User talk:RunningTiger123/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:RunningTiger123. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome RunningTiger123!
I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| To help get you started, you may find these useful: | When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
A brownie for you!
|
Thanks for your recent edits! I first noticed this one and am impressed by the good referencing. — Bilorv (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC) |
List of awards and nominations received by Community
Hi, thanks for your work on List of awards and nominations received by Community so far. If you're interested, I think we could co-nominate it for featured list status soon, where other editors review the list and give feedback, and if it meets the featured list criteria then it gets a shiny gold star at the top of the page, marking it as a mostly complete and comprehensive list. I've done this with a couple of similar pages before like List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror. Let me know what you think! — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think the list could definitely get there. What do you think needs to be added? I know that many similar lists, like Black Mirror and Parks and Recreation, have explanations of the different awards, and the lead also needs to be expanded. Are there any formatting changes or other expansions that should also be considered? RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've had a go at explanations for the awards. For the lead, we want to probably give a brief rundown of the show's history (in particular, its various channels and the changes to main cast and um, Harmon's firing and re-hiring). Everything should be cited, including a summary of the show's genres or what it's about. Images of the main cast in the lead would be good, and maybe even other members of the crew under particular sections about their nominations/awards. Other than this, some tidying up of table formatting and adding table captions/summaries for accessibility, and then double checking the references. — Bilorv (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I think the list is ready for an FL nomination. It's looking very high-quality now as far as I can see. I'm happy to set up the co-nomination if you agree. (The process should take a few weeks, and most of the time nothing is actively happening, but if we get a few reviews in support with no opposition then it should pass.) — Bilorv (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll let you handle the nomination. Do I need to do anything to be listed as a co-nominator? RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, it should all be set up now. You can see the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Community/archive1 and it's listed at WP:FLC along with the other current featured list nominations. I've given a bit of an intro, which doesn't matter too much for the nomination, but you can choose to add a little intro of your own if you want, or just leave it as it is. — Bilorv (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll let you handle the nomination. Do I need to do anything to be listed as a co-nominator? RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I think the list is ready for an FL nomination. It's looking very high-quality now as far as I can see. I'm happy to set up the co-nomination if you agree. (The process should take a few weeks, and most of the time nothing is actively happening, but if we get a few reviews in support with no opposition then it should pass.) — Bilorv (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've had a go at explanations for the awards. For the lead, we want to probably give a brief rundown of the show's history (in particular, its various channels and the changes to main cast and um, Harmon's firing and re-hiring). Everything should be cited, including a summary of the show's genres or what it's about. Images of the main cast in the lead would be good, and maybe even other members of the crew under particular sections about their nominations/awards. Other than this, some tidying up of table formatting and adding table captions/summaries for accessibility, and then double checking the references. — Bilorv (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
O3000 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| For your work in getting the Community awards list promoted, particularly all the times you beat me to answering the reviewer comments. :) — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Janet(s) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Heartfox -- Heartfox (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Janet(s) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Janet(s) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Heartfox -- Heartfox (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I've left a response there – hope you'll have a look at that. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Janet(s)
On 6 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Janet(s), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that D'Arcy Carden has about 40 minutes of screen time in "Janet(s)" even though the episode is only 22 minutes long? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Janet(s). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Janet(s)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
TFL notification
Hi, RunningTiger123. I'm just posting to let you know that List of awards and nominations received by Community – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for September 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Your review at the Ray Bradbury Award FLC was possibly the most thorough I've ever received in nearly 70 nominations- I've certainly never had anyone check the data for an entire table against the sources so closely for discrepancies. While I'm embarrassed that you managed to find so many discrepancies that should have been caught prior to nomination, I'm incredibly grateful that you did so, and the list is much better for it. PresN 03:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC) |
Your changes to Louis DeJoy
I'll give you "controversial," but could you talk us through why "sabotage" should be unlinked in this article? Thanks--A21sauce (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @A21sauce: My removal was based on the MOS information found at MOS:OVERLINK, which states in part:
To me, sabotage is a word that most people would know, and it's not particularly relevant to the article in that you could substitute other words for it (i.e. disrupt, impair, undermine) without really changing the meaning. Here is a good litmus test for adding a link based on MOS:OVERLINK: if a person reading the article would not be expected to know a term, or if the word provides worthwhile additional context beyond a simple definition, the link should be added; otherwise, it should be omitted. Since most readers would know what "sabotage" means and the article on sabotage wouldn't add anything particularly relevant to the article beyond the definition, I removed it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: [...] Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)
- @A21sauce: Since you must have missed my original response (at least judging from this edit summary), this is a secondary ping. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Sorry if I was a little snappy on the FLC List of Star Wars films. I wasn't in the best of moods and really believe that Star Wars deserves better. Hope this wikilove finds you well. ~ HAL333([1]) 23:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @HAL333: Don't sweat it! For what it's worth, I responded to what you had said in order to show my support, not because I thought your point was ill-advised or anything like that. You were raising a good point that I hadn't considered, and it's nice to see polite disagreement like you provided. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Your GA nomination of Basic Lupine Urology
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Basic Lupine Urology you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Basic Lupine Urology
.jpg)
|
Congrats dude! The article you were working on, Basic Lupine Urology, has passed the Good Article criteria, becoming a good article on December 19, 2020. Great job on the improvements! For you're hard work, I award you this image of a cute cat. Enjoy!
|
Your GA nomination of Basic Lupine Urology
The article Basic Lupine Urology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Basic Lupine Urology for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
January 2021
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Impeachment: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Emma (chats ✦ edits) 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the cookie!
Some Dude From North Carolina has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of awards and nominations received by The Office (American TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Howard Klein. 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) 06:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I have withdrawn the candidate. But I see that you write that there are proposal that I have not put in place. I have checked well but there are no proposals that I have not taken into consideration. Of course I can be wrong Dr Salvus (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: I understand. I want to be clear that you've made a lot of improvements to the list, and that's good to see. There are just some lingering issues that haven't been addressed (such as the missing ISBN for the book and the rows spanning multiple columns). I thought the other reviewers and I had been clear, but maybe I was wrong; if so, I apologize for the lack of clarity. Going forward, just remember that FLs should be the best possible content, not just "pretty good". If people seem nitpicky and take a long time to give their support, that's simply because we want to ensure our standards are maintained. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Is the lack of data about attendance in the earliest finals one of the causes of the non-nomination of the page in a FL? Dr Salvus (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: The key thing is that the information currently there needs to be sourced properly, and we can't verify that since you haven't provided enough information for us to find the book you're citing for many of the figures (this is why the ISBN is so important). Also, I think the attendance is there if you look for it; if a FA Cup final from almost 150 years ago can have a source with its attendance, there's probably sources for many, if not all, of the Coppa Italia finals. Yes, it may take some dedicated searching to find that information, but FLs often require a lot of work; they're not meant to be taken lightly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @RunningTiger123: The Coppa Italia did not have the FA Cup's importance. This is the why for the question "Why there are not informations about attendance for the earliest finals?" DrSalvus (talk) (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)DrSalvus (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: I'll clarify since I wasn't very clear: There are a lot of attendance figures that are not clearly and reliably sourced, and that issue will prevent the list from being promoted, no matter what. The missing attendance data is okay, and I think it could pass FLC while remaining there, but it would be nice if you did some digging and tried to find it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK thanks. However, I would like you to help me find data on spectators in the stadium DrSalvus (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: I'll clarify since I wasn't very clear: There are a lot of attendance figures that are not clearly and reliably sourced, and that issue will prevent the list from being promoted, no matter what. The missing attendance data is okay, and I think it could pass FLC while remaining there, but it would be nice if you did some digging and tried to find it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @RunningTiger123: The Coppa Italia did not have the FA Cup's importance. This is the why for the question "Why there are not informations about attendance for the earliest finals?" DrSalvus (talk) (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)DrSalvus (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: The key thing is that the information currently there needs to be sourced properly, and we can't verify that since you haven't provided enough information for us to find the book you're citing for many of the figures (this is why the ISBN is so important). Also, I think the attendance is there if you look for it; if a FA Cup final from almost 150 years ago can have a source with its attendance, there's probably sources for many, if not all, of the Coppa Italia finals. Yes, it may take some dedicated searching to find that information, but FLs often require a lot of work; they're not meant to be taken lightly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Is the lack of data about attendance in the earliest finals one of the causes of the non-nomination of the page in a FL? Dr Salvus (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
That's not the FL reviewers' responsibility. If you want to get the list to FL status, you have to be willing to put in the work. I'm not trying to be mean; we all simply have our own projects we're working on and can't dedicate time to yours as well.
If you're interested in looking in where to look for archives, I would suggest trying the Wikipedia Library. It has access to databases, especially newspapers, that may have the information you're looking for. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- If you see well, the data on spectators are cited, those before 2005 are cited by "Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio" and those after 2006 are cited by calcio.com. I don't see why there is no reason not to promote the page in FL. DrSalvus (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Could you briefly explain to me why you opposed the FL page nomination? DrSalvus (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: I explained my reasons on the nomination page. You seemed to understand my reasoning since you withdrew the nomination. What other details do I need to explain? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @RunningTiger123: I'm not a native speaker of English, I don't always understand English if written with complex terms DrSalvus (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: Okay, I'll try to better explain why I opposed the nomination. First, you just closed the last nomination, and it was your own decision to do so. When you choose to withdraw a nomination, we assume you want to make more extensive improvements that would take too long to address in a normal FLC discussion, so we expect there to be significant changes when you create the new nomination. Instead, you created a new nomination after making minimal changes, so I don't see why we should consider it again. There are a lot of FL candidates, and unfortunately, we cannot spend time reviewing the same page over and over if you're not making changes between nominations. Second, you created a new peer review, and peer reviews must be completed before featured list nominations are opened. This is a FLC policy to prevent conflicting edits between peer reviewers and FLC reviewers. Third, you did not create the nomination correctly. You cannot simply create a new page; you have to click "initiate the nomination" on the article talk page after you add the template
{{subst:FLC}}to that page. You did the first part (adding the template), but not the second part. If you go to the talk page now, you'll notice the redlink indicating that this nomination was not properly initiated. It is important to open the nomination correctly so all of the relevant tools are displayed on the FLC page and so the bot can properly close the nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)- By following your reasoning, do you mean that the article is suitable for the FL? DrSalvus (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: I'll quote what I said on the most recent FL nomination page:
While I do not necessarily oppose the nomination based on content, I also agree that there are still issues that need to be addressed, as I noted in the previous FLC.
Generally, I do not outright oppose nominations that need improvement; I make a list of things that need to be improved, and the nominator works to address those comments. This is what I did (and other reviewers did as well) on the previous nomination; we added our comments for improvement and tried to clarify whenever there was confusion over our comments. However, since you closed that nomination, I'm not going to keep working to provide comments. In short: this list is not ready for featured list status, and because of the cycle of repeated nominations and withdrawals, I'm not going to keep commenting on nominations. I know this must feel bad to hear, but if you complete the peer review, reread comments in past nominations, and continue to make changes, I'd be more than happy to consider a nomination further down the road. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)- Thank you. I hope I haven't bored you with these questions DrSalvus (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: No problem – and thank you as well for being understanding. This probably seems a little frustrating, but I'm really happy to see how much the list has improved so far and to see where it will end up. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I hope I haven't bored you with these questions DrSalvus (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: I'll quote what I said on the most recent FL nomination page:
- By following your reasoning, do you mean that the article is suitable for the FL? DrSalvus (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: Okay, I'll try to better explain why I opposed the nomination. First, you just closed the last nomination, and it was your own decision to do so. When you choose to withdraw a nomination, we assume you want to make more extensive improvements that would take too long to address in a normal FLC discussion, so we expect there to be significant changes when you create the new nomination. Instead, you created a new nomination after making minimal changes, so I don't see why we should consider it again. There are a lot of FL candidates, and unfortunately, we cannot spend time reviewing the same page over and over if you're not making changes between nominations. Second, you created a new peer review, and peer reviews must be completed before featured list nominations are opened. This is a FLC policy to prevent conflicting edits between peer reviewers and FLC reviewers. Third, you did not create the nomination correctly. You cannot simply create a new page; you have to click "initiate the nomination" on the article talk page after you add the template
- @RunningTiger123: I'm not a native speaker of English, I don't always understand English if written with complex terms DrSalvus (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Now I am no longer interested in FL's nomination of List of Coppa Italia finals. But do you think that the lack of data on the spectators of the oldest finals was a problem? Dr Salvus 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Did I forget to make some changes? Dr Salvus 22:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: Please read my response below. I think it is for the best that you look for other reviewers. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I had asked ChrisTheDude without receiving an answer. Now I have to give up because it will never be an FL and I don't want to return in the WP:ANI Dr Salvus 22:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: As I said before, I would suggest looking for other reviewers. It's not that I don't support your work; I just think our discussions tend to lead nowhere, and a different reviewer might provide better advice. I would suggest either completing a proper peer review or reaching out to a WikiProject; I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Italy task force is a good place to start, since those members should know a lot about the topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
You are right, but my biggest fear is that I will make a mistake, go back to the WP: ANI and be blocked. I am resigned. Dr Salvus 10:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: You were referred to WP:ANI for your frequent FL/GA nominations without understanding the procedures, as well as editing other users' pages improperly. Your work in mainspace (in other words, writing articles) seems to be generally fine, so if you focus on that, I see no problems. If you're still concerned, consider WP:MENTOR if you haven't done that already; this was suggested to you during the discussion at WP:ANI.
- At this point, I'm going to have to insist that you stop asking me to help with this article. I have tried to answer your questions as clearly as I can, and I do not want to keep talking in circles over the same issues. I am not going to respond to any more questions you may have about this issue. If you still have concerned, please reach out to the other groups I have suggested to seek more feedback. Thank you. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I will take into consideration what has been said Dr Salvus 19:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
FLC
Hi RT, hope you are well! You very kindly reviewed at least one of my previous FLC nominations - if you had a spare moment I wondered whether you might be able to give a review to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1951/archive1? If not, not to worry. Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: No problem! (Though I suspect I won't have much to say; your lists are down to a science at this point.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Paradigms of Human Memory
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paradigms of Human Memory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Paradigms of Human Memory
The article Paradigms of Human Memory 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:Paradigms of Human Memory for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Paradigms of Human Memory
The article Paradigms of Human Memory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paradigms of Human Memory for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
You've got an email
You've got an email Dr Salvus 21:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus: I received your email – for future reference, please stick to my user talk page and do not email me directly. I like to keep all of my Wikipedia-related work here for convenience and public record; it also keeps my personal information private, since replying to emails would reveal my email address. In regard to your comments: I think it would be best to look for another group of users to review the page. We've talked about the page for a while, and we seem to be talking past each other and going in circles with our conversation, which isn't beneficial for either of us. A new, more objective reviewer would probably be able to provide better comments.
- That being said, the work you've done on the page is excellent, and I really hope that this process isn't causing you to lose interest in Wikipedia. I've seen a lot of growth in your editing and look forward to seeing more of your work in the future. Feel free to reply here if you have any questions or concerns. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Possible GAs
Hey again! I was currently editing the pilot episode of The Good Place and nominating it for GA when I noticed you were a top contributor on later episodes of the show, including "Michael's Gambit" and "Whenever You're Ready". As you've previously nominated episode articles before, I was just wondering if you ever planned to nominate these two articles for potential GA-status, as I would be happy to review them. 
Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Some Dude From North Carolina: I've tried to keep them well-written and well-sourced to keep that option open. "Whenever You're Ready" is probably pretty close; I'd just need to polish a few sections before submitting it. "Michael's Gambit" needs more work – I wrote most of it when I was still relatively new on Wikipedia, so it's more quote-heavy than I'd like a GA to be. I appreciate the comment, though; I'm busy this week, but I could take a look at the articles over the next few weeks and try to polish them up. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Dobkin.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community)
The article Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community) 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:Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community)
The article Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
March 2021 GAN Backlog drive
|
The Working Man's Barnstar |
| Thank you for completing 5 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC) |
DYK for Paradigms of Human Memory
On 22 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paradigms of Human Memory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Community catchphrase "six seasons and a movie" originated in "Paradigms of Human Memory" as a reference to The Cape? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paradigms of Human Memory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Paradigms of Human Memory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community)
On 1 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Andrew Guest wrote "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" despite having no experience playing the titular game? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Parks and Recreation Special, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Parks and Recreation Special
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Parks and Recreation Special you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Parks and Recreation Special
The article A Parks and Recreation Special 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:A Parks and Recreation Special for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Parks and Recreation Special
The article A Parks and Recreation Special you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Parks and Recreation Special for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
List of presidents of the Indian National Congress
Hi there- Awaiting your valuable response at List of presidents of the Indian National Congress. Please let us know if you have more questions with regard to the list.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 09:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
For your help with the Timeline articles
|
The SPFLT Achievement Patch | |
| Your help is much appreciated. Welcome to the spacey section of WP! Neopeius (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC) |
GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
| Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
TFL notification – August 2021
Hi, RunningTiger123. I'm just posting to let you know that List of awards and nominations received by The Office (American TV series) – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 27. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
93rd Academy Awards FLC
Hi there,
I've read your comments for 93rd Academy Awards regarding its promotion to featured list status, and I have made corrections and changes based on those comments. Thanks for your feedback.
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
Hi, the commentary (I would call it simply a fact) in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons doesn't need a citation, since the TV series episodes mentioned in it just speak for themselves and all it takes is seeing them or knowing the plot.
- Sorry, that's not how it works. As you note, the information that was recently added and removed is commentary, not merely a description. If you want to interpret something, as is the case here, you need sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not an interpretation, it's simply and merely how it is, all it takes is knowing and watching the episodes, reported also on Wikipedia.
- Arguing whether something is discriminatory or not is analysis of the episode, which requires citations. The only plot details that can be unsourced should be explicitly shown in the episode – "Character X goes to...", "Character Y says...", etc. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Analysis and interpretation for more. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
56th Academy Awards FLC
Hi there,
I've read your comments for 56th Academy Awards regarding its promotion to featured list status, and I have made corrections and changes based on those comments. Thanks for your feedback.
In appreciation
|
The Reviewers Award | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the detailed and actionable review you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC) |
2012 Summer Olympics medal table reallocation conflict
Hi there,
There seems to be a conflict regarding how to report medals that have yet to be reallocated regarding the 2012 Summer Olympics medal table. Nitobus thinks the cases of yet to be redistributed medals should be listed, but 215XBux says that you were right about WP:Crstal, initially. You can read the discussion here. So, how can this possible conflict be resolved?
Promotion of Janet(s)
- Congrats on this! To be honest, IDK why I'm congratulating you because I've never congratulated anybody before. Probably because I like this show and episode. Pamzeis (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations
|
The Featured Article Medal | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC) |
Four Award
|
Four Award | |
| Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Janet(s). — Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
FLC Review
You had replied on the page of my FLC nomination for the article List of Houston Texans seasons. I couldn't quite understand your concerns and request you to explain them once more if you could. I also wish to add the fact that I have corrected the reference-section. Thanks for the help.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Atlantis77177: Just to clarify, are you talking about the list of seasons or List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks? Assuming it's the latter, the two key issues are that the sources should be in the body (in other words, place footnotes in the body of the list to show where you are getting the information from instead of just listing sources at the end) and that the access dates are too old (if you're citing information from the 2021 draft, the sources should be from 2021, not 2007 or 2008 as the general references at the end seem to be). Let me know if that helps. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I am really sorry, but I still fail to get you. Sorry to trouble you. But could you explain the first point again on footnotes.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Atlantis77177: Sure. Consider the list DNA and RNA codon tables, which was promoted to FL fairly recently. In the first translation table (standard RNA codon table), there is a table caption "Standard genetic code" followed by footnotes 1 and 10, indicating that those sources support the table. That's what I mean by adding footnotes to the body — the sources that are currently in the References section should be moved to footnotes in a caption like the codon table example. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Could you please provide me with an example similar to my article if you could? That would help me to compare and correct better. Sorry again for disturbing you. Do you want me to separate footnotes and linked-references in the article? Is that what you meant?--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Atlantis77177: Here's an example of a list that's currently at FLC and likely to be promoted soon: List of Formula One Grands Prix. Note the footnotes at the top of each table that note the sources used for that table. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Also, maybe some of the confusion is from my terminology – when I say "footnote" here, I mean an in-line reference (as opposed to a reference at the end of the article). RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Is it ok now?... Please inform me if there are any more flaws. Thanks for the help.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Atlantis77177: No, that's not what I meant. I was talking about the sources in the References sections, which cover the entire list, being moved to the top. If a source only covers a single year, it should only be included in that row. The sources you moved to the top fall in the latter category, so they should stay in the individual rows. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Is it correct now?.. And thanks once again.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Atlantis77177: Also no. It looks like you moved the sources from the lead to the table, which is wrong. Let me try to explain this again. There are two options for how the table needs to be sourced:
- Option 1: In each row, add a source to verify who was drafted that year.
- Option 2: Find a source that includes every first-round draft for the Texans and put that in the caption.
- Does that make sense? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
So if I add 1 ref for each year's pick (a reliable one), the problem is solved?--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Atlantis77177: Correct. It would look something like this – there should be a "Ref." column on the right side where the citations are placed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Is it fine now?...I think I got you this time. At least I hope so.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Atlantis77177: It certainly looks a lot better now. I would suggest differentiating between notes and citations; Template:Efn is good for writing notes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Thanks a lot for patiently helping me out. Atlantis77177 (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
My talk page
You can stay the fuck off of it. Let this serve as a notice that you are banned from my talk page except for any required notifications for AN/I or ARBCOM. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: The point of the 3RR warning that Gonnym posted is, in part, to show other users that you have violated a rule, as this may affect future decisions regarding your behavior. This is why deleting it is not acceptable. Moreover, the point of a talk page is to carry out discussions between users, which is impossible if you remove the other side's comments. Finally, I have never heard of a policy suggesting that you can unilaterally ban a user from your talk page; please remove the header you added, as I feel it would send the wrong impression about my editing behavior. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm ok with them removing the notice. It was placed as they were on the the 3rd revert and I wanted to make sure they knew that continuing to revert will likely get them blocked. They've stopped reverting and are active in the discussion so that's ok by me. Gonnym (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- That said, you should probably watch the language, as that probably will get you blocked... Gonnym (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: I'll assume the comment about language was directed at Locke Cole, not me. As to the warning, I suppose that as long as you're okay with Locke Cole removing it, then the edit is fine under WP:TPO; I had just assumed he removed it without your permission, which is why I added it back. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was directed at his opening statement here, sorry for the confusion. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: I'll assume the comment about language was directed at Locke Cole, not me. As to the warning, I suppose that as long as you're okay with Locke Cole removing it, then the edit is fine under WP:TPO; I had just assumed he removed it without your permission, which is why I added it back. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- That said, you should probably watch the language, as that probably will get you blocked... Gonnym (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm ok with them removing the notice. It was placed as they were on the the 3rd revert and I wanted to make sure they knew that continuing to revert will likely get them blocked. They've stopped reverting and are active in the discussion so that's ok by me. Gonnym (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- RunningTiger123, outside of a small handful of instances (none of which apply here) editors are allowed to remove posts and warnings from their talk page as they see fit (see WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING). Restoring removed content as you have done is inadvisable at best. If an editor asks you not to post to their talk page, there is an expectation that you'll honour that request. And no one is going to be blocked for swearing unless it can be demonstrated that it is part of a long term pattern of incivility or part of a personal attack, in which case they will be blocked for the incivility or personal attack, not the swearing.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: My apologies, I misremembered the guidelines and forgot that user talk pages operated a bit differently. Thank you for pointing those shortcuts out to me; I'll be sure to remember those sections in the future. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I wanted to make sure you were aware as I've seen editors run right up against WP:3RR when restoring content another editor has removed from their own talk page, unaware they were the ones in the wrong. That would be a pretty lame reason to end up blocked!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: I'd also like to apologize for improperly editing your talk page; please know that it was not meant in any personal way and was an honest mistake in my interpretation of Wikipedia policies. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, I've unbanned you from my talk page. I still strongly disagree with you on the minor topic of "Of" vs. "of" but I'm sure we can agree on the broader concept that an encyclopedia should be accurate and contain verifiable information. Have a great day! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: My apologies, I misremembered the guidelines and forgot that user talk pages operated a bit differently. Thank you for pointing those shortcuts out to me; I'll be sure to remember those sections in the future. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
TFL notification
Hi, RunningTiger123. I'm just posting to let you know that List of awards and nominations received by Mad Men – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 26. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Deprodding of Past
What was your objection to the proposed deletion (for convenience, on the basis of redundancy with Grammatical tense, Memory, and ~Arrow of time) of Past? Take care,
- IncompleteBits (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- @IncompleteBits: I'll copy my explanation that I put on the talk page:
The "past" is a notable topic, so deleting it wholesale is probably not the right move. At the very least, an AfD would allow more thorough consideration of alternatives, such as redirects and merges.
To put it another way, since the past is a notable topic, I don't think a simple deletion is the best option, as most uncontroversial deletions are for topics that clearly lack notability. If you think that it covers topics already discussed in other articles, a merge discussion would probably be the better option. Additionally, I highly doubt that we want to remove all content for "past" – it's a common term and therefore a reasonable search term, so a conversion to redirect would likely be better than outright deletion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) - Also, just because the article has been deprodded doesn't mean the article can't be deleted. If you think the topic should still be considered for deletion, you are more than welcome to open an AfD for it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- It seems as though pseudo-deletion by redirection is a reasonable option here, I'll go through AfD. In response to your objection, part of the motivation behind the proposal for deletion was that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; the question about the distinction between time as a physical parameter or base unit (in Minkowski space, the standard model, or even contexts like quantum gravity with the problem of time) and something with a thermodynamic, cosmological, or causal substance belongs in a philosophy article (maybe presentism or event.) My feeling is that the Past, Present, and Future articles are lexical, and the Past and Present articles both contain multiple unscientific claims that the directionality of time has something to do with "perception." IncompleteBits (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The Good Place
Hello again. I just wanted to let you know that I have started to watch The Good Place and I am really enjoying it so far. I am only on the first season though, but I am looking forward to watching it more. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
List of accolades received by The Shape of Water FLC
Hi there,
I was wondering if you could proofread List of accolades received by The Shape of Water regarding featured list promotion. I would appreciate the feedback.
- --Birdienest81talk 09:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Birdienest81: I've left some comments on the FLC page; hopefully they're useful! If you're interested, consider reviewing this FLC (though no pressure, obviously). RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Promotion of List of awards and nominations received by Friends
1) Gentle request to review amended DISH Network External Link; and 2) Potential Wiki Contributions
Hi RT123!
Sorry for the intrusion but would you mind please having a look at the amended proposed external link for DISH Network? I added it about a week ago but no luck yet with any responses. I mentioned User:WhatamIDoing but may not have done it properly (or the user is busy).
Also, perhaps we could discuss further links and potential contributions I could make to WikiProject TV? I had reached out to some project users but not heard back. Happy to 'discuss' via email or my talk page.
Thanks kindly and have a great weekend! GebienD (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- @GebienD: I've responded on the Dish Network talk page; see that page for more.
- It's great that you want to help with more TV articles! WP:TV#Tasks lists a bunch of ways you can help, but the best way to jump in is to find what you're interested in and start there. For instance, I'm a big fan of shows like Community and The Good Place, so a lot of my work has focused on improving articles related to those shows; since I have a good amount of background knowledge on those shows and I enjoy them, it makes the editing process much more interesting for me. Do you have any particular shows or topics within television that you're interested in? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm most interested in adding/updating channel lists for the various "multichannel" and streaming TV providers. I think Project TV has a particular section on that. Also, I noticed there is void on Wiki regarding the overall landscape of streaming TV platforms. It turns out it's a really complicated area so perhaps I could write an article explaining how the various streaming platforms are organized from a hierarchical perspective and tie into one another. The biggest challenge with that though on Wikipedia is demonstrating the hierarchy using text (it's better IMO to show it using an illustration). But who knows, perhaps an internal link to such an image would work. Regardless, yes, I'm up to the task! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GebienD (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- @GebienD: If you're interesting in covering TV providers and streamers, you may want to consider joining WikiProject Media, as they focus more on that. I'm not too familiar with that WikiProject, so consider asking more questions at their talk page.
- Regarding how streamers are organized, you could probably make a chart and upload it to Wikimedia Commons (assuming it doesn't use any copyrighted media, i.e., logos), then add that image to Wikipedia articles. I'm also not super familiar with those areas; the talk pages at Wikimedia Commons would be more suited to that. I will say that an article on the topic would probably fail the no original research content policy unless you can find sources covering that hierarchy specifically and in-depth, but an image supplementing an existing article or articles would be good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you're having a great weekend. It's been a couple weeks since I posted the new proposed DISH Network link and it appears the other user who was helping has checked out. I've put a lot of work into the referenced page and wonder if I can ask your help getting this moving please? I don't wish to pressure you but at the same time I have been patient. I'm not sure what else to do. On another note, please be reminded the advantage of my link is the channel list is fully up to date and is print friendly. The list is also now sortable. Please advise? Thank you! :) GebienD (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- @GebienD: At this point, I think it's fair that you can go ahead and add it – I don't have any concerns with self-promotion or COI given how much this has been discussed, and the registration (which seemed to be the hang-up earlier) has been resolved. If worst comes to worst, someone will revert it and you can discuss it per WP:BRD. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Will do. GebienD (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
List of accolades received by Dunkirk
Hi there,
Would you kindly review List of accolades received by Dunkirk for featured list promotion? I would gladly appreciate the feedback.
By the way, great job on the copyedit for the 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards for featured list promotion. I might consider doing something for similar Primetime Emmy ceremonies. I gave feedback on your FLC.
- --Birdienest81talk 10:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Birdienest81: I've left comments at the nomination page; overall, it looks good. Thanks for your comments on the Emmys FLC as well; I've replied to your comments there as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
| Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive | |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. | |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
Promotion of 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards
Precious
lists of awards
Thank you for quality articles around television series, such as Janet(s), List of awards and nominations received by Community, List of awards and nominations received by The West Wing, 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards, for diligent reviewing, for the smile caused by the running tigers pictured on your user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2692 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Smile :)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
List of Italy national football team hat-tricks
Can you have a look to the nomination and comment it, please? Your feedback would be appreciated Dr Salvus 19:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Promotion of 73rd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards
Promotion of 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards
2020 Summer Olympics medal table FLC
Hi there,
I have read your comments regarding the featured list promotion of the 2020 Summer Olympics medal table, and finally I have been able to address them. However, I have one remark that is supposed to be confirmed by Giants2008 and one question regarding a stripped silver medal.
TFL notification
Hi, RunningTiger123. I'm just posting to let you know that 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 25. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
58th Academy Awards FLC
Hi there,
I reviewed the 72nd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards for featured list promotion, and it looks good. I request that you do the same for the 58th Academy Awards regarding its corresponding featured list nomination. I would appreciate the feedback.
58th Academy Awards FLC corrections
Hi there, again,
I made corrections based on your comments about the 58th Academy Awards regarding its featured list nomination. Thanks for the feedback.
Re: Big Three naming
Oh please, don't worry about the lateness; if anything, I'm glad that someone listened. I couldn't have summarized it better. Thanks.
List of accolades received by If Beale Street Could Talk FLC
Hi there,
I was wondering if you could review List of accolades received by If Beale Street Could Talk for its pending featured list promotion. I would appreciate the feedback. Warning: I will not be able to respond to your queries until May 23 because its my birthday.
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
Promotion of 72nd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards
In appreciation
|
The honourable opposer's award |
| By the authority vested in me by myself I present you with this award in recognition of one or more well argued opposes at FAC. I may or or may not agree with your reasoning and/or your oppose, but I take a Voltarian attitude towards your right to state it. Thank you, such stands help to make Wikipedia stronger. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
53rd Academy Awards FLC and 94th Academy Awards possible FLC
Hi there,
I made some correction based on your comments about the 53rd Academy Awards upon its featured list candidacy. I'm planning to do a rewrite of the 94th Academy Awards for FLC on August 13 (after I get through the 52nd Academy Awards, but what's bothering is how I should address the Will Smith-Chris Rock slapping incident. I really think the list in its current state looks messy and reads like a gossip magazine. I waited for a few months to avoid an editing war. I was wondering if you could rewrite the Will Smith-Chris Rock section (or better yet the entire Ceremony information) and I would give you credit when the list is nominated. If not, would you be so kind as time give me advice on what should belong and shouldn't. Thanks. --Birdienest81talk 11:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Birdienest81: I can take a look at it over the next couple of weeks. At first glance, it doesn't look too bad, but it could definitely use a clean-up. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Birdienest81: At the moment, the article seems to be in okay shape now, but I think all of the Gold Derby-sourced records should be removed from the Records section (to me, this section's bloated length compared to other years is the biggest issue right now). I also think some paragraphs need to be merged/split elsewhere. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- i Birdienest81talk 13:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- @RunningTiger123: Update, I have been doing somewhat of a draft of a copy edited version of the 94th Academy Awards on one of my sandbox pages (User:Birdienest81/sandbox thirty-three). It is still a work in progress, but it is a more concise and streamlined version of the article. I tried to "cut to the chase" and stick with the main point being the winners/nominations, ceremony info, etc. I plan to incorporate your copy-edited version of Will Smith's controversy onto my version of the ceremony. I also tried to avoid statements that have quite questionable or low quality sources such as GoldDerby or Screen Rant. My goal is to try to have this ready for nomination on August 13, and you will be credited as co-nominator. Feel free to make changes or give me feedback. In the meantime, could you proofread 52nd Academy Awards for its current featured list nomination? I'll try to review your nomination for the 59th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards probably by tomorrow or Friday.
- --Birdienest81talk 13:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Birdienest81: Sounds good to me. My only main comment on the draft right now is that it (unfortunately) should cover some of the other controversies around the event, not just the slap. At the very least, the removal of some of the craft categories from the broadcast should be mentioned. I'll take a stab at adding those to your sandbox page shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Birdienest81: At the moment, the article seems to be in okay shape now, but I think all of the Gold Derby-sourced records should be removed from the Records section (to me, this section's bloated length compared to other years is the biggest issue right now). I also think some paragraphs need to be merged/split elsewhere. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)