for covering MO politics. If it's okay with you I'd like your opinion on the primary challenge to Clay since you're a local and would write to you directly if your User page on Wikipedia is linked to one. Activist (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I want you to know that the revert was really nothing personal. That BLP specifically has come under a lot of pressure very recently (primarily by much less quality users than you are) and I and a few others have really tried to hold down the fort and make sure everything is triple-checked for WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM and other policies. When there's any room for doubt, we'd much rather err on the side of caution and air things out on the talk page; it's not often that views on an article subject are torn between "valiant patriotic defender of liberty" and "responsible for an attempted coup of the USA." While you're here, I want to commend you on VERY good work finding refs to extend the page and adjacent pages. It's always amazing to me how lacking MO articles can be, when all that's needed sometimes is to Google an article subject's name. (Worth saying that never seems to happen for, say, Cali or NY politicians.) By the Clay challenge I assume you're referring to Cori Bush's recent victory. Here's my take on it: I'll support any challenger in a situation where "not being named Clay" is in itself a decades-long barrier to office. Thanks for stopping by, thanks for your work, and let me know if I can help you with anything else. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Vernon E. Jordan working on a voter education project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Buddy Hield.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Josh Hawley salute.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image was deleted before I could see it, so I don't know what the exact basis for the deletion was. However, I do believe that image is a unique historical image, as it is the only photographic depiction of a now-notable event covered in depth in that article, and I believe I labeled the image itself as non-free. In other words, I would like further clarification on why this image was deleted, perhaps so as to avoid similar errors in the future. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not responding. I've been fiddling with the new watchlist expiry capability and must have messed something up as your user talk page isn't on my watchlist for some reason. I've responded at the Josh Hawley talk page as that seems the best place to hold the discussion. Again, sorry for missing this message. -- Whpq (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given your position, you might find the concerns expressed by prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, that his close association with Proud Boys might have a negative effect on the jury pool and witnesses, intimidating potential jurors in particular. The Talk section of the article and the deletions from the article might interest you further. Text, which User Springee has repeatedly removed reads, "The defendant's continued association with members of a group that prides itself on violence, and the use of their symbols, raises the significant possibility of future harm. Further, this association may serve to intimidate potential witnesses," in the criminal case.

It's at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting Activist (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the info within the context of the article, and I really don't see a problem with it. Maybe rephrase the beginning of the sentence to use a simpler word like said? Right now, I think it's clear that is the opinion of the prosecutors and not something WP is saying outright, but perhaps an edit explicitly stated as "for further clarity" could help smooth things over. Also remember to watch for that user crossing WP:3RR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input. I don't expect Springee to change his behavior, so I guess I'll have to waste some time in dealing with him. This has been going on for a long time. Activist (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NiKo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niko. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:2021 US Capitol storming; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: WP:3RR was in the front of my mind as I reverted, which is why I only reverted once. All I was asking was for that user to follow the same policy you just linked me: "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons." I think that in addition to policy, that's pretty standard common courtesy. I have no issue with 3RR or WP:BRD, but BRD shouldn't take effect until a revert is actually explained: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." Now that the user in question has actually done that, a productive conversation can begin. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add: judging from your talk page, misusing EW and similar templates seems to be a regular thing for you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback, but I do not want it remaining on my talk page. I did one edit without explaining what it was because I made an honest mistake. I do not want a reminder of that small mistake on my talk page forever. Consider this my acknowledgment of your feedback, as well as a thanks for it. I will take it with me going forward. Please do NOT change my talk page without my consent, or unless you have something new to add. Thank you. Packer1028 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: per guidelines, I am allowed to remove content from my own talk page at my discretion.

My apologies. I was not aware of those guidelines. Please forgive me. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted a correction that I made on the Article of U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and gave hypocritical reasons for doing that. It is hard for me to understand, how "minority or fringe viewpoints" are expressed or given weight, when biased wording is removed. That was the exact reason for me to edit the passage: This article should stay true to the First Amendment and Wikipedia guidelines. Just because certain people (I'm not saying you) would like to see their viewpoints as agreeable, incontestable facts, when they are not, that doesn't mean they are. The current wording is biased and does not meet any guidelines, that's why it needs to be changed. Neither debunked conspiracy notions of "stolen elections" nor the notion that Hawley's objection is definitely founded in conspiracy theories or that he provoked the mob should be given weight. Balance and Neutrality are important. Alleging me to make the article fringe and biased is just totally ironic, when I did the exact opoosite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanP (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not claim that Hawley definitively incited a mob; it only notes that prominent people have argued that, which is noteworthy. All references to such a claim are marked specifically as someone's opinion. And to your other point: there is no evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. As such, those claims are baseless. That's not just my opinion. If you want to research that on your own, good news! There's an encyclopedia at your fingertips. And if you happen to have "contestable facts" to the contrary, I would very much like to see them (along with several million other people, I would presume). Reporting facts is inherently neutral; giving legitimacy to arguments which are based on literally nothing is inherently non-neutral. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you can read. I also assume you have no bad intentions. Therefore I have to assume you are/were in a rush or something and missed the obvious problems. Please, if that is the case, stop undoing neutral improvements. It sets dangerous precedents. I am going to quote directly now, because you show zero understanding of the talked about passage and you almost state the opposite of what is literally written:

Quote: "In January 2021, Hawley provoked an intense political backlash after he became the first senator to announce he would object to the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election; he was criticized for promoting the baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump. On the day when the electoral votes were being tallied, Hawley raised a clenched fist in solidarity with pro-Trump protesters demonstrating outside the U.S. Capitol. As Hawley filed his objections, some of those protesters then stormed the Capitol, resulting in five deaths and Congress being evacuated. Because Hawley helped popularize and legitimize the conspiracy theory that motivated the mob, figures from across the political spectrum argued that he was morally responsible for the riot and called for Hawley to resign his office or be expelled from the Senate."

First of all, cite the reference of Hawley claiming, the election was stolen. You might find some people claiming that, but that does not make that a fact, honey. His intention was never to overrule the election, because it was stolen. He claimed, fraud in Pennsylvania was widespread and dangerous and that an objection is justified, because of it. Again, he claimed that, It's not a fact. Secondly, Hawley did not present his (absoluteley questionable, that is why I made the adjustments to reflect everybody's objections to the wording) objection on a "conspiracy theory", but on his "evidence". There is a debate over that evidence; and you could call it a conspiracy theory; fact is, it is a debate. Thirdly, saying "because Hawley helped popularize and legitimize the conspiracy theory that motivated the mob, figures from across the political spectrum argued that he was morally responsible for the riot" is not unbiased or factbased. That sentence assumes, as if it were a neutral fact, that the Senator popularized and legitimized a conspiracy theory, he did not--Or at least people claim it or they claim the opposite>that needs to be reflected in the article. The sentence also assumes Senator Hawley motivated the mob; That is indirectly saying the Senator was responsible for the storming or that he incentivized it. That is false propaganda, not a fact.

You state, that all references are marked as someone's opinion; they are not.... look up the sentences. You also incorrectly state, there was no voter fraud at all in the whole election. With such a statement, I seriously have to question, if you have any knowledge on the whole subject. It is a fact, that no fraud altered the result; that does not mean there was no fraud, domestically and foreign. That statement is just absolutely mind-blowing.

Please, stop making these false allegations and changes. They threaten Wikipedia's neutrality.

Here's the source cited within the article for the claim that Hawley "was criticized for promoting the baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump."^[1] Here's a quote from that article (since I don't expect you to read it, honey...)

Mr. Hawley's decision elevates President Trump's repeated false claims of a stolen election tainted by pervasive voter fraud, and it answers Mr. Trump's demand that Republican lawmakers move more aggressively to defend him... The process is one that Republican leaders had long hoped to avoid. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, warned his conference this month not to lodge such an objection... At a news briefing on Wednesday, the incoming White House press secretary, Jennifer Psaki, said that "the American people spoke resoundingly in this election", and she described Congress's certification of the Electoral College results as "merely a formality."

Secondly, on this point on "evidence": there is no evidence of widespread fraud, which again is not my opinion but a fact. (I'd recommend you take a look at the FAQ on the election and read this article.) To lend even minor legitimacy to these baseless arguments by presenting them as merely "allegations", "accusations" or another such word without prefacing them as baseless in fact itself violates NPOV. I'm sure you could find Holocaust deniers ready, willing, and able to frame their views as a "debate"... and yet Wikipedia's page on the The Holocaust cites it as a real event, because giving fact-free conspiracy theory the same weight as the vast majority of information on the subject is inherently WP:UNDUE. We must not only strive to accurately represent information, but to represent it respective of how widely it is supported by the body of knowledge at large. Please see WP:WIKIVOICE for more information on this. Thirdly, the source I provided verifies your claim, but if you still have an issue (as I expect you will), I would implore you to talk it to the talk page rather than edit war on a WP:BLP. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllegedlyHuman, I added the ratings given by Cook Political Report to all the gubernatorial races in 2021 and 2022 to Wikipedia. However, you have reverted my edits, even though this is consistent with many other Wikipedia pages, such as this one about the Maryland Senate Race in 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Maryland#General_election. I don’t believe my edits violate WP:CRYSTALBALL and/or WP:NPOV since these ratings are on all 2022 Senate races, even though they are in the future. Is it because I didn’t add the rating in the chart like it is because I don’t know how to do that. Maybe you could add the chart that has the Cook Political Report rating. Thank you. Muhibm0307 (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the comment. I did not feel that prognostication was appropriate for the lead. I have added a chart. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllegedlyHuman, you are probably already aware of this, but I'd like to make sure that these notices have been added to your talk page (per WP:AWARE).

Feel free to remove this message especially if you already knew, and sorry for the inconvenience.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on "Sedition Caucus" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this! I had watchlisted the page when I learned of her passing but wasn’t sure I’d get to it before the ITN window closed, so I was so pleased when your edits popped up—I knew the results would be great, and indeed! Thanks for the job well done on a deserving topic. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! She was certainly an interesting figure who deserved Main Page recognition. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that GameStop short squeeze is not ITN anymore (though it will always be ITN in our hearts), I just wanted to thank you for all the great work you did on the article !--JBchrch (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this, JBchrch. Your work on that article is phenomenal as well. Documenting history in real time... AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have no connection to Tools of Titans or the people featured in it. Just a fan.

For ease of access, you should keep comments related to a discussion on the same talk page, rather than moving it to mine. (You should also sign comments using four tildes.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend. I spent all night (until I fell asleep) thinking of the "US-centric" comment I made and your response which is certainly true. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, apologize If I offended you (as an American you are) in any way. Cheers. CoryGlee (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take any offense to it at all! It seemed to be a genuine question, and I attempted to answer as earnestly as I could (I've found it's very difficult to display intent through text). As I said then, I think it's great that ITN editors have balanced world events on the Main Page as much as they have. I very much appreciate the apology, though. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that the reason Keith Gill should be pointed to the investor's article is because it's getting literally thousands of hits from readers virtually all of whom want to read about the investor. The athletic director was averaging only about 5 hits per day before the investor popped up. By sticking a dab page in their way (especially with only 2 possible articles) you're just inconveniencing dozens to hundreds of people per day, however slightly, and for no offsetting benefit. Eventually we can actually move the page, but in the meantime, there's no reason not to redirect, unless there's some reason I'm unaware of. Station1 (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Keith Gill should probably point to Keith Gill (investor), but so long as the pages are parenthetically disambiguated they should remain like so. I would recommend you to request a move using WP:RM#CM and share your reasoning here with the entire community. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can do it if you like. Station1 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/United Airlines Flight 328 at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the additions to List of assassinated serving ambassadors! Poydoo can talk and edit 12:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I found the page following Luca Attanasio's death, and I noticed several of the people in Category:Assassinated diplomats were not reflected on the page. I appreciate the barnstar. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the attempted trivia addition you made for the 2021 New York nursing home scandal. I thought it was quite good but sad to see it got such high resistance. A lovely comment was seeing an editor call the scandal "overblown", quite frankly, what a partisan scumbag lol. If hiding 6k deaths from public knowledge isn't alarming to you you're too far gone. Regards. CaliIndie (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but that's how things go I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ While you're here, I wanted to thank you for the great expansion you've done to that page. It's in a pretty good shape now for readers thanks to the work you've put in. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was quite worried cause when I stumbled on the page it was kinda poorly constructed. The reactions section had bullet points which you never see for these kind of pages. Since the page was facing possible deletion I tried to make the presentation look as best as it could look to avoid that and it seems to have been a successful endeavor. Likewise, your additions have been good as well, I'm glad to see another editor taking a crack at fixing up this highly important article. CaliIndie (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AllegedlyHuman: If you're interested, I've went ahead and created a draft article at Draft:Impeachment of Andrew Cuomo, as the likelihood of such a scenario warrants prepardness if it occurs, we have an article ready. You're invited to contribute. CaliIndie (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, but are there any updates on this? My edits were prompted by this discussion which shows the general sentiment that the current version of this page has a pretty clear bias that actively misrepresents that actual circumstance. Goofygubernaculum (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I want to let you know I really appreciate you having the initiative to edit Wikipedia for the good of public knowledge. My issue with your edit at the time was not that it was factually wrong, but rather that you were radically changing the article structure within one edit. Some of your edits also linked to external websites in the body of the article, which we should not do. I will say I was not at the time aware of the situation re Reddit, so I thank you for bringing that to my attention. My advice to you would be to first find stuff you know is absolutely wrong and remove that material. Then, I'd recommend in separate edits that you add material you know to be right with reliable sources, so other editors and readers can verify it to be correct as well. (Perhaps other people on that subreddit may be interested in doing this too). As for edits regarding the structure, that's where my original point comes in. The structure of the article normally comes through careful consensus on the article's talk page, and moving a lot of stuff around can be seen as disruptive. Again, I very much appreciate you seeing something you'd like to fix and wanting to do so. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and the super speedy response :) I'll go back and make smaller, more categorical edits. I condensed the structure down because there was a lot of repeated material scattered about. Is there a way you'd suggest condensing? Would it be okay to edit the sections if I do smaller chunks, like condensing all of the Covid information into one section, then in another edit condensing all of the NBME executive stuff, etc? Goofygubernaculum (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems like it would make sense. In your edit summary you can even include something like "removing redundancy" if that's what you're doing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the WikiProject includes:

• the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women up to the mid-20th century.
• ongoing social and cultural movements and issues that affect women into the present but have historical precedents and origins.
• contemporary women as agents of historic change.

You've recently been adding the WP to non-related pages. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add content I noticed was missing from WP:WIG per the instructions given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green#Current Featured Content. If there's a better way to do this so those articles will show up on the list, I'd like to know, but I thought those instructions were pretty clear, and I followed them exactly. It certainly was not my intent to go against any rules or guidance. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:WikiProject Women in music might be more appropriate in many of these articles. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllegedlyHuman. Thanks for filing the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mgoodman1. In the future, I would exercise more caution when speculating on the personal identity of Wikipedia editors. In general, doing so on-wiki is not allowed per WP:OUTING. Even if an editor is editing under their real name, our policy still discourages posting the results of Google searches or the like. If you believe that this kind of information is necessary for us to protect the encyclopedia from disruption or conflicts of interest, you are encouraged to contact an administrator or functionary privately, e.g. via email, instead of posting the information on-wiki. For example, the functionaries have a mailing list at WP:FUNC. Thanks again, and please let me know if you have any questions. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mz7. With all respect, I believe my actions were appropriate as per the WMF statement on this topic. However, I appreciate you sending me these resources which I was not previously aware of, and I understand your move for oversight of that information. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that WMF statement, you should also review the Arbitration Committee's response to that statement. In summary, the ArbCom at the time expressed considerable skepticism about the WMF's statement. The interaction between the WP:COI guideline and the WP:OUTING policy has been the subject of considerable debate over the years, and that WMF statement only scratches the surface of the many discussions this community has had on the topic. If I had to summarize what I think the best advice is, it would be to always err on the side of privacy and only disclose non-public information in a non-public setting, such as email. Mz7 (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for informing me about how to better deal with this type of incident in the future, and thanks for your immediate action on this delicate matter. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Link: Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine previously being merged Talk:Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I am learning how to edit on Wiki, need to make an account. a more experienced user (devionwombat) explained that while my suspicions of bias were valid, that existing wikipedia policy did make sense. so, i am learning. i did not appreciate your tone, and accusations of whatever "sock" ing is--i dont know what that means.

hoping we can just dial down the rhetoric. we all just trying to help. thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8300:1AB6:1CE3:1F4C:2CB:41D3 (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Simone Gold, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold participated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Simone Gold. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Texas power crisis, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Governor Greg Abbott initially blamed the 2021 Texas power crisis on frozen wind turbines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Texas power crisis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... are you sure? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the note you deleted was useful and pertinent to a lot of readers, given his cause of death. But I defer to your judgment in the matter. The 75,000 readers in the last three days may have asked themselves this question. It was just a note, and did not interfere with the flow of the article. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was preachy and NPOV-breaking, and, as I noted in the edit summary, off-topic. We don't need to warn people about the dangers of kiteboarding every time we say a person died from it, just as we don't with car accidents or gun accidents. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Governor Andrew Cuomo, who was initially praised for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York, is now implicated in a scandal related to it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold drew 10,996 page views (916 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello incorrect about Kenyan Drake being signed the Raiders is not a valid source. The source is the Raiders official website and the team announced Drake was signed (https://www.raiders.com/news/raiders-sign-rb-kenyan-drake-nfl-free-agency-2021). If a NFL team's official website states they signed a player that is always considered a valid source. Diddykong1130

My apologies; I only saw the ESPN source you had provided in that edit, which by itself would not be enough to verify. The official Raiders announcement works; thanks for the message. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Giants official website must confirm it. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content to see that Twitter is not a good wikipedia source. Teams announcing "Reports" are also worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC) NFL's official Twitter confirmed it MrMiniguy (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should add the tweet as a source, then. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SteelerFan1933: The source you removed was from the NY Giants' official website, not Twitter. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that Giants website article was a Report, not an official announcement. See my talk page to see what @Eagles247 said. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SteelerFan1933: You should actually read the article AllegedlyHuman cited. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, that article says Twitter is an unacceptable source to cite from. This includes NFL Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SteelerFan1933: For one, AllegedlyHuman never added a tweet as a citation at Kenny Golladay. This is at least the third erroneous warning you've given to other editors, and I suggest you lay off of doing so until you have a firmer grasp of how Wikipedia works. Second, tweets are acceptable sources in certain cases. The guideline you are referencing is for "user-generated sources", meaning if you saw a tweet from Joe Schmo in Wyoming saying Golladay signed with the Raiders, you cannot use that as a reference. However, if the Raiders' officially-verified Twitter account posted that he signed with the team, that would be an acceptable citation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I dislike ALL article tags, most of them discrediting the article content. The translate tag doesn't but still attracts attention. I believe that it fine if there's a stub, and the other language has a well-developed article. Not here. I am on voluntary 1RR, so won't revert you, but do you see my point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally disagree, but I'll revert it anyway, as it's really not that important to me either way. The goal was to link to what appears to be a full article with several sources, as from my understanding that was what you and other editors were seeking. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllegedlyHuman. I noticed you added the COVID Conspiracy Theorist category into numerous BLPs. Please be aware if the main body of the article does not explicitly refer to the subject as a "COVID Conspiracy Theorist," then adding that category would be a WP:BLP, WP:COP, and MOS:LABEL vio. Even if the subject expressed skepticism in regards to COVID (or espoused outright baloney), we would have to wait until reliable sources refer to the subject as a "COVID Conspiracy Theorist" before we can add that category. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: The only guidance Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists gave was "Proponents of conspiracy theories related to the COVID-19 pandemic." It was not tagged as a contentious category, like for example Category:People involved in plagiarism controversies. Calling COVID fake or a biological weapon made in a Wuhan lab or by the U.S., attributing it to 5G, or promoting cures such as hydroxychloroquine are all examples of conspiracies labeled at the relevant page COVID-19 misinformation. As such, in my view, the people promoting such "outright baloney" would therefore unquestionably be "proponents of conspiracy theories related to the COVID-19 pandemic." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a slippery slope category. Wikipedia users could create an innumerable number of categories: "War Hawks/Warmongerers," "Koch Bros. Donors," "Politicians who support abortion," "Politicians who support Trump," "Politicians who wear masks," etc. Is this really an appropriate category, for an encyclopedia? I really don't think so. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:CFD, then. Not to sound rude, but that's a larger discussion and isn't really for my talk page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllegedlyHuman, I agree that people who say that COVID was a result of "5G" then that would be an example of promoting conspiracy theories. However, if that were the case, then reliable sources would then label the individual as a COVID conspiracy theorist. Would they not? As such, in my view, the people promoting such "outright baloney" would therefore unquestionably be "proponents of conspiracy theories related to the COVID-19 pandemic."--you may be right, but, articles are written based on reliable sources, and not based on the views of editors. Referring to a BLP as a "conspiracy theorist" is undoubtedly a contentious label. Just look at the related Category: Advocates of pseudoscience.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article GameStop short squeeze 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article GameStop short squeeze you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:GameStop short squeeze for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to ask you why you made a DYK nomination for "Diana"? Do you like the song? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do – I've been a fan of Pop Smoke for some time, and his death affected me pretty deeply, more than most celebrity deaths. The answer to your first question, though, is kind of boring – I was looking through the newest Good Articles via WP:GOOD, noticed Diana, and after reading through the Wikipedia article thought it would make for an interesting DYK. I hope it's no issue with you – if you'd like, you can add altblurbs to the nomination. By the way, you've done an excellent job expanding the article and, as I now see, expanding many articles on Pop Smoke songs to GA status. That's great – keep up the good work! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see another Pop Smoke fan on Wikipedia. I remember reading about his death. I was only 17 when that happened... Anyway, I've been wanting to take all of his songs that have articles to GA status before July 3. My biggest goal on Wiki is to make Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon a featured article. That album and its title means so much to me. I want to honor Pop by making his album's article have the gold star. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear. I've always thought expanding articles on Wikipedia is a great way to memorialize someone's legacy – that way, perhaps even years from now, people can discover or rediscover a song or album that may end up meaning a lot to them. It's a lot of work, though. Your effort here is very much appreciated. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've noticed you've made a lot of edits to Constitution of the United States. However, you've added quite a few {{citation needed}} tags. References do not need to be at the end of every sentence - they can be at the end of a paragraph and support the entire paragraph. Therefore, adding a tag in a phrase like this: The Articles of Confederation gave little power to the central government.[citation needed] The Confederation Congress could make decisions, but lacked enforcement powers.[citation needed] Implementation of most decisions, including modifications to the Articles, required unanimous approval of all 13 state legislatures.[15] is unnecessary and unhelpful, unless you have verified that the source does not, or is unlikely to, back up those claims.

Please read Wikipedia:Tag bombing before continuing and avoid adding excessive cleanup tags. They are unhelpful. Thanks! Elli (talk | contribs) 09:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb was combined with the men's final; giving credit on behalf of posting admin. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note with a lot of journalistic coverage. The scientific community is being included, I sincerely beg you to add it again. OaxacaGenius (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with the source you provided; it's how you phrased it. "Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) are words the NFL didn't want to hear about for a long time"? That's your opinion. And then you went into redescrbiing the event, after people will have read through the entire article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not delete this information of high media and legitimate reach. OaxacaGenius (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there is something that also adds a plus to the article, it is true that it is something recent, but it turns out that the scientific community has requested "that the brain of Phillip Adams be studied" to see if he suffered from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) This is extremely relevant since, in addition to the article, information about the call made by the scientific community can be added.OaxacaGenius (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you added something plainly factual like "scientists are requesting to study Adams' brain" with a reliable source then I have no issue with it. Your edit added your own commentary and a redundant summary of an article which people had already read. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to you that CNN is not a reliable source a medium that reaches more than 500 million people do not look for excuses to prevent my edition, and you should not illegitimate the scientific community. OaxacaGenius (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nice :)

Suspicioussandwich (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly editor notice that an RFC has begun about an "Wait" !Vote for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. You can see the discussion by clicking here. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daunte Wright protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I suppose I now know of the existence of a certain river. Thank you, my robotic friend. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]