User talk:Rollinginhisgrave

Response to claims of bias

If you are coming from Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias and are looking for assistance, leave a comment below, followed by ~~~~ and you will be responded to shortly.

Welcome!

Hello, Rollinginhisgrave! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

September 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at List of common misconceptions. CactusRoy🏴󠁣󠁡󠁱󠁣󠁿 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@CactusRoy: think I've been identified here by accident, I did justify the removal of material in the edit summary with reference to the talk page discussion (clearly a valid reason). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Well I don't know about that , because I am a new editor. And not only that, but I am from Quebec and French is my language. Some fool anglos on this site believe since then I am not competent. Looks like the block is resolved - I am not sure who is correct here , I saw in the recent changes log 20 000 bytes removed and wanted to get the bloque

Best luck CactusRoy🏴󠁣󠁡󠁱󠁣󠁿 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Partial block

You have been blocked for one week from editing List of common misconceptions. Edit warring to remove swathes of content from the article and supporting it with formalistic wikilawyering on talk, such as, repeatedly, "Referred to in article as an urban legend rather than as common misconception", is pretty disruptive. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC).

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rollinginhisgrave (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

ah sorry, my initial removal of content was me trying to be bold. When it was first reverted and discussed with WikiDan61, I understood his approval of my reasoning on several points (including the urban legend point) as grounds for reinstating; my only revert after this wasn't due to edit warring but because the editor above who reverted it and flagged it for a ban (see above) didn't seem to notice I justified my edits on the talk page and had made the revert by erroneous logic. I didn't see this as something that required consensus before editing; I do now. I don't think it was wikilawering on the urban legend issue, as since we already have a page for list of urban legends, and both pages feature large bloat, doubling up doesn't seem super desireable, although I will avoid editing the page for such issues unless a consensus is gained for their removal. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only as the block has expired. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment There is no reason to appeal if you will 'avoid editing the page', as the block applies only to that page. CactusRoy🏴󠁣󠁡󠁱󠁣󠁿 (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

There are other edits I made which have been reverted not related to the urban legends point, including one on perfect pitch, where I noticed on the page for perfect pitch the cited 1/25 population figure refers to music students, not the general public; ironically the page for list of common misconceptions perpetuating misinformation. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

August 2023

Hello! I'm Sundayclose. Your recent edit(s) to the page List of common misconceptions appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of common misconceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The State Journal. 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) 06:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Source you added to Thatching

I have reverted the source you added to Thatching because the newspaper article included whole sentences that were in the Wikipedia article before the newspaper article was published, an apparent case of copying from Wikipedia. Citing such a source in Wikipedia produces citogenesis, a form of circular sourcing. This is a growing problem, and one that I think needs more effort to inform editors about. Donald Albury 13:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for reverting both citations. I should have just dealt with the one. I wasn't paying enough attention to what I was doing. It is always good to see someone improving sourcing in articles. - Donald Albury 17:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of common misconceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for the quality GA review on MidCity SmashedBurger; you did pretty good for your first one! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 18:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Like (Though the burger is not nearly "smashed" enough!) Thanks again for reviewing, and happy editing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Costello's

Thank you for the quick review. I've nominated the article for FAC, if you'd like to leave additional feedback or comments on the nomination page. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company

Thanks again for your interest in Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company. I have finished "breaking off" the Consolidated Lamp and Glass Company piece from Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company. The Consolidated piece is still in one of my sandboxes, as I still have to create an InfoBox, Intro, and Background for it. As info, two of the references in Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company are self-published books: 1) Jack K. Paquette was overall Vice President of O-I Glass (a.k.a. Owens-Illinois). His book has citations (360 in chapter 5 alone) and a long bibliography. He has also written other glass-related books. Here is a link to his papers at U of Toledo; 2) Melvin L. Murray was a trustee for Bowling Green State University, and was a member of the Fostoria library board for 50 years. He was president of the Ohio Library Trustees Association. The research wing of the Kaubisch Memorial Public Library in Fostoria was named in his honor. He was president of the Fostoria Glass Association and was a founder of the Fostoria Glass Heritage Gallery, where he was curator emeritus and a lecturer. He uses trade magazines (probably from the Kaubisch Library) for much of the information in his book. In most of the times he is cited as a source, a second or third source is also used. Also, Wikipedia footnotes are used to describe his sources (Crockery & Glass Journal, March 1, 1888 edition; Pottery and Glassware Reporter dated November 29, 1888; etc....) where possible. Both of those two books are highly recommended by the Fostoria Ohio Glass Association. There is some info on the self-published issue under References that is commented out so one cannot see it without reviewing the source code. I will be having some visitors this Saturday and Sunday—so I will have to stay off Wikipedia on those days. TwoScars (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the great review. I have guests coming over to my house in the next hour, so I will not start fixing things up until Monday afternoon. TwoScars (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Questions about the Template:Inflation/fn. I have it working (a little) in my User:TwoScars/sandbox4. It is down at the bottom under "Test". I am using code ({{Inflation|index=US|value=720|start_year=1998|r=0|fmt=eq}}). What does the "r=0" mean? Second question: the footnote shows sources for many earlier years—not needed in this case. Is there a way to have it say only "1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024."?

Thank you very much for your excellent GA review. I learned a few things, which does not always happen with a review. Concerning the multiple rail lines: There are multiple advantages to having multiple rail lines serve a community. First, it means the community has multiple sites to locate a glass works, and therefore potential competition from landowners to have your glass works locate at a particular site. Second, it can be easier to ship and receive goods in multiple directions, even if they have to be trucked (or moved on a spur line) a short distance to get on a rail line. Third, a company does not have to be "captive" to one rail line. If rates get unreasonably high, there are alternatives. I think some of this reasoning is instinctive—the sky is blue, water is wet, etc.... yet some of the reasoning may be a little too deep for a glass company article. I'm inclined to leave it alone. Skrabec discusses the rail line influence on Libbey picking Toledo for a glass factory location (New England Glass Company was renamed Libbey Inc. a few years after the move), but not in this much detail. TwoScars (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

TwoScars No worries at all, it was obviously a great article so a lot of fun to review. I'm not sure about removing some bits from the inflation cite template, I'll come back to this and get back to you. I'm happy with the rail stuff, it makes sense to me, it is pretty BLUE. My point was more about whether the site was unusually good, which I read the text to imply it was on this basis. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reviews

Hi Rollinginhisgrave, thanks for your contributions to WP:GA. I hope you are able to continue. I mentioned in the discussion at WT:GAN a bit of overfocus on GACR1, however, that may have been looking too much at your earlier reviews. The more recent Talk:New York State Pavilion/GA1 has the source spotchecks laid out, which is what we look for. It may be worth mentioning the source in addition to the relevant text, but the source checks seem to being done and that's the important thing. Also presentation-wise, I would lightly discourage the appearance of simply providing a checklist for the other criteria, although again this is mostly for appearance and ease of communication. I do understand that checking for neutrality, stability, and image licences does often feel like a bit of a checklist. I like your division of issues and "suggestions". Best, CMD (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou for this feedback Chipmunkdavis, I really appreciate it.

Regarding neutrality, stability and image licences, you can see at Mariano R. Vázquez I am paying close attention to neutrality, and in Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory and Mafeje affair that I am systematically reviewing images. I'm currently avoiding less stable entries, such as the Armenian history noms, so I can watch how other reviewers handle them before wading in.

I'll change up how I lay out my review of the other criteria; hopefully it helps with communication. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I get that, neutrality is one of those criteria which doesn't matter until it does, so to speak. Image licencing is similar. Reviewing Armenian history noms is tricky indeed, if I remember I've quickfailed one or two before over neutrality. Thanks for taking the feedback on board, the GAN is an individual review process, but the clear communication can be very helpful to others who may look back on the reviews in the future, which happens often during future GANs (if the current one fails) or future GARs. CMD (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

GA noms by Magentic Manifestations

See my comments (and fails) at Talk:Mount Kailash/GA1#Unreliable sourcing and Talk:Tamil culture/GA1#Content issues. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

TrangaBellam I did see your comment on Tamil Culture, which is why I was empowered to close that review. I can also see India at the 2014 Winter Olympics now has an unreliable sources banner after getting promoted two weeks ago. Troubling. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave I happen to find this comment, while I had come to discuss the closure of the review Dance forms of Tamil Nadu. You had raised a few comments last week, which were being addressed by me.

Now, all of a sudden, the review is closed with no further comment with the preceding closing comment from a third user stating "Most of the stuff is inaccurate and this should not be a GA. More later." The comment is vague, general, undue and unwarranted.

Now that the earlier comments were addressed, it would do well if you care to elaborate the reasons, why it was being failed? Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Magentic Manifestation, I had concerns with the factual accuracy already. Before I looked through sources I could see some obvious factual inaccuracies, particularly the 400 millenia settlement and backronym points. I found TrangaBellam's points compelling on Tamil culture, so I trusted their expertise over mine. This put the article into quickfail territory.

Looking now at your responses, they don't respond adequately to their points, particuarly on NPOV and weak sourcing. You cannot respond to someone saying "this is FRINGE" with "it was published in a RS", even if it's true and not fringe. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

GA nom for Ann Washington Craton

Thank you for review. I apologize for the faults and regret that they occasioned a quickfail. Delabrede (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Delabrede It's okay, thanks for the note. An apology is of course unnecessary. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey! I just wanted to thank you for you GA review for Ludwell–Paradise House. My life has been really hectic the last month (for positive albeit time-consuming reasons). Having someone as patient as you involved in the GA process was very appreciated, and your civility in critique was equally valued. While a booting to second opinion is never fun, it came after you worked very hard with me for over three weeks. Thank you very much for your continued efforts on the project, and never hesitate to ask for help from me via a ping or my talk page. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou for these words. I'd love to talk to you offline when things quieten down and hear what's been happening. Also, and I'm not sure this needed to be said, I'd be happy to review any articles you can throw at me at any time. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I may just take you up on that. I've finally acquired access to the more than a dozen books that I've been assembling to rebuild the Wren Building article; I'll try to remember and ping you to ask for your insight when that article is formally revised sometime around around December. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review The Snow Queen (Kernaghan novel)

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review The Snow Queen (Kernaghan novel). At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #8.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for the GA review of Len Ganley; it's definitely been improved by your feedback. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I was looking at reviewing Angélique Duchemin within the next few days so I'm glad to hear this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Georgie Lane

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Georgie Lane. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #9.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks on Georgie Lane!

I just wanted to thank you for your GA review of Georgie Lane! It was very thorough, helpful, and it was great working with you.

I didn't get your response to my email, though. Would you mind saying it here? FishLoveHam (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

FishLoveHam Glad it wasn't too much. I'll summarise the email as the article didn't pass the spot check I put it through, and I think some information, such as the details on Tuvalu and climate change, is still unsourced, and it should probably be failed, or at least be subject to a rigorous source analysis. I'm also unconvinced that the article is broad enough; the subject matter has a lot written on it and the article is very short. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Hypericum sect. Adenotrias

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Hypericum sect. Adenotrias. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #10.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Tumor necrosis factor

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Tumor necrosis factor. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #11.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

GARC

Because you rejected your review, or supposed-to-review article, I'm offering you what you nominated for review, so I can review Tumor necrosis factor. Already notified Epicgenius. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries TheNuggeteer, can you follow WP:GAN/I#N4a so I can take this up as a new reviewer? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Gae Aulenti

Hi,

I think I am just about finished on this article but i wanted to ask you about the "Further Reading" section. Is it still needed? Can it be tidied?

Many thanks,

Vera.Grace (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sulphide Portrait Glassware

Hello Rollinginhisgrave - Thank you for reviewing Sulphide portrait glassware. I have houseguests right now, so it may be a few days before I can get to the review. As info, it is a "spinoff" from Bakewell, Pears and Company. TwoScars (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

TwoScars No worries, no rush. I can really tell, I'll discuss that more at the GAN as I think it's going to impact criterion 3 Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help in the GA Review. TwoScars (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chocolate in savory cooking

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chocolate in savory cooking 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 Royiswariii -- Royiswariii (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of chocolate

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of chocolate 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 It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

A belated thanks for reviewing St. John's Shaughnessy for GA status. You left lots of good feedback that I will use to improve the article. I appreciate the work you put into the review! Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries Dclemens1971, glad it helped. I'm sure the next nomination will be in better shape. For architecture works, a place to look for emulating style/sources would be User:Epicgenius/Quality article contributions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I see at WP:GARC you have listed Wing Sam Chinn despite Generalissima having written and nominated the article for GAN. Just wondering if this was correct. Thank you! GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

GMH Melbourne Hey, that's correct. Trying to increase the amount of circles by getting the nomination pools filled up faster. It can be substituted for dark chocolate, but I'll probably just put that in when this pool is cleared out. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll start a circle now. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Philippines at the 1928 Summer Olympics

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Philippines at the 1928 Summer Olympics. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #12.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of chocolate

The article History of chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of chocolate for comments about the article, and Talk:History of chocolate/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 It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dark chocolate

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dark chocolate 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 CosXZ -- CosXZ (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chocolate in savory cooking

The article Chocolate in savory cooking you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking for comments about the article, and Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking/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 Royiswariii -- Royiswariii (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Legends of Tomorrow season 3

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Legends of Tomorrow season 3. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #14.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tempering chocolate

Hello! Your submission of Tempering chocolate 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 at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey Cuming GA review

Hi there - I would welcome the opportunity to co-review the GA nominee you suggested. What is the approach you suggest for collaborating on this? Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Dclemens1971 really glad to hear this. It depends on what you want out of it; if you do a sweep first I can do a second sweep and you can see what a different reviewer picked up and can get feedback on your reviewing. Or I can do a first sweep and you can likewise give feedback. Alternatively we can focus on your greater expertise with Anglicanism, and I'll conduct a normal review and you focus on accuracy / due weight. Approaches not mutually exclusive of course. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Why don't I do a first pass and then you can offer some feedback and pick up on anything I missed. Sound good? Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Dclemens1971 Sounds great, sounds like FAC. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've done a first pass - the rest is all yours! Talk:Geoffrey Cuming/GA1 Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Matthew Webb improvements

Hi @Rollinginhisgrave, I have done a copyedit of Matthew Webb (focusing on conciseness and neutrality), and subsequently re-nominated it for GA. I just remembered however, that I forgot to address some of your specific points from the last GA. I will do this ASAP so hold off on reviewing for the next day or so. Of course, you are not obligated to review either. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a wonderful world Drop me a comment when you get to this. No rush of course. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Some chocolate for you!

	Chocolate
	For your work on the various chocolate articles such as history of chocolate, white chocolate and dark chocolate, along with being such a fantastic reviewer for my first GA Matthew Webb. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou It is a wonderful world :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Wrap Me Up (Jimmy Fallon and Meghan Trainor song)

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Wrap Me Up (Jimmy Fallon and Meghan Trainor song). At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #15.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for History of chocolate

On 7 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History of chocolate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a woman was considered a witch because her husband prepared chocolate instead of her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of chocolate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, History of chocolate), 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dark chocolate

The article Dark chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dark chocolate for comments about the article, and Talk:Dark chocolate/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 CosXZ -- CosXZ (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Tempered chocolate

On 13 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tempered chocolate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that researchers speculate that cocoa butter forms crystals on sugar while chocolate is tempered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tempering chocolate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tempered chocolate), 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) 00:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White chocolate

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article White chocolate 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 Szmenderowiecki -- Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tomato/GA1

You have evidently quickfailed this nomination because you feel it is a long way from meeting GA criterion 2. To me, an uninvolved reader, it seems that all of your complaints are rather superficial or indeed not relevant for GA, and it seems really quite ridiculous that you would consider the article "a long way from meeting the criteria" based on what small errors are present. Since you provided minimal explanation on the review, could you please give further explanation here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29,I've left a brief note on the nomination page about it, but I felt working my way through the start of the article the sources were not sufficiently reliable for the claims being made. For example, almost the whole introduction of the history section to my mind is unreliable sourced. Of the academic literature engaged with, the majority was a 30 year old text, and recent texts on the subject were not engaged with. I am a lot looser with quickfails when the article has been nominated in the last week, not because I have lower standards, but because I am quite reluctant to fail articles that a nominator has been waiting months for a review on. I think having to read and summarise multiple books and texts (to replace those that are insufficiently reliable and to add those not engaged with) is a reasonable amount of distance from the GACR to receive a quickfail. I dislike the isolated nature of GA with single reviewers, so I sincerely appreciate the feedback. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The GA criteria do not require "high-quality" sources in the way the FA criteria do—all they require are reliable sources. What does it matter if a source is 30 years old? That is nowhere near the age where we need to worry about reliability. I understand the lower willingness to fail long-nominated articles, but you should be careful that doesn't lead towards a bias towards failing recently-nominated ones. Thanks for replying, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue with reliability around age of sourcing when more recent academic sourcing exists is that the field is being actively researched, and the information risks being outdated. The source may still be up to date with current literature, but to make that assessment that literature needs to be engaged with. Hence why I don't think this falls into the high quality sourcing standard (although my comment on Etymonline probably did, I should have put that in a suggestions subsection, but that was not taken into consideration with the quickfail even if I did not express that I made that distinction.)

Chiswick Chap, I don't think I needed the night to sleep on it, I think AirshipJungleman29 has got it right in saying that I erred into a bias; here where I believe that reviewer time at GAN is the most precious resource at GA and reviewers should be more willing to fail so work is performed out of the GAN system than in it. I apologise, I think I would have still failed it per my reading of the article's sourcing, but it also wasn't fair to you to face the GACR and a personal standard. Taking it on moving forward. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Working on it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I fixed all the issues, awaiting your input. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get to this over the next few hours. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, I've re-opened the GAN page for that purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White chocolate

The article White chocolate 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:White chocolate and Talk:White chocolate/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Szmenderowiecki -- Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chocolate Room

On 23 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chocolate Room, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the original exhibition of art installation Chocolate Room was shut down after attracting an "army of ants"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chocolate Room. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chocolate Room), 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, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m so glad to see Ruscha on the front page! I have a feeling your interest in the piece is because of the chocolate… are you an ant? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary Thankyou for noticing :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: The Lady in White

Hello! Let me know if there's anything I can do to get the ball rolling on this. I am happy to share offline sources with you as much as I can in lieu of Internet Archive's status. This means, if you want to do any spot checks, I can share the original offline sources with you, in whole or in part, in plain text, or some other way. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas Hey, I'll pass for now, and when the Internet Archive comes back online I hope we can go through it together. I won't hold it up in the meantime. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the logs, it looks like it didn't work because you failed it. I reversed everything and I hope you can try passing it again to get the logs and the counters to work. Viriditas (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I reset it. Please try passing again with the GANReviewTool. I looked at the logs and didn't see any other errors when you tried before. Viriditas (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully that has worked. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chocolate in savory cooking

On 27 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chocolate in savory cooking, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that chocolate is included as an ingredient in 18th-century Italian recipes for pappardelle, fried liver, black polenta, and lasagna sauce? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chocolate in savory cooking. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chocolate in savory cooking), 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.

1=Launchballer 00:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Justiniano Borgoño

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Justiniano Borgoño. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #16.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Too bitey and dismissive

So feel free to improve it, provided you don't make it so long that it won't be read. I don't think editors care that much about its tone, we all just got very tired of all the time spent responding to these things. Btw such changes don't require revisiting consensus 61.

If you feel a need to "personalize" the response, I don't see a problem with a brief reply in addition to the link. But ~95% of what needs to be said should be said in the response page. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus 61 took some selling on my part. Before it passed, shoot on sight was routine for those things. Now we give a full, consistent response that at least tries to be respectful. So there are degrees of dismissiveness and perhaps you can see how my perspective is different on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss Thanks, I didn't want to step on toes so acted adjacently. I understand editors are tired of hearing the same thing, I don't blame you for referring them to a pre-packaged response. Certainly better than shoot on sight. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Well you essentially violated established consensus, apparently knowingly so, so I don't know what you mean by step on toes. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss Unintentionally. Still coming to terms with the page and its processes, with less tact than may be desired. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that, I was beginning to get worried. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus 61 took some selling on my part. Before it passed, shoot on sight was routine for those things. I misspoke in haste. Now I feel the need to correct the record. Shoot on sight was far from "routine", although it occurred for the most abusive posts as it does today. What was more common was editors lacking self-discipline and responding to the OP in a manner that was time-wasting, inconsistent, incomplete, unclear, and/or disrespectful. That was the main issue addressed by the response page.

The response page was created in April 2020 with the expectation that it would just "catch on" naturally. When it hadn't done so by May 2023, I proposed #61. It passed, and it's a better world now. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss Having spent some time thinking on this, I do like the idea of routing editors through a crash course on wiki policy on bias before they can comment on it, you pushing it was certainly for the better. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hijacking this thread, what source were you referring to here? URL? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss this was the edit I was referring to. I do find it amazing that in neither of the discussions for consensus 25 using archive links to bypass paywalls was mentioned. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL (policy). Apparently, the community cares less about that accessibility issue than you do. I was able to access that archived source at archive.org/Wayback Machine with only a little more difficulty than I expected, using only the WaPo URL. I guess the assumption is that any reader who cares that much about reading sources is likely to be aware of archive.org and have the competence to use it. Anyway we looked at #invoke (as I recall, some editor did a mass change that was promptly reverted) and the usability issues were just too much. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss I suppose, I wasn't planning on pushing for bringing it back. The #invoke history is interesting. I've been active on the page for about a week, do you have feedback for my approach I can take on? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd just remain sensitive to the fact that a lot of what you're doing is a departure from years of practice. I've been starting to get something akin to the feeling I had when the feminist movement was forced upon me whether I liked it or not. :)

You're better than we are. But there are more of us. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss Thanks for these comments, I can see my editing getting pushy at times and I kick myself. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:TechnoSquirrel69 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Over the last few months, I've been seeing the name Rollinginhisgrave pop up more and more around good article–related processes. I first met them a couple of months ago when they reviewed my nominee and I was struck both by the quality of their comments and the pace at which they came. As it turns out, they have done the same for over 60 other articles in just the past four months! They also have a couple of GAs to their name — History of chocolate and Chocolate in savory cooking — with even more sweet things in the oven (so to speak), as evidenced by their user page. Although they have only been active for a few months, I hope you will join me in recognizing the good work they have accomplished. This nomination was seconded by Arconning and Vacant0.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Rollinginhisgrave

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 17, 2024

A valued user that pops up more and more around good article–related processes. The nominator first met them when they reviewed a nominee and was struck by the quality of their comments and the pace at which they came. As it turns out, Rolling had done the same for over 60 other articles in just the past four months! They also have a couple of GAs to their name — History of chocolate and Chocolate in savory cooking — with even more sweet things in the oven (so to speak), as evidenced by their user page. Although they have only been active for a few months, they deserve to be recognized for the good work they have accomplished.

Recognized for

quality comments

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou so much TechnoSquirrel69, Arconning and Vacant0! The misspelling in the blurb made me laugh, but it seems strangely appropriate... Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Though I must admit I don't see anything misspelled; am I missing something? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

​As it turns out, Rolloing Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Lol, I see it now! Fixed here and at the Hall of Fame. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

. Sorry for the mistake...or...was it a mistake???? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Buster7 no worries, thankyou very much for facilitating this (and for the new billboard signature). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White chocolate

The article White chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:White chocolate for comments about the article, and Talk:White chocolate/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 Szmenderowiecki -- Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reversing consensus 20

Re: [1]

If you give a man a fish, he will eat today, but teach a man to fish and he will eat forever.

I.e., you haven't done them any favors in the long term. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss I certainly don't disagree, but this falls pretty firmly into WP:NOTBURO: potentially legitimate concerns not being addressed because they were raised in the wrong venue. Letting it languish, not being addressed to motivate them to be proactive is pointy. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I could not disagree more strongly. Process and organization are not bureaucracy, and perhaps you would benefit from more experience with discussions that mix topics. Remember, if consensus 8 is canceled, it will link to that discussion. According to you, it will be a great idea for it to include a lot of discussion completely unrelated to the cancellation of consensus 8. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss I think my actions aligned exactly with what you are saying: I moved the discussion to a new thread to prevent this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

And back to my initial comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

And back to my second? Haha. Hope you're well. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Me too. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you...

		The Civility Barnstar
		I think you deserve it for your contributions to what might currently be the most complex talk page on Wikipedia. Reading your replies makes me feel good inside, for some weird reason. Cessaune [talk] 05:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Cessaune this is so kind, thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Rollinginhisgrave! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Helping new users better formulate their challenges, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)