Wait if you are here because of my Alternate Accounts please go Here instead.
Also if you here about my Fix it Boxes please go Here instead.
I will respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page. You may want to Watch this page until you are responded to.
If I placed a comment on your page, I have added it to my watchlist, so please reply there.
Also, please don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Finally, don't forget to assume good faith; I make mistakes and I'm not perfect.
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
I just took a look at my homepage for the first time in a while, and I saw that you are my assigned mentor. Before I opt out, do you have any advice to pass on? - ZLEAT\C22:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA not sure I have any wisdom to pass on to an editor with 27,000 edits under there name already so ill just say happy editing and I'm always here if you do find yourself needing to ask a question. Dcheagle • talk • contribs03:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I’m getting this straight, you’re claiming I’m “removing information”. What information am I removing? Feel free to add on rather than delete my edits which fix your errors.
You also claim I’m “placing undo weight on an unclaimed national title.” How is a quick summary of the season “undo weight”? Why do you get to decide what information is purposely deleted?
Lastly, you claim there’s no reason for 2 seperate tables.
Why not? One is a claimed title, one is not. They are not alike in any way, they should not be together. You cannot continue edit warring when your summary is a spelling error-ridden, poor summary that would confuse the average reader. Riptide10 (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riptide10 You continue to keep up with the vary same stuff as before from your edits to your edit summary's making it really easy to find the connections to the other sockpuppets.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs07:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“vary” same? What? The simple facts are that the section is filled with spelling errors and you are removing relevant information because you don’t agree with it.
@Riptide10 The section is neatly written to give a brief overview of events and adds relevant information on how and why they were retroactively awarded a championship for a season that was 79 years ago which Army was universally considered the National Champions, which you removed. The way the section was originally written was cluttered, out of order, placed undo weight on a championship that Oklahoma State does not even claim yet has this long winded paragraph about it. As for the table why should there be two tables with only one entry in them when one can do the job, no information is lost with the one table, if OSU had five claimed and four unclaimed titles then sure split it up but they don't and just cause its done one way an another article doesn't mean it has to be done this way here. Dcheagle • talk • contribs08:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly written??? It’s filled with spelling and grammatical errors? Army being the AP champions is irrelevant, now you’re just showing your bias. Again, how was it undue weight? It was a quick summary of the season in which they received a national championship from Colley Matrix. Not long winded in the slightest. And again, who are you to decide what method is used?
In NO OTHER college football wikipedia page are claimed and unclaimed titles mashed together. It’s lazy and it looks terrible. We both know it, you’re just a narcissist who cannot accept that someone is more skilled at editing than you. Pathetic. Riptide10 (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what though, we’ll leave it up to the rest of the people, fair? How about you start a discussion on the talk page of Oklahoma State football, and if more people prefer your way of editing it, I’ll live with it and let it be.
Now that you noticed it however, potentially you could assist me in starting the discussion on the talk page? @Dcheagle will not be of any help, so you might need to be the one to determine which edit is deemed more preferable unfortunately Riptide10 (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riptide10 What spelling and grammatical errors? Why should we not explain that after 79 years of Army being the undisputed national champions that OSU is know also considered national champions as well. Why should we have a summary of a championship that the school doesn't even claim. Whats lazy and terrible about having a single table that makes the section less cluttered?--Dcheagle • talk • contribs08:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“…claims the 1945 national championship, additional Oklahoma State was selected…” and “…In October 2016 the 1945…” Is that proper grammar to you? Looks horrendous along with the rest of the section. And again, who said it’s up to you to decide how much of a summary we should have for the 2011 season? Wikipedia is for the public, not just @Dcheagle, correct?
Would you be willing to put a message on the talk page and see which edit the rest of the people prefer? We clearly can’t agree, so why not leave it up to everyone else to determine who made the preferred edit? Riptide10 (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are. I’ll make a post on the Oklahoma State football talk page, and we’ll let the people decide which they prefer. Fair? Riptide10 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made a post on the talk page, I sincerely hope you wait until people voice their opinion before you continue to revert my edit. Riptide10 (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to create an author page, how do I do that? the author has publications on Amazon.com as well was a Patron to several well known charities over the years. --Saltyvixen (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
she has books at various places, been in AP news, helped out charities, and people on wikipedia tend to delete so I don't know how to set one up that will stay there. Perhaps you can help me? thanks! Saltyvixen (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saltyvixen Before we go any further I need to ask as your username and the amazon name are the same, are you ether the author in question or have some personal connection to the author in question. If so you have a Conflict of Interest. Dcheagle • talk • contribs11:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am a fan of the author. I am not the author and no connection to the author. Saltyvixen (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your offer of help. I have just moved an article from my sandbox to production and one of the references (which I cite multiple times) shows an error message. It "published" perfectly in the sandbox but now has an error. Can you help? The article is Hugh Thompson(British Naval Officer). Sorry to bother you!
Arethusa --ArethusaF38 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that and fixed it. Basically, how it works is the first time you use <ref name="Times">((cite news |title=Hugh Thompson Obituary |publisher=The Times |date=24 December 1996))</ref> and for the ones after that you should use <ref name="Times"/>. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva17:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Rebelknight274 (14:56, 22 August 2024)
what sources are reliable enough to be quoted? is say human rights watch trustworthy enough?
and if I'm editing a niche topic and there isnt a famous or english source, can i cite relatively obscure news articles, or non-english sources? --Rebelknight274 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oklahoma State Cowboys football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Receivers. 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.)