User talk:Theleekycauldron: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:32, 11 September 2021

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, OfficerCow. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Chess (talk) Ping when replying 09:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Code Bullet moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Code Bullet, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 21:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Code Bullet pose.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of women currently serving in the United States House of Representatives (September 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CAPTAIN MEDUSA was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Women in the United States House of Representatives instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of women currently serving in the United States House of Representatives and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of women currently serving in the United States House of Representatives, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OfficerCow! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello

You may want to use the Twinkle gadget for nominating articles at AfD - it will transclude your nomination to the log page and notify the author for you. SK2242 (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Mz7 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting PC review

Just wanted to let you know, I reverted a recent change that you approved because it was likely a copyright violation. Don't worry about the (maybe) mistake, I was almost going to accept it before I checked it. I've accepted libel before and still don't remember what it was... Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Definitely wouldn't have caught that, sorry- OfficerCow (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @DarthFlappy and OfficerCow: To add on to this, after removing a clear copy-paste copyright violation, it's usually a good idea to also request revision deletion via the {{copyvio-revdel}} template. (I've already revdelled this particular case, so you don't have to worry about it.) Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Smith. 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) 06:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ferguson

The IP I reverted is evading an indefinite block. Per WP:BLOCKEVASION, such edits are almost always reverted, unless they're fixing typos or reverting vandalism. The edit will most likely be reverted again due to the amount of disruption said IP seems to enjoy causing, and the ambiguous nature of the edit. – ².O.^Boxing 02:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: no problem - this isn't my field. Thanks so much for letting me know! Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ferguson

Good day theleekycauldron, As per the article above, the existing source is already indicated in the bottom of the infobox as all the mma fighter use Sherdog for the height of the subject - pls see here. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC) @CASSIOPEIA: no problem - this isn't my field. Thanks so much for letting me know! Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CallMeCarson has been accepted

CallMeCarson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AviationFreak💬 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Thank you for incorporating my userbox into your user-page! Interops (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, CallMeCarson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Leave it alone. The most recent ref we have is Jan 6, so we have nothing in the article supporting anything after that date. Meters (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of opposing statements from Last Week Tonight @Narendra Modi

I would like to know the need for the "rebuttal" to be "notable". If "notable" things were the only things allowed on Wikipedia, then why does this exist:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unusual_articles Surely this isn't notable or even necessary. The only reason it exists is because someone thought it to be useful to show an OPPOSING VIEWPOINT of the world around us. That is the joy one gets from the Wikimedia movement, to get content that is not notable. Another thing, Wikipedia is a place where facts are stated, which often requires OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS to be stated. The "rebuttal" is fact and an important one as well. Therefore, I would request you to discuss before taking such actions. Have a good day, Ranamode (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranamode, your addition is WP:UNDUE and not appropriate for the article. Content needs to be sourced to reliable sources that mention the article subject. None of the cited sources appear to mention Last Week Tonight, and that would make it original research to add in a rebuttal when that argument is not being made in the sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The need for the rebuttal to be notable is this: Why can't I just write my own rebuttal to something I don't like, completely make stuff up, and just put it in Wikipedia? The goal of Wikipedia editors is not to determine the truth for themselves; it is to find reliable, secondary sources that tell us the truth. Sharma's video is something anyone can make - it's not from a reliable source. I have no way to verify it. Therefore, it's not important enough to be on this particular page. It's also worth noting that this article isn't meant to make any arguments - it's meant to detail Oliver's. Theleekycauldron (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranamode, the need for notability exists for articles in the main space - you linked to an article in the Wikipedia namespace, a special class of articles on improving wikipedia. But yes, everything in what we normally think of as "wikipedia" needs to be notable. Theleekycauldron (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron I'll like to clear out some misconceptions. Sham Sharma has himself stated that he enjoyed John Oliver's work, and the video's only purpose was to add context to some claims John Oliver had made in his episode of Narendra Modi (you can watch the video and hear him say this at the beginning). The stuff was not made up as you would think it to be. He shows his sources on screen (though not in the description). Since you say that the article is only to detail Oliver's arguments, don't you think that we need a separate article countering Last Week Tonight to give a balanced worldview? I'll state that I agree with the goal of Wikipedia editors is not to determine truth, but to state truth without bias, without second thoughts, in its original form. I am not going to pursue trying to put the Sham Sharma's content back, but I'll like to tell you that all sides of the argument must be shared one way or the other, making sure that those statements are factual. Ranamode (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For making the first WikiProject TV assessment request of the year. Hope the feedback is helpful! — Bilorv (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: thank you so much! I looked at your suggestions, i'll definitely implement them when I find time. Theleekycauldron (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:That Vegan Teacher.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:That Vegan Teacher.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SLAPP Suits

On 1 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SLAPP Suits, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Oliver was sued for defamation when he made a man in a large squirrel costume tell a coal industry CEO to "eat shit" on his show? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, SLAPP Suits), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Oliver SLAPP Suits.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Oliver SLAPP Suits.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of That Vegan Teacher for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article That Vegan Teacher is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Vegan Teacher until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Linguist111^talk 10:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Amicusbriefaclu.png

Thanks for uploading File:Amicusbriefaclu.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Amicusbriefaclu.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Amicusbriefaclu.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amicusbriefaclu.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amicusbriefaclu.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of SLAPP Suits

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SLAPP Suits 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of SLAPP Suits

The article SLAPP Suits you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SLAPP Suits for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of SLAPP Suits

The article SLAPP Suits you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SLAPP Suits 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Peter Oberacker

Hello, Theleekycauldron,

Thank you for creating Peter Oberacker.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Can you fix reference 3?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JW 1961 Talk 20:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseywales1961: Done

Your draft article, Draft:Code Bullet

Hello, Theleekycauldron. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Code Bullet".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about SLAPP Suits and a man in a squirrel suit telling a coal industry CEO to "eat shit" drew 11,724 page views (977 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) 18:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request

I request that American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 gets withdrawn as a GA-nominee. I will let someone else nominate it instead. ARP2021 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of rollback

[1] very sorry about that! Fatty thumbs I'm afraid. ——Serial 05:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: no problem at all! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations 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) 06:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations

The article Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations 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) 07:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Vote

Hello! Your submission of A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Vote at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! HouseOfChange (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Infobox on Josiah Bartlet

Hi, I noticed you removed an infobox I created on Josiah Bartlet. I'm curious what the reason for that was. Other characters from The West Wing like Matt Santos have in universe; office holder infoboxes so I don't know why Bartlet shouldn't. Also look at President Selina Meyer from Veep, she has the same thing.--Juliantrevor (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

@Juliantrevor: I read MOS:WAF-INFO incorrectly, my mistake! I'll reinstate the changes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Vote

On 16 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Vote, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former U.S. president Bill Clinton made a guest appearance on a television reunion episode of The West Wing to encourage voter turnout in the 2020 United States elections? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Vote. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Vote), 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) 12:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I would have rather you waited a bit longer for more responses.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Theleekycauldron. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assessment

Hi, It would be a great help if you could assess the given articles which are created/expanded my me. I hope for a B class assessment. Thanks.

Jimmy Carter 1976 presidential campaign
Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign (re-assess)

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Hi there! I appreciate the request. I assessed Jimmy Carter 1976 presidential campaign as C-class; I'm a bit of a stickler on this one, but I don't quite think the article meets B-class criteria without expansion in the primary section; It mostly seems to be readily available statistics without much narrative. Still, excellent work! I'm going to hold off on reassessing Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign–The article is definitely C-class or higher, but I don't quite feel comfortable assessing it as B-class until the grammatical errors are addressed. Try to proofread the article, and particularly watch for words that should be capitalised, like names and parties. It's very close! Let me me know when you've made the changes, or if you feel stuck. Great work! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (out of curiosity, why me, and how did you find me?)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron Hi, thanks for your help. I have already requested both the articles to be copy-edited (1 ;2). I hope that after copy-editing, the grammatical errors would be resolved and articles would meet the B class standard. As the articles are still in queue, I would surely consider expanding the primary section of Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential campaign. I also plan to create more articles related to presidential campaign. Still, thank-you for your help; and I found you from this page.

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Sounds good! I forgot about that politics page I was on a kick- keep doing what you're doing and let me know if you want me to take another look :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theleekycauldron: Hope you remember this request. The article "Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign" is almost copy-edited, so the grammatical errors might be fixed. It has passed it DYK nomination, and is up for Peer Review for a possible GAN. Requesting you to take another look at the article and re-assess per criteria. Still, hoping for a B class assessment. Also, would appreciate your comments at Peer Review page. Thanks!

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theleekycauldron: Just saw this edit on your page and pinged you again! Hope you remember this request, which is thoroughly copy-edited in these edits by User - Twofingered Typist. Kindly take a second look and assess the article "Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign". Also, would appreciate your comments at Peer Review page as I hope plant to nominate it for GA. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kavyansh.Singh! I will take another look when i've the time. Things are still a little crazy, but it shouldn't take too long. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Sorry about the delay- I don't think I can assess the article properly. There are plenty of others to ping, I'd go looking around- I'm really sorry about that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I completely understand, thanks for your help! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Eugene Gu's page

I see that you are censoring the comments made by IP. This deprives other Wikipedia editors from seeing the ad hominem attacks that the IP is making against others, and the racist comments that are being made as well. I believe this should be seen in their full context by other editors. When you censor these comments, other editors have no idea that the vandalism is occurring. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AsianAmericanAdvocate: Sorry, but I'm not going to let this become a mud fight. I am trying to foster a positive space on Wikipedia and these attacks stand in the way. Per WP:No personal attacks, I am allowed to remove anything deemed a personal attack. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) By deleting these remarks, other editors cannot see that there are bad faith actors who are supporting your edits. Also, you mentioned in one of your comments that these attacks were "outing" me. I am concerned that you are putting personal feelings into your edits and not basing things on the actual evidence.

@AsianAmericanAdvocate: I didn't say "outed"–"attempted outing" includes any guess at another user's real-life identity, including unsubstantiated or incorrect guesses. Also, you're not going to get closer to including the paragraph by smearing an annoying editor. I promise you, your policy arguments have spoken much better to everyone watching, rather than this interest in showing that there is a vandal on the page to paint yourself in a comparatively positive light. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the actions of the vandal is not about painting myself in a positive light. It's about showing everyone the actual evidence of the vandalism and the intent behind the vandalism, which coincidentally supports your edits in the Personal Life section. I want the facts and the evidence to speak for themselves.AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AsianAmericanAdvocate: The vandalism has no bearing on the facts nor the evidence of the proposed paragraph. I don't care if every vandal on Wikipedia was dedicated to making Eugene Gu seem like a murderer; It doesn't affect how we discuss the content of the article. I'm trying to move along a policy discussion and you're trying to use the vandalism to paint yourself and your arguments more favourably. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: This is where we may have to agree to disagree. By deleting the vandal's comments, other editors have no idea that the vandalism is even occurring at all. Then it actually paints me as having an edit war with the IP like we are both fighting and flinging mud against each other when in fact I have been trying to simply have a policy debate and have been civil this entire time.-AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AsianAmericanAdvocate: all right–we're done on this page. thanks very much. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations \| July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

Did you ever find a response to this question? If not, it sounds like something they could answer at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Coal (Last Week Tonight)

Hello, Theleekycauldron. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Coal (Last Week Tonight), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-binary TikTokers has been nominated for merging

Category:Non-binary TikTokers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TikTokers by gender has been nominated for merging

Category:TikTokers by gender has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 19:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Party cell template

Hello! While I'm not concerned about the color being visible on the other side of the cell, I also don't know exactly why it's happening. If you do, feel free to edit the template! WMSR (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WMSR: can't figure it out either! Oh well. I'm back at my desk now, so I should be able to get started on Alaska's page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WMSR: jesus christ, did you leave any of the pages for me? nicely done on the updating theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going in alphabetical order, haha! WMSR (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WMSR: aight then, I'll add the text and other stuff- i wonder how many of these we can get to WP:FL! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, check out United States congressional delegations from Pennsylvania. I made one of the sections a sideways scrolling table with a sticky header row, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. Input appreciated. If you're a fan, feel free to implement across the board. If not, feel free to undo my edit :) -- WMSR (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WMSR: I am a fannnnnnnn! fuck, that's a good idea. I'm out for the day, but let me put it into the bigger ones you've already touched on, like California–I want to see what you've done here and get some experience with the table format. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey! I think if we go with that, we need to make sure to put line breaks between first and last names, etc. Still want to reduce the amount of sideways scrolling to the extent possible. -- WMSR (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Coal (Last Week Tonight)

Hello, Theleekycauldron. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Coal".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selected hook for DYK

The hook that was selected at Template:Did you know nominations/Long Bow Trilogy is not one I particularly like at all, and I don't even really think it's interesting. I don't know why I wasn't consulted on this before it was chosen but I think I made it clear my alt was the preferred one. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Paragon Deku! I'm happy to switch the hook, but I can't promote an alt unless it's specifically stated in the article (without repeating the exact same words) and cited right at the end of the sentence—I wasn't quite sure where to find that, so I went with another hook. If you can clear this up, I'm happy to swap. Thanks so much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a rewording of the initial hook to fix the (what I consider to be pedantic) issue, the citation from the Asian studies journal is right there. It's mentioned in the lede and the reception section. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paragon Deku: Ah, I gotcha. Well, that should be up and fixed! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Building prep sets at DYK

Theleekycauldron, thank you for your hard work at DYK building prep sets. It's always difficult to get the sets balanced between bios and non-bios, and it took me a while to learn all the ins and outs.

A couple of things to keep in mind as you do so. A key one appears on the prep page above every set of hooks, Note: Because a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are biographies or U.S.-related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on biographies or U.S. topics in any given set, but never more than half from either category. Further information is available at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#J. (The "suggestions page" is the Approved page; reading it now, I think we should change the wording for clarity.)

Second, it's important to keep like hooks separate: there shouldn't be two bios in a row or two hooks from the same country in a row. Also, with the exception of the U.S., which should typically supply three or four hooks unless we're running low on approved U.S. hooks, it's best to limit yourself to two hooks per set from a single country, and if it isn't a big country, then probably only one hook. A variety of subjects is best.

I've always found it a bit like a puzzle, putting together the pieces in a way that works while following the various guidelines (bio/non-bio, country, subject variety, etc.), and finding both a lead hook with a nice image and a quirky hook for the final slot. There are even more nuanced considerations if you can work them, such as not having all short hooks or all long hooks in a set (it unbalances the main page).

I hope you continue to enjoy building prep sets. I'm happy to answer any questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: thanks for the heads-up! I see you took a few hooks out of Prep 2, is that what you're referring to? I thought it was four of any country, that's my mistake. Any other prep sets i should be keeping an eye on? it seems like the other ones were approved theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm looking through the sets, quite a few (i believe around seven) of the U.S. hooks were approved or nominated by me. We're running low on them outside of those, so if those could be promoted that would be helpful. The few left are mostly with pictures. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, the issue with Prep 2 is not only that there were four UK hooks, but they were four consecutive hooks. When building DYK sets, no two consecutive hooks should be from the same country, or the same type of hook (two bios, two buildings, two music, etc.). So having Thomas Earle followed by Pixie Davies was a double whammy: they were both bios, and they were both UK. It's why I moved both Thomas Earle and Chestnut Centre out, and left Pixie and Piers Shonks separated from each other.

Ah, that's—quite the brain fart on my part. I don't think I was paying attention to that, and I should have been.

Another thing I'm not sure you're aware of is that when you promote a special occasion hook, you should add an invisible comment in the prep to indicate that it's a special occasion hook, so it doesn't get moved by someone else trying to balance a prep set or replace a hook that was just sent back for more work. If you'll look at Queue 4, you can see what I did with the Gemma Collis-McCann hook that you promoted.

I wasn't aware of this—I also promoted Leschenault Lady, that could've been a problem? I'll add comments from now on.

Finally, one of the things I learned to do when closing a nomination that I'm promoting to prep is to always use the "Show preview" button first to make sure it looks right before I publish changes. A frequent problem is that people will add comments below the final braces in the template (which are on the line with the comment that reads Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.), so when you go to close a nomination, they appear outside the colored box that closing creates. When that happens, you need to move everything below that final line to just above it before completing the closure. Unfortunately, two of your closures didn't go as they should have about 17 hours ago. On Template:Did you know nominations/Herma Albertson Baggley, you forgot to add the "subst:" to DYKsubpage when you added the "yes" to passed, which is something I've also forgotten on more than one occasion, but I usually catch my omission at the "Show preview" stage. The other one, Template:Did you know nominations/In God We Trust, was a bit of a mess because of a removed start-of-comment sign and a later removed closed braces pair, but if you'd done the preview, you would have noticed that there was a problem. If you can't figure out what's wrong (this one was pretty obscure and had two issues, which would have stumped me in my early days), ask for advice or help at WT:DYK. I've fixed and closed both of these nominations, so they're all set.

I should've caught those beforehand—i tried to take a shortcut on those, and it didn't pan out, i'm sorry about that. I'll check each one with a "show preview" first.

I hadn't realized that you had either nominated or reviewed so many of the U.S. hooks, making them unavailable to you when building sets. Perhaps, if you can't promote enough U.S. hooks yourself, you could leave an empty slot or two in your sets in the hopes that someone else will come along and fill them with the U.S. ones you can't promote yourself. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll leave blank slots.

@BlueMoonset: I'm sorry about the mix-ups—I'm still a bit new to this. I really appreciate the constructive criticism, I'll keep it in mind as I build more prep sets. Thanks so much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, we're all learning all the time. Mix-ups happen, and it's another way to learn.

I wrote a whole essay about that—i could do with some internalizing it, bahaha. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing to take into consideration is that some prep builders prefer building complete sets only. When you fill up all of the lead hooks in the otherwise empty preps, they can't work the way they like to do it, and some of them just wait until they can do all eight slots of a prep rather than fill up an already-started set. It is fun picking lead hooks because of the pictures, and people like doing it, so it's good to spread the fun around. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I thought that might have been a problem, I'm sorry about that. I just wanted to get rid of some of the more backlogged hooks—I wish the approved hooks with and without images went into separate pages. It'd be easier to navigate that way, but I'm happy to stay in one or two prep sets at a time either way :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing out promoted noms

Thanks for putting together so many DYK sets! While double-checking DYKUpdateBot's recent edits, I noticed the bot credited Michael M. Thomas twice within a day. After a bit more digging, it looks like the associated nomination was accidentally left open when the hook was first promoted to prep 7, causing it to be promoted to prep 6 a second time a couple days later. Mistakes happen, so no worries, let's make sure to close out promoted noms in the future :) Shubinator (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shubinator: Oh my, I'm sorry about that! That shouldn't happen anymore—what it probably was is that I was alternating between tabs, and probably accidentally closed out the nom page (and it wouldn't have thrown an error since i didn't change anything, only copy/pasted). I'm split screening the tabs now, it's much more efficient and it should mitigate that mistake. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the funny hook at Hedgehog Flavour Crisps

Hi. I just noticed when you promoted Hedgehog Flavour Crisps (which I reviewed) you said, "How could you possibly have no preference? ALT1 is the funniest hook I've ever seen on DYK." (emphasis in original) To answer your question (which was probably rhetorical), I probably had no preference because I'm practically humourless (I only get the really obvious cheesy jokes and puns). Just wanted to note that. Have a great rest of your weekend! Pamzeis (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Ahaha, I appreciate the heads up! It was totally jokey :) Have a great weekend! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
101	Two Cathedrals (talk)	Add sources
753	Magical objects in Harry Potter (talk)	Add sources
205	Sam Seaborn (talk)	Add sources
14	Roxor Games (talk)	Add sources
91	Angry Birds Space (talk)	Add sources
118,255	Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (talk)	Add sources
8	Robert Hilkemann (talk)	Cleanup
40,717	Kabul (talk)	Cleanup
30	Say No to This (talk)	Cleanup
3,130	Me Too movement (talk)	Expand
2,055	ByteDance (talk)	Expand
63,556	Andrew Cuomo (talk)	Expand
250	Leo McGarry (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
167	Toby Ziegler (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,857	Presidential system (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
37	Sentiocentrism (talk)	Merge
50,997	Al-Qaeda (talk)	Merge
16	Scottish poorhouse (talk)	Merge
153	Greyfriars Kirkyard (talk)	Wikify
21	Valley Lodge (band) (talk)	Wikify
265	Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (talk)	Wikify
38	Kards (talk)	Orphan
15	Sebastián Izquierdo (talk)	Orphan
117	Mikayla Nogueira (talk)	Orphan
27	Mike Hilgers (talk)	Stub
533	2021 Turkish floods (talk)	Stub
7	Jukka Linkola (talk)	Stub
8	Arthur Wahl (talk)	Stub
5	Redlands Adventist Academy (talk)	Stub
11	Lynne Walz (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Solomon Cartwright - choice of hooks

Hi, Theleekycauldron. I nominated the John Solomon Cartwright article, and I'm just curious how you choose amongst the four hooks? I've never done this DYK thing before and I'm interested in the process. When I nominated the four hooks, I just put them in the order they occurred in the article and didn't really have a preference, but I thought # 4 was the least likely to be chosen. Shows how much I know! :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz! I appreciate the question! Well, my opinion isn't the be-all end-all—you can see that the reviewer actually had a preference for the second hook. For my personal thought process, I didn't want to use ALT1, because the hook centers more around the court martial than Cartwright himself, who I thought was quite interesting—so I wanted him to have a hook that was really his. The other three are great.

As to why I picked #4 in particular, I thought the interpersonal conflict aspect was really interesting, and the one that left the most room for investigation. If I come across the first hook (which we call ALT0) on DYK, i'm going to think "hmm, that's interesting" and not give it a second thought. But if i come across hooks 3 or 4 (ALT2 and ALT3), I'm going to think "wait, why is that?" For the last hook in particular, I'd be thinking "what's so weird about this Francis Hincks guy that Cartwright would pass up an opportunity like that? I've got to learn more about this Cartwright".

It's hard to put into words exactly why I chose ALT3 over ALT2—I'm the promoter, and my gut instinct was that I liked the last one the best. Sometimes, hooks will get swapped around in the prep areas, if there are problems or if the nominator thinks one is more interesting. But usually, it's the choice of the promoter. Thanks so much for the question! I really like the article, kudos to you on getting it to good article status. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thanks. I came across Cartwright quite by accident, on a long-term wiki-project I'm working on, and put it aside to work up Cartwright. The GA reviewer, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, was very helpful, and definitely made it better with their questions and comments. Big "what if" for me is "what if Cartwright hadn't got TB?" His politics were definitely out of step with the political evolution of the Canadas, but he was really capable. What would he have done as politics evolved? would he have been a leader in Confederation? A mentor for Macdonald? He certainly had the talents for a long political career; or business; or the law/judiciary. When I put the four hooks up, I thought to myself: "If it's a Canadian reviewer, it will be #1 (because Macdonald), or #3 (because French-English); if it's a US reviewer, good chance #2 (because cross-border war). #4 is for politico-types." Hadn't thought of it so much as personality conflict. :) Thanks very much! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - i noticed the above discussion on Hedgehog crisps and I agreed with you - I burst out laughing when I read it the other night!Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I am definitely one of the politicos, but that angle was what worked best for me (I'm fresh off my Hamilton phase so personal-political rivalries are my jam). Also, thank god on the hedgehog crisps! No one else as of yet has shared my enthusiasm :) nice to know you do–it's just so so good theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looked really good on the main page today - thanks for all your help! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

of course! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Lori Gramlich

Hello! Your submission of Lori Gramlich at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I approved it, but forgot to ping you. Left some side comments at the nom. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Thanks so much! I just pulled an all-nighter and I am waaaay too sleep deprived to stand up straight, much less edit an article, but I'm going to take a look at your suggestions in a couple of hours or so. I really appreciate the review! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rest and recharge. Stay safe.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Hayden (teacher)

Hey, TLC. I just noticed this was promoted already...you thought the photo wasn't clear at the size? I feel like when we have am image of a Black woman, which is pretty unusual, we should consider using it, maybe cropping if that helps with the clarity at the size. Most of our bio images are of white men. —valereee (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: it didn't have much to do with clarity. There was some discussion on the talk page about the lack of U.S. hooks—initially, I was told to promote hooks without images to preserve the half-U.S. balance, so i did that for a few sets, but then I was told to only use one U.S. hook, which is why the number of U.S. hooks in the sets drastically decreases as you go down. Hayden is a great choice for an image, and by all means, if you can get the white men off the image section for a bit, please do. The reason I promoted the buildings was my tired monkey brain at work—when I was promoting image hooks without their image, I kept snubbing the building hooks, so I resolved that when I had room, I'd promote those out from under first, because they were easy to remember and mostly from the same user, and I didn't want to make them feel bad. In the process, I forgot about the other hooks I promoted. That screw-up's on me. Feel free to spread the U.S. hooks out and put Hayden and McAndrew in place of the buildings—just make sure there aren't two buildings in a set, of course. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TLC, it's no big deal! :) Not all image hooks can get the image slot! Building preps is sort of an art form -- there are general guidelines (like we should use 3-4 US hooks in each set) but often people don't know the reasons behind those guidelines. In the case of 3-4 US hooks per set, it's purely because we have so many US hooks. Also don't worry about snubbing buildings, flags, coats of armor, statues, and other things that are easy to get images of. We have editors who will do a long project about multiple such things, and they'll nom every one with an image. Look for images that are actually important to the hook and/or are unusual/interesting in some way. And please don't get discouraged because people are commenting on the work. We all appreciate it! It's just, like I said, building a prep is an art form. It probably takes longer to learn than anything on WP except the Featured Article process. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

advice noted, thanks! And thank you for the encouragement, I needed that at the moment :) I am getting better at the prep building, and I'm getting more comfortable with using my own discretion (the advice helps quite a bit with that), but you're right, it's an art form and it takes practice. I'm definitely learning a lot here, and enjoying myself. again, i really do appreciate the message—it's hard not to take a bit too seriously and try to fix everything, and you helped me take a step back. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Julie Schmit-Albin

On 31 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julie Schmit-Albin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Julie Schmit-Albin was awarded the title of Admiral in the Great Navy of the State of Nebraska for her work as a pro-life activist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Schmit-Albin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Julie Schmit-Albin), 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.

Schwede 66 12:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Thank for good DYK reviewing in August! I liked yesterday's Main page, with 4 bolded names I brought there, all in memory: the TFA, nominated for a missed user, the pictured DYK (Alfred Biolek), and two under Recent deaths, Siegfried Matthus and Teresa Żylis-Gara. August harvest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are just amazing in scheduling, DYK? Just one of them left me unhappy, Template:Did you know nominations/Klassische Philharmonie Bonn. How is this: you re-open it, unstrike ALT2, and approve that? Nutshell: this is Klassische Philharmonie, not the precursor, and it's quite common for an ensemble to focus on music written in the area, while several concert series all over a country is a unique ting to say (see La Folia Barockorchester]), + about the current, not the precursor (+ mentioning the founder who died but his death was reported too late to go under Recent deaths). I pleaded with the reviewer, as you probably saw ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! It looks like the reviewer approved ALT2, and it wasn't struck, so I'm happy to switch it out, if there aren't any objection. Some things get bogged down in months of minor wording changes, and if both are approved, it doesn't bother me. Narutolovehinata, if you did mean to strike the hook for some reason, let me know, we'll work it out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, my mistake, I meant ALT1. - It's not minor, - it's whether we focus on the current with the conductor, or the precursor without him, about a unique fact or something rather frequent. - Good side effect: at least I looked again at the Dresden orchestra, which lacked references, o dear ... I added one for the moment. RL today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Well, I can re-open the nomination, and you could request a second opinion on that ALT with {{subst:DYK?again}}. I probably couldn't act as the reviewer after that, and I definitely couldn't both approve and repromote the hook. I'll follow whatever you'd like to do, but I'd submit that this particular nomination has already dragged on for over two months, and that going through this is going to take at least another week for someone to want to dig into it. DYK is, as i'm sure you already know, very slow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reopen the nom then. Recent deaths is - as you probably know - one of my key things this years. He died in June, - a few weeks more or less don't matter ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so—I'll reopen the nom for you, then :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jewish German comedians

A tag has been placed on Category:Jewish German comedians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Day of Reckoning (2016 film)

The reviewer added my username to the DYK for fixing the article and hook. It was added incorrectly which is why I think you didn't add it to the prep upon promotion. SL93 (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ah, sorry about that—I'll add your name theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The DYK Barnstar
		Hi Theleekycauldron, a little appreciation of all the hard work you've put into the DYK space in the past few weeks. There is often a shortage of people willing to build prep sets and take part in the other grunt work, and thanks in part to your efforts the large backlog has now been reduced. Keep up the good work! — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, thank you so much! It's been such a joy to participate in DYK so far :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support! - Omas gegen Rechts - enjoy strong women! I thought of Yoninah on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:) thank ya! It's rosh hashana for me too! And for sure, I'm thinking about strong women today. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thanks to you, we have a rich Main page today: the first TFA by a promising author, the pictured DYK by same friend LouisAlain who is discouraged by an AN discussion, and one of the Recent deaths. Enjoy, you good spirit of prep-building! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help out! Thanks for your nominations, they're all much fun to dig into. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

I approved ALT1 for Template:Did you know nominations/Lotte Bailyn. SL93 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: my mistake. I'll change the hook, but it won't be in the tail slot, so I'll move it up to P3. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Sharri MacDonald 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) 05:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated!

Thanks for being brave enough to put us all out of our misery. In the spirit of helping you been an even better closer, two things:

(1) Instead of repeating/summarizing the proposal in the close, it probably would have been better to have simply said that the proposal, as stated, is adopted.
(2) A side effect of repeating the proposal in the close is that you inadvertently injected something that actually isn't there i.e. the specification that (if you're >20, and we're in the mode) an extra QPQ will be required per article. In fact, it's pretty clear that (and this is my fault) the proposal is at least somewhat ambiguous on that -- is the requirement an extra QPQ per article, or per nomination? The difference only matters when there are multiple articles in a single hook/nomination e.g. if it's a 3-article hook, are 6 QPQs required, or just 4? Buried in the discussion was that I took the view it should be 4 (because 6 seems like an AWFUL lot) and BMS (or someone) took the view it should be 6. That wasn't actually resolved, and I didn't press the point because the last thing we needed was more confusion injected into an already highly confused process.

But we're over the big hump now, and issue (2) above -- a relatively minor point -- can be ironed out later. So if I may suggest, don't take any of my suggestions above. Just let sleeping dogs lie for now. Thanks again for your bravery. If things go bad I'll see you get a decent burial, don't worry. E Eng 05:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I appreciate the input! I'll take it, particularly issue (2), under advisement for next time. I'm going to start a second RfC on the details of this—there's some stuff that does need to be ironed out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 720: / Line 720: @@
 But we're over the big hump now, and issue (2) above -- a relatively minor point -- can be ironed out later. So if I may suggest, ''don't take any of my suggestions above''. Just let sleeping dogs lie for now. Thanks again for [[Fools rush in where angels fear to tread|your bravery]]. If things go bad I'll see you get a decent burial, don't worry. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 : {{re|EEng}} I appreciate the input! I'll take it, particularly issue (2), under advisement for next time. I'm going to start a second RfC on the details of this—there's some stuff that does need to be ironed out. [[User:Theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) ([[Singular they|they/them]]) 05:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
-==DYK discussion close==
-That was a very disappointing close. You commented multiple times in the discussion but still saw fit to close it in favor. There was obviously no consensus. By all appearances you simply counted votes, ignored the trend of the discussion, and ignored policy-based arguments. Really shameful. [[User:IronGargoyle|IronGargoyle]] ([[User talk:IronGargoyle|talk]]) 06:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)