User talk:Hydrangeans

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Hi Hydrangeans. Thank you for your work on Horton Davies. Another editor, Aszx5000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Excellent work. You are constructing articles of a consistently high quality - why are you not autopatrolled? thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Aszx5000 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aszx5000: Thanks for your kind words; I try my best.

A user needs to have created at least 25 articles, and I've only created a bit less than half that many. Even if I reach that benchmark, I don't create articles that often, so the main purpose (to reduce the workload of new pages patrol by removing prolific high-quality creators' new articles from the patrol pool) may not quite apply. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are writing large high quality GA-rated article (I see that you have 5), which unfortunately do take time to patrol. Your articles are of a very high quality and in topic areas that would raise no red flags with autopatrolling. It is your choice, and but with +10,000 unreviewed articles (and +300 b-grade articles) on the queue, there is no need for any of yours to be on it. And maybe you might like to try patrolling the +B-grade articles someday. Obviously your choice but I wanted to let you know :) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about how the length of a new article adds to the time consumed by patrolling. And a lot of the articles I've created have been lengthy at creation. I'll keep this in mind for when I pass the 25 article threshold. Thanks for the elaboration, and for the invitation to try patrolling; I'll give that some thought. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article American Colossus: Big Bill Tilden and the Creation of Modern Tennis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American Colossus is a biography of a man who was "the most famous sportsman in the world" and "the most forgotten great athlete in American history"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Colossus: Big Bill Tilden and the Creation of Modern Tennis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, American Colossus: Big Bill Tilden and the Creation of Modern Tennis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Noleander and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Noleander clarification request, in which you were listed as an involved editor, has been closed and archived. The request was related to that case's principle 9, which states:

Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.

Among the participating Arbitrators, there was a rough consensus that this principle remains true with current policies and guidelines and that there is not an exemption from this principle for asserting that an editor has a conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

• One new partner
• 1Lib1Ref
• Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Horton Davies, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ten years after publishing the book Great South African Christians, Horton Davies gave a speech criticizing South African churches and synagogues for their role in apartheid? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Horton Davies. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Horton Davies), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that the image of the Disney character Cinderella that ya uploaded is a screenshot yet it isn't promotional artwork at all. I mean it. Esagurton (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied in the thread you started on Talk:Cinderella (Disney character). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Just a quick note about this edit. Since "Siamese twins" is a popular (yet becoming archaic) term for conjoined twins, I always assumed that's the way Edward was using it. For better or for worse, people use "Siamese twins" without any intention of describing the geographic origin of the individuals. I haven't seen the film in awhile, so I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Edward wasn't thinking about the nationality of Ping and Jing. Please let me know your thoughts :) Wafflewombat (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I first watched the film, it's been my impression that this was all part of the punchline/setup. Edward calls the characters "Siamese twins", Will imagines that he means conjoined twins, and at the funeral Will finds out they aren't conjoined twins, just literally twins who are Asian. The punchline seems to play on both Edward's tendency to exaggerate, Will's tendency to think the worst of his tall tales, and possibly a conflation/misunderstanding of Asian heritages on Edward's part.

Still, that's simply my impression of the film. After combing secondary sources, I wasn't able to confirm if there's secondary coverage verifying this sense of that film element. I've revised the explanatory note to summarize what secondary sources say about the twin characters. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. I further revised the wording for clarity and to maintain the "timeless present tense" used when writing about fiction. Please let me know if my edits are acceptable. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Cinderella (1950 Disney character).png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just a screenshot but not photoshopped promotional artwork

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esagurton (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Cinderella (1950 Disney character).png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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. Esagurton (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, let me explain to ya about that image that it's a cropped screenshot of the Disney character Cinderella from a YouTube video but not a photoshopped promotional artwork image. Please understand. It's not a a photoshopped promotional artwork image of Cinderella like the other lead images of the Disney Princess articles of Snow White, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, Rapunzel, Merida, Moana and Raya. I mean it. But I think I want ya to find a photoshopped promotional artwork image of Cinderella, please. Esagurton (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those other images appear to be promotional artworks, but they haven't been photoshopped the way the previous image at Cinderella was (it had been photoshopped to change the color of a dress in a 21st-century promotional art of Cinderella from the modern blue to the original white). There is, in any case, no policy or guideline that I'm aware of requiring that articles about Disney Princesses use promotional artwork, photoshopped or otherwise. Please stop spamming me about it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell do ya mean spamming? Esagurton (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the lead image of the Disney character Cinderella that I expected for the article about her for it's just a cropped screenshot. Esagurton (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Cinderella (1950 Disney character).png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

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. Esagurton (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BoM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BoM2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for support! - Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this recommendation! How interesting to see how wildfires are handled today, and how this particular fire ended up having interesting legacies in public health and conservation. Reading about a wildfire reminds me of a book that I had been meaning to read, The Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire that Saved America (HarperCollins, 2009). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

• The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
• Wikimania presentation
• New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Originalist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Above the Law.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Horton Davies 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Liberty 5-3000 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kimikel -- Kimikel (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Des Moines speech, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anne Morrow Lindbergh tried to warn her husband Charles Lindbergh of the backlash that his antisemitic Des Moines speech would receive? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Des Moines speech. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Des Moines speech), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 21,561 views (898.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Liberty 5-3000 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Liberty 5-3000 for comments about the article, and Talk:Liberty 5-3000/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kimikel -- Kimikel (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Horton Davies you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Horton Davies for comments about the article, and Talk:Horton Davies/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

• Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
• Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
• Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Des Moines speech 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Des Moines speech you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Des Moines speech for comments about the article, and Talk:Des Moines speech/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TY so much for the further reading reference(s) for Richmond, Virginia slave market--I added them to Bibliography of the slave trade in the United States as well. Appreciate it. jengod (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and thank you for incorporating them into the bibliography page as well. Best wishes with editing. Chattel slavery in U. S. history is a tough but important topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	strong trains woman
	stay strong trains is hard job This may be my last edit on Wikipedia. Thank you for genuinely assessing the situation with full honesty, and boldly stating your honest opinion. You rule. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 08:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jazz Age, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charleston.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George W. Bush quoted from the Quran in a speech he delivered (pictured) six days after the September 11 attacks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hydrangeans, I notice that you have now twice reverted edits to the article Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington, by me and by User:Surtsicna, that removed bolding from the phrase "remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington" in the first sentence.

The main reason that I feel that the boldface is not appropriate here is that "remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington" is merely a descriptive phrase that happens to be used for the Wikipedia article title; it is not, as far as I am aware, an official title of the speech or even a commonly accepted name for the speech. Putting this phrase in bold gives undue weight to this particular phrase, when in fact it is just one of many possible descriptive phrases that might be used to refer to this speech.

WP:SBE agrees with this point of view:

It also gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly accepted name, or the only acceptable title; in actuality, it is just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage ... In the case of purely descriptive titles, we should not bold the article title in the introduction ...

I am going to restore Surtsicna's version because I think it reads more naturally and in fact provides greater context in the first sentence by providing a link to Islamic Center of Washington, which cannot be done if that phrase is put in bold (see MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID). —Bkell (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merely a descriptive phrase that happens to be used for the Wikipedia article title; it is not, as far as I am aware, an official title of the speech or even a commonly accepted name for the speech: This is a misunderstanding. While it was not an official title, it is a commonly accepted name of reference for the speech, similar to names like the Cooper Union speech or the Des Moines speech, also not official titles which are nevertheless common terms of reference for those speeches. If you search the phrase "remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington", you will see that an overwhelming majority of hits are for George W. Bush's 2001 speech.

Also see the following sources, which all call this specific speech remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington:

• al-Rahim, Ahmed H. (2016). "Islam and the White House: American Presidential Discourse on Establishing Official Islam, 1993–2013". Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication. 9 (1): 87–122. doi:10.1163/18739865-00901008. ISSN 1873-9857.
• Ching, Bruce (2020). "Echoes of 9/11: Rhetorical Analysis of Presidential Statements in the 'War on Terror'". Seton Hall Law Review. 51: 431–459.
• "Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington", American Presidency Project
• "U.S. Presidential Visits to Domestic Mosques", White House Historical Association
• "George W. Bush Needs to Speak to His Party", Slate (November 20, 2015)
• "Trump's Proposal to Keep Out Muslims Crosses a Line for Many in Both Parties", Washington Post (December 8, 2015)

As such, remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington is not a "purely descriptive title". It is a widely accepted name for the subject. Since the un-bolding was based on a well-meaning mistake, I have restored the bolding in keeping with MOS:FIRST: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.

As for a link to Islamic Center of Washington, that is visibly provided in the infobox directly adjacent to the first paragraph, so I don't think a reader is left wanting for such a link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that this phrase was widely used as a name for the speech (that isn't indicated anywhere in the article).

It might be worth considering whether the first sentence can present this phrase more clearly as a name for the speech. As it is, the sentence is using the phrase merely as a description. Compare other articles like We shall fight on the beaches, I Have a Dream, and Cross of Gold speech, in which the title is presented clearly as a name for the speech in the first sentence. —Bkell (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, what do you think about phrasing the first sentence something like this?

The remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington, also called "Islam Is Peace", was a speech delivered by George W. Bush, then president of the United States, on September 17, 2001, six days after al-Qaeda's September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The references you have cited for this name could be attached to the phrase "remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington" here to demonstrate its use as a commonly accepted name. I think phrasing it this way more clearly positions the phrase "remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington" as a name for the speech, rather than simply a description. —Bkell (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that revision. I thought that trying to put the title at the beginning of the sentence was less natural than the end—so that context can come before the name—but if you think having the title appear sooner is more natural, I do not object. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bkell, Hydrangeans, it is not true that the term "remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington" constitutes the proper name for the event. This discussion should be held at the article talk page, however, where another user has already raised the issue. Surtsicna (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ Greetings of the season ~ ~ ~

Hello Hydrangeans: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use {{subst:User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas3}} to send this message.

Aaron Liu (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

• Les Jours and East View Press join the library
• Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

This is a very promising development. Thanks for starting the ball rolling. Best of luck. Also, thanks for identifying some good books. I have only read one biography of Jackson, and I don't even remember which one it was, and I am pretty sure I wasn't happy with it. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I'm not sure how much I'll manage to do, I admit; I think this is one of the times when posting on a talk page is simple to do while revising the article itself is the truly time-consuming work. I'll see what I can squeeze in.

I hope the suggestions are of some help. I think there's a double challenge in parsing the academic coverage of Andrew Jackson. One is that the earlier biographers, from 20+ years ago, who tended to emphasize Jackson's strengths, also had a lot of style. Some of the newer work can be dry and tougher to get through. Style shouldn't necessarily be a determining factor, but I've seen it happen before that an editor will dismiss university press work on the grounds the tone 'sounds wrong' to them.

The second is that there haven't been as many book-length biographies, in the traditional sense, in the past decades of less glowing scholarship. Instead, the more balanced studies of Jackson tend to include him as one of multiple subjects. A book like Preserving the White Man's Republic zooms out from Jackson so that he's part of the story but not always the center of it. The amount of Jackson material in such works is still relevant and still significant coverage, but it's not as zoomed in on him as a biography that gives a blow-by-blow, day-by-day, account, and this has made the past decades' revision of Jackson less obvious and less visible, perhaps, to editors. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 67, January – February 2025

• East View Press and The Africa Report join the library
• Spotlight: Wikimedia+Libraries International Convention and WikiCredCon
• Tech tip: Suggest page

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --18:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 68, March–April 2025

In this issue we highlight two resource renewals, #EveryBookItsReader, a note about Phabricator, and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 69, May–June 2025

In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was extremely saddened to see your posted retirement on your userpage. While I totally understand your reasoning, I genuinely believe you are one of the most talented editors I've encountered on Wikipedia. As we seem to have been interested in similar subjects, our paths crossed in discussions fairly frequently, and I found you were always able to say what I wanted to in a way that I couldn't, always backing up your arguments with excellent research. If the day comes where I see you back on Wiki, that will be an amazing day for me and for the project as a whole.

🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]