User talk:Lightburst/Archive 1-31-24

Archive 1-31-24

DYK for Jetson One

On 1 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jetson One, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Forbes said of the Jetson One aircraft, "Flying Cars Are Here"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jetson One. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jetson One), 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, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Lightburst!

Happy New Year!

Lightburst,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Wanna see something I've been writing up?

Wikipedia:2024 administrative elections proposal. I'd be honored if you gave your feedback :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for working on solutions. In the proposal, present system "Participants frequently cast toxic or uncivil votes without consequence". They actually have harsh consequences. They get their comments erased, they get comments hatted or struck, and in several cases they get blocked. That even happened in your RFA.

I think we can make it less complicated. We should just use the same system we use for ARBS. I understand why you chose the "ten days make up the discussion and questioning period" but it would be a terribly long time for a candidate and it may lead to more problems. A period of 4-7 days would likely be enough and then cast votes in securepoll. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Another thing that makes this high stakes is the lifetime appointment. What about probationary admins or term limits. I might take a chance on an admin if I knew they were not in the job for ever and ever. I also think "A candidate with between 55% and 65% of the vote is granted adminship for a period of six months" will be controversial - an editor who cannot get a 65+ does not have the trust of the editors. Many of our editors seem to reflexively vote support as evidenced by the struck supports in RFAs that go sideways. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback :) couple questions: (1) The same system we use for ACE? So, 14 days for discussion with a concurrent 7-day voting window through the back half? (2) what is probationary adminship, if not granting it for a limited time? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I was not familiar with the actual timeline but from what I have seen there is minimal controversy related to arb elections. Like you, I feel that many editors do not vote in RFA if they want to oppose because the candidates do not forget. Admin Deor actually brought up an RFA vote and threw it at the voter in RFA saying I wasn't going to comment in this thread at all, but I have to note the futility of supposing that anything is going to be done here. I've certainly had my run-ins with members of the ARS (several of them, as I expected beforehand that they would, turned out to oppose in my RFA, with DF saying that "I don't really think this person is a good editor") Also the voter may wish to be an admin someday - and voting oppose may hurt them later. JPxG said something about it in their RFA.

I don't know if it is appropriate for me to do a full go-off about the RfA process while I am in the middle of one, but I suppose I will be honest: it's fucking sad. While nobody has individually chosen to play the part of the villain, the outcome is nonetheless disgraceful. The number, right now, is 222/1/1: but is that real? Who knows. Maybe there are some people who think I'm a complete piece of trash, and are simply choosing not to throw themselves upon the bonfire by saying so in public at a 222/1/1 RfA. I guess we'll never know: I have been given the gift of a potentially high ratio, at the price of a potentially dishonorable victory. But what else could have been done? What else were they supposed to do? The options seem to have been to do that, or to say nothing and let it stand.

For your second question, I think granting adminship to those with 55-65% would be controversial - even if it was probationary. For a normal RFA appointment I do not think they should be lifetime appointments, and maybe all admins should be probationary for a time. But one thing at a time. I think voting in private is ideal and I thank you for attempting a proposal. I do not have the clout to make a proposal but you do. In your system a person would not have to make a public declaration which either creates enemies or friends. Imagine if you had to make such a declaration at the polls in front of your neighbors at the polls? I voted for X! And then other editors demand you explain.

Unrelated to this discussion, I think I saw you defend Tony B's comments in the RTH RFA. I would say there is no such thing as "objective moral evil" in regard to governments. To the Native Americans, the white people would be an objective moral evil. To the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the US would be an objective moral evil. When I said history was written by the winners - imagine if the British had won the Revolutionary War. George Washington's would be described as a terrorist by the history books. He has his troops hiding and sneak attacking rather than lining up and facing off with troops. He also killed the Hessians in a surprise attack after crossing the Delaware River. In the eyes of Hessians or British, Washington was a terrorist. Our article on his day after Christmas sneak attack describes him as a hero, and so does American history.Revolutionary War's most logistically challenging and dangerous clandestine operations. Was George Bush objectively evil when he started a war in Iraq which killed roughly 200,000 people based upon either lies or faulty intelligence. So "objective moral evil" is a misnomer and accusing another editor of supporting it, is wrongheaded and a possible aspersion. I imagine there are levels of evil but none of them are objective IMO. Remember the "Are you now or have you ever been..." from the McCarthy era. Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

For sure, I hear that :) I've upped the numbers to 70% perm/65% temp. I don't think there'll be consensus to end lifetime tenure at RfA, although that's an interesting idea down the road. I didn't defend TonyBallioni's comment there – what I was alluding was the fact that Tony is maybe the most skilled RfA-oppose-vote writer I've ever come across. Put the nail in the coffin of my first RfA and many others – some people break the cycle of hostility by being good at writing oppose rationales and willing to be seen as a meanie sometimes. They're the exception, though, not the rule. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell wonder if you have any thoughts or advice for this TLC proposal Wikipedia:2024 administrative elections proposal. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2023

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The First Hellcat Ace Book Jacket by Hamilton McWhorter III.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Lightburst for collecting at least 25 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Re-reviews award

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		This award is given to Lightburst for doing over 25 re-reviews, in the January 2024 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for August Palmisano

On 12 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article August Palmisano, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when tavern operator August Palmisano was killed in a 1978 car bombing, authorities suspected organized crime in Milwaukee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/August Palmisano. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, August Palmisano), 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Okauchee Lake

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Your action at RfA

Hey.

Repeating what I said here, per the 2015 RfA reforms crats are empowered to make clerking actions, such as those done by AmandaNP a short while ago. Will you please self-revert this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that Amanda has already undone this. If you wish to appeal the removal, then I would suggest that you follow her advice and make a request at WP:BN. Please do not remove it again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Thanks for the messages. I hope we can work together on this great project. I am not appealing, but I moved my own vote to oppose as a placeholder. I am not going to edit war. The RFA process is badly when the majority voters can cancel the votes of the minority voters. Lightburst (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

when the majority voters can cancel the votes of the minority voters That's not what happened here though. Homeostasis07's vote was the equivalent of chucking a grenade and running for the hills. On any other area of the project, the extremely serious and wholly unsupported aspersions that they cast about another editor would have been challenged, and without a relatively swift response (ie, within 24 hours) been removed per multiple policies (WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS). You cannot say what Homeostasis07 said about another editor without proof. It is only because of a quirk of the RfA process, where we expect crats to take those actions, and how that expectation interacts with the expectation that the role of the crats is to not take controversial actions, that our normal procedures for dealing with this sort of issue don't happen. Basically no-one is either willing or feels able to enforce our normal conduct policies.

We are in agreement that RfA is broken, but in my opinion the reason it is broken is because it is the one area where we don't consistently enforce our conduct policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I like you, and the fact that you talk with me rather than about me. Kudos! So strike the aspersion... not the vote. In my struck neutral I alluded to the "snowball fight" that Homeostasis07 had with the candidate. It is obvious that Homeostasis07 was still smarting over that incident. And they are entitled to oppose based on a personal experience just as Tamzin voted based on a personal experience in The Night Watch RFA. We need to let it go, it takes all of us to build this encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It is obvious that Homeostasis07 was still smarting over that incident. Sure, but that wasn't the thrust of their vote. The background interaction at TFA was there to set the tone and give a little background of what followed. The thrust of their oppose was because of off-wiki meatpuppetry allegations. That's a serious allegation to make against any user, let alone one that the community in general is not set up to handle. This is also one of those situations where, if the allegations hold out as true ArbCom would be extremely likely to desysop, if not indef. Had Homeostasis simply ended their vote with the TFA remark, I don't think everything else that's happened, including this discussion, would have happened. Hell, had they waited to oppose until after they had sent the evidence email to ArbCom and made a vote like Oppose - poor off-wiki conduct, I've emailed evidence of this to ArbCom, there would have been a collective "huh?" but there wouldn't have been cause to strike or redact the vote.

Tamzin's oppose of TNW is a different beast entirely. The emphasis behind their oppose was based purely on on-wiki conduct, and was made with supporting evidence. Whether or not you agree with the points they made, or how the result of that vote played out, it was made entirely within the realm of our conduct policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: In the RTH RFA I looked and saw that Joe Roe had some scraps with them. So they opposed at the RTH RFA. In the Leeky RFA TIG had their lone oppose struck and I reinstated it. Another RFA completed and an oppose was struck after closure. I can name others who were blocked for daring to oppose. How voting should work - editors should vote based on their own reasons. I think we need to protect an editor's right to vote - especially when they are all alone in their vote. Homeostasis07 intended to vote Oppose and we ought to allow them to do so and strike the offending comment about off wiki accusations. Lightburst (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lightburst. While I have no opinion on your !vote in the latest RfA, I don't like seeing people getting their personal opinions badgered, and I hope you're holding up alright amidst this current discussion. I don't think I could have done much to get prevent you getting badgered at my RfA, but the least I can do is apologize for the attention and flak you received. The Night Watch (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Night Watch: I appreciate the sentiment! I imagine you will eventually prove that all of that hullabaloo in your RFA was wrongheaded. Have a great day and happy editing! Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Using an alt on DYK

Hello Lightburst, thank you for moving the Geno (Super Mario RPG) DYK nomination to the queue. It makes me quite happy to see it got approved so quickly. That being said, would it be ok to swap the one that's currently in the queue for Alt 1 of the nominations? Both hooks got approved and personally I think that one is more engaging. Sorry if this request seemed so late, couldn't really make up my mind till now. If it's not allowed to be changed, I will completely understand. All the best, CaptainGalaxy 22:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I will look into that. Lightburst (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done @Captain Galaxy: Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lightburst. You have new messages at Talk:Randy Travis/GA1.
Message added 18:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beaver drop

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beaver drop 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beaver drop

The article Beaver drop you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beaver drop for comments about the article, and Talk:Beaver drop/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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building 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 Bruxton -- Bruxton (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building

The article Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building for comments about the article, and Talk:Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building/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 Bruxton -- Bruxton (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The 3:16 game

Hello, Lightburst. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The 3:16 game, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Olga Hartman

Thanks for the review. I agree with you about the images. I've been trying to figure out how to best approach them. I plan on uploading two images in the next several days, but I'm running into roadblocks on the newer image. The colors are just completely wrong. I believe her student is wearing the crimson USC colors of the doctoral robe and Olga herself is wearing a marine blue dress, but the photo looks all wrong and this disturbs me. What's incredibly weird is that I have a memory (false perhaps) that when I was knee deep working on putting the article together last year, I ran across the same image, except it was color corrected. I can find no such image, but I will keep looking. It's possible it's out there or my mind just wants it to be real, I don't know. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

On a whim, I thought about searching through the USC digital archives. Don't know why I never thought of it before. Lots of interesting stuff there. Just found a video of her on an expedition. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas That's great. I am sure it will only make the article better! Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time on this. I determined that the entire film was released by the foundation as CC BY 4.0, but the cut scene of Olga Hartman was strangely absent from the digitized cut scenes in the main archive. My personal opinion is that this is an administrative error or oversight, as the scene in question is currently only found on the USC Libraries site. Therefore, I uploaded it as a non-free image, however, I am fairly confident that this image also falls under the CC BY 4.0 licensing, but I have no way of proving it, since I just spent three hours pouring through all the archival footage and deleted scenes on the main site (in high speed), only to discover that they weren't there. Still, I think the image isn't protected by copyright at all, and one might be able to make an argument that it is still a free image. Another issue that comes up is why was the only woman scientist aboard the entire, decade-long expedition cut from the main documentary film? I watched the whole film and all of its outtakes, and it's just one long sausage fest. Really does seem like institutional sexism to me. I ran across a similar issue while working on a proposed Georgia O'Keeffe article about her time in Hawaii (still in my sandbox right now). Interestingly, both Hartman's expedition aboard the Velero III and O'Keeffe's trip to Hawaii occurred around the same time in 1940. O'Keeffe was unable to paint the pineapple plants as she desired because the people who ran Dole said that it was unheard of (and completely unacceptable) for a white woman to mingle with the mixed race farm workers in the fields, let alone a woman artist. Given that this was the same era, I'm wondering if Hartman was cut for the same reasons, in other words, it was unheard of for women scientists to mingle with men on research expeditions, and what would the common people say if they saw this film? Women would be demanding to be included in everything! Cats and dogs would be living together, it would be pandemonium! Super interesting that I'm seeing the same issues arise across totally different disciplines in the very same year. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you dud a load of work. The photo requirements are always the trickiest on WP. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park

The article International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park 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:International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park and Talk:International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have noticed that you have yet to address comments made in my review of this article. Please note that the article will be failed if the comments are not all sorted by the date set by me in the review. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park

The article International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park for comments about the article, and Talk:International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park/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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 3:16 game

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 3:16 game 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 TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 3:16 game

The article 3:16 game 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:3:16 game and Talk:3:16 game/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 3:16 game for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3:16 game is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3:16 game until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

—Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 3:16 game

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 3:16 game requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at [[1]]. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 3:16 game

The article 3:16 game you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:3:16 game for comments about the article, and Talk:3:16 game/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 TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review TonyTheTiger. Lightburst (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Shank Hall

On 31 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shank Hall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that actor Corey Feldman knocked his own tooth out at Shank Hall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shank Hall. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shank Hall), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)