User talk:Etzedek24/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Barnstar

		The WikiProject Wisconsin Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the Weidner Center For The Performing Arts article! -- Dolotta (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Giovanni Gentile

Just a heads-up about the Rfc you started at Giovanni Gentile. Normally, there needs to be discussion at an article's Talk page before initiating an Rfc, and just wanted you to know that I listed it at WP:AN/RFC to get some feedback about that point. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I responded to your reliable source issue at Talk:Giovanni Gentile#Gentile = not a socialist. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jack Kirby

The article Jack Kirby 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:Jack Kirby for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How not to use Wikipedia

Please stay off my talk page in the future, thanks. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Magnacartalibertatum: Your talk page is a public space. If you don't want warnings posted on there, don't vandalize articles. It's really that simple. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 16:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Pacific Justice Institute

PJI is a legal organization so it naturally contains summaries of court cases. You removed this well sourced content and replaced it with trivia from a biased source. That is not how Wikipedia works. Not in the slightest. – Lionel^(talk) 09:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: The page's sourcing was a joke. Not only did many of the sources not match up with the prose they were cited in context of (for example, only including PJI on a list with no other context), but many of the sources, especially with the indiscriminate listing of cases (which contained non-NPOV phrasing) only mentioned the PJI in a passing context as well. To efface the PJI's history of virulent anti-LGBT campaigning, to which it devotes much time and energy, especially when the bulk of the "biased sources" I cited came from newspapers and the PJI's website itself, is unacceptable. Perhaps there is some middle ground to be found, but the article in its previous state falls far short of Wikipedia standards concerning hate groups. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 16:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• "sources not match up with the prose they were cited": I checked half of the article and the sources state that PJI represented a litigant in the particular legal matter. Sourcing is verified per WP:VERIFY.
• "indiscriminate listing of cases...only mentioned the PJI in a passing context": in a legal article when an attorney represents a litigant the entire case, as well as its precedents if any, becomes relevant for the article of the attorney. Since PJI represented the litigant, that makes the case relevant to this article, thus not indiscriminate. For an example of how representing a litigant makes the case relevant see Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Notable_cases.
• "To efface the PJI's history of virulent anti-LGBT campaigning": PJI was founded 20 years ago and most of their casework is based on First Amendment and religious freedom issue such as prayer in schools, In God We Trust, proselytizing, Christian Bible clubs at public schools, etc. You cited UNDUE. Ironically, for the article to be DUE, this work with regards to the First Amendment and religious freedom must be covered in the article. In other words, your blanking of the article created inbalance. Your statement "devotes much time and energy" is let's just say an exaggeration.
• " falls far short of Wikipedia standards concerning hate groups": Wikipedia has no "standards" concerning hate groups. In any event PJI is a well established Christian legal advocacy group. The closest example is ironically SPLC. The listing of cases in PJI is analogous to this Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Notable_cases.
• Your comments and behavior betray your bias and POV. Such as removing the LA Times and replacing it with Youtube. Are you here to build an encyclopedia or to push an LGBT agenda? WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Because if you are here to WP:NOTADVOCATE then you will probably be topic banned.– Lionel^(talk) 10:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, I'm Sabbatino. Your recent edit to the page Template:Milwaukee Bucks roster appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Strasserism

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Etzedek24. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group (probationary 3 months), allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right may be revoked by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR/AfC

Hi Etzedek24,

I see you were turned down by Kudpung for the NPR user right, I'd suggest heading over to WP:Articles for deletion and over to WP:Requested moves and participating in some discussions to gain experience and learn policies for a while before applying again. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I'm not sure if this will impact your decision, but I'd like to mention that Kudpung reversed their decision and granted me NPP rights after conversing. I feel that I have a pretty good grasp of policies thus far. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 01:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All good, I'd still recommend spending a bit of time at both places though. Good luck and thanks for joining the project. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, see below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

File:DeadpoolvGambit1.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A Boy from Tandale

Hello Etzedek24/Archive 1, thanks for accepting my first article on the English Wikipedia. I'm truly humbled to see my contributions are being taken quite serious with you. Til next time, stay blessed!--Muddyb (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Medusa (DC Comics)

Hey there! I noticed you put a citation-improvement banner on the page Medusa (DC Comics) which I edit regularly... is there a reason for that? I've put references from each of her comics appearances and the page currently has 22 references. I'd love more information on what you're looking for in terms of citation. :) Thanks! Nyssie (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nyssane: I'll give it a once over again and see what I remember--I think it was the Other versions/In other media sections that I was referring to. Cheers, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

FoldingCoin

Hi there. we are trying our best to write this in a way that is not promotional, we simply want a page. Can you please explain exactly what is wrong with the page? or what should we do to get this approved? - Pooktwo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooktwo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You want to talk to Bbb23 as they were the admin who deleted the page. However, I will say that you cannot "simply have a page," your organization or product must meet notability guidelines as laid out here, here, and here. If the page does not meet those guidelines, as it's done twice, (for copyright, unambiguous promotion, and no indication of significance), then the page will be deleted again. Cheers, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Draft: Charles Rudolf Legéndy"

Dear Edzedek24 — I am aware of the added responsibility associated with COI editing, and it is true that 10 out of my 15 inline references are self-published - however, the rest are reliable third-party references, and they do meet WP:RS. (I listed some of them when I responded to the last declination, but Bradv did not answer my response, and has since then deleted it.) The following supporting remarks are meant to go with the three "best known for" items in my introduction:

• In reference to the “Poisson surprise” test: Cotterill and Eglen (Cambridge University), in a recent paper in Journal of Neurophysiology (my ref. 13) write, in part:

“ . . . the Poisson surprise method [of Legéndy and Salcman, 1985] is one of the most widely used burst detection methods since its development over thirty years ago (398 citations as of June 2018) and is still commonly used for analysing bursting activity . . .” 

• In reference to the brain capacity estimation: Donald Hebb, a well-known contributor to psychology and neuroscience (with two Wikipedia articles devoted to him), cites the Legéndy (1967) brain capacity estimate in a 1976 paper (my ref. 6), right up-front in the Introduction.
• In regard to helicons: my contributions are incorporated in the Wikipedia article on helicons.

OAKS222 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to me. However, I still stand by my declination. I reviewed the page a second time, and agree with Bradv. This article is at the intersection of several highly scrutinized areas, including WP:COI and WP:BLP. The sources on the page itself, as before, do not credibly indicate notability due to the overwhelming level of non-independence of the sources. Hence the much higher level of scrutiny. The article needs more verifiable third-party references. Sorry, but not now. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt answer, and also for reviewing the page a second time. However - I still don’t understand: Why you say that (for instance) my Cotterill and Eglen (2018) reference is a non-independent source? I never even heard of these two guys until I saw their article - and the journal (Journal of Neurophysiology) is highly respectable, as is the affiliation of the authors (University of Cambridge). I am confident that if you examine the article you will agree that it meets the WP:RS criteria. OAKS222 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I am going to be going on a research trip shortly so I will likely not respond as quickly, so I will say this. The larger issue, and the reason why the page has not been approved has little to do with whether or not one source is or is not reliable. The problem is the self-published nature of the majority of the sources. From WP:YOURSELF: "Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves ... so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim[,] does not involve claims about third parties[,] does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source[,] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity[, and] the article is not based primarily on such sources." 10 out of 15 (at last count, I may be mistaken) qualifies, in my opinion as the primary basis of the article. Another editor may feel differently, but after reviewing the article again, and brushing up on the autobiography/COI policy, I'm still a firm no on the article at this point. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again - I guess my main problem is not that the Legéndy citations are automatically unreliable but that there are too many of them. Well - that is an easy one to remedy: I can remove them altogether from the "is best known for" section (and replace them with third-party references), and remove about half of them, in a similar way, from the rest of the text - would that make the page more acceptable? OAKS222 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this eligible for deletion?

Is this eligible for deletion? User:Strawberrian/sandbox Strawberrian (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Strawberrian, you have posted your sandbox link. That cannot be deleted. However, your Susumu Matsuura page did not credibly indicate the subject's notability and read more like a resume than an encyclopedic entry, thus, it was deleted. --Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Strawberrian: Followup: you may have your sandbox deleted by placing the {{Db-userreq}} template on the page. -- Dolotta (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Bwflannigan

Thanks for resorting the redirect. I saw your warning on their page and a heads up that they are two reverts away from WP:3RR. Regardless hopefully they take your advice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Are they only two away? That was the second time by WikiClock today that they had removed the redirect, but I could be wrong. I have a sneaking suspicion that they're also the IP that removed the redirect earlier so I suppose we'll see what happens. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me but since we can't know that, we can say for sure that they reverted me once and you once. So the next one will be three and the one after a violation of the WP:3RR bright line. Of course my hope as it seems to be yours is that they take heed and improve their editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, doy. It's MORE than three. It's been a long day. I did open a sock investigation just to check. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Etzedek24, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Schofield/Rothschild shootings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Schofield/Rothschild shootings 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/Schofield/Rothschild shootings 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. John from Idegon (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• HI. I'm here to urge you to take a little time to improve this page. Thake a look at my comment at AfD. That bill is sufficient impact to make this a keep. But page will need improvement. Cheers!E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

File:ECStoner Gordons.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of 100 oldest colleges and universities in the United States

Hello, Etzedek24. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of 100 oldest colleges and universities in the United States".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Hhkohh (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Pacific Justice Institute, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Removing high-quality, verified sources such as Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Post is disruptive.– Lionel^(talk) 10:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Lionel, this is old news, but it would be SO nice if you'd stop trying to browbeat editors into submission. And if you would stop using the word "censorship" so inappropriately. We're a website here, writing up interesting things--Etzedek was hardly preventing someone from using their free speech. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

File:WerthamGordonParks.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Moving pages per naming conventions

Please read WP:NC. It isn't necessary to (further) disambiguate pages like Wikirank or Inhuman (comics) for "more specific link" when no other page with the same title exists. For comics, the specific naming conventions can be found here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). And if you do move a page because disambiguation is needed (i.e. there are other articles with the same name), as you did when moving The American Way to The American Way (comics), then the original title that wasn't specific enough should be turned into a disambiguation page or redirected to a similar disambiguation page. If the original title still redirects to the new one, then the disambiguation was for nothing in the first place.

Also, regarding this edit, please read MOS:DAB, particularly MOS:DABENTRY and MOS:DABPIPING. There should only be one blue link per entry etc. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: OK, I messed up the redirect. Mistakes happen. I gleaned that from the edit summary, there was no need to leave me an entire paragraph for that. Thanks for the pointers on DABs. I don't do a lot of work on those types of pages so I wasn't aware. But, then again, I'm not obliged to memorize policies. Please don't policy linkspam me in the future. If I messed something up I will see it in the edit summary. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Drafts

Do you think that moving these articles that I have made to drafts actually help them get better? Moving them to drafts does nothing but make less people aware of them and less accessible. Unless you intend to fix them all by yourself.★Trekker (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker: Trek, I appreciate the good work and dedication you have to your work on here, but you have a pattern of leaving incomplete articles up that isn't acceptable. Since I think you're referring to this article, it was off mainspace for about a day, maybe not even that, and it's much improved for it. It's nothing personal, I think moving these articles that have incomplete or empty sections to drafts helps ensure a better end product. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Since when do you need to make a perfect article each time? You can make stubs if you feel like it as long as the subject is notable. This is how I like to work, I work in periods of spurts, it's part of my ADHD, if you don't like it you can add to the article, how does it conceivably ever help to remove a subject from the mainspace? I don't buy that the way you like to do thing helpp in the mildest, in the case of the Jessica Jones article you even removed a bunch of stuff I had on each individual issue for no good reason. It's the same thing as the Punsiehr article, how does it ever help to remove a bunch of sources. Makes. No. Sense. You say it isn't personal but you still clearly go around and follow my articles and say they're bad and remove them from mainspace for weird and poor reasons that as far as I know are just based on your own feelings on them. Again, are you going to fix every single one of them and make sure to put them back? And by what personal standard do you judge them to be "complete" Would it be better if I just ignored to put in the sections at all? Do you remove all stubs you see?★Trekker (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I respect where you come from, but you can't proffer your disability as an excuse for poor conduct. It's one thing to leave stubs up--that's not what the issue is here. I'm talking about articles that are legitimately incomplete--like with headings with no text underneath. If that's how you prefer to work, fine, I can't stop you. But if you're going to put articles together and leave them unfinished, you should really do that in draftspace. As a side note, I'm not a fan of the way you talk about articles that you have contributed greatly to. You're a fairly experienced editor, so I feel that I shouldn't have to say that you don't own your articles. I also resent the accusation that this is personal--that's ludicrous. I improve articles as I find them. In this case, I was doing article assessments for WP:COMICS and came across the articles. None of this is malicious. If I put an article in draftspace, it shoots up the priority list for improving. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, with the JJ article, you hadn't edited it since October of last year, and it was in dire need of updating in any case. If you want to put the table of issue reception in, again I can't stop you. I just think that long tables creep into indiscriminate list territory. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not using my ADHD as an excuse, it's just an explanation. And it's not much of a disability by the way, my mind just works differently and I wouldn't be able to do a lot of stuff I enjoy if I didn't have that.

And I don't have own issues, I have an issue with people straight up just removing stuff from the site and putting them in limbo for no good reason completly based on their own feelings. Can you cite some guidelines that says that it's wrong to work on articles the way I like to? If not the I'd advice you to quit doing that because it just makes the encyclopedia lesser and makes fewer people aware of the content. And again, how is putting the articles into draft space better than just working on them in mainspace? You still havn't explained that to me in any good way. How do more people get the chance to work on an article that's tucked away in the sites hidden depts that almost no one ever visits?

I also never accused you of being malicious (I think most of the time you've been nice to me, if a bit dismissive of my ways) just that you clearly don't respect the way I like to do things based on your own POV and that you self-admited that you think that I "have a pattern" that you've kept track off. It's clear that you have a bias against how I edit and I'd like to see some motivation for that beyond the fact that you think it looks ugly and incomplete, all articles are works in progress and beyond the fact that there are some empty headings sometimes where is the big harm? Where is the guideline that says that it's ok move a bunch of obviously notable subjects away from the mainspace and just leave them there (again, unless you intend to fix all of them yourself you're essentially leaving them in the hopes that someone will one day take an interest in them). All it does it make me potentially forget about them because I keep track of articles by checking navboxes and categories and searching for them in the searchbar, something which can't be done with drafts, I'm sure tons of other people find articles that way too, as a matter of fact I think most people do, so again how does putting them into limbo like that make people more likely to find them and improve them? Tons of drafts stay drafts for years and years.

I just don't see the logic in how the articles are different from stubs. That makes less than zero sense to me, why don't you just remove the heading if they bother you and you think a full stub would be better? I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off as obtuse but I just don't grasp why it would be better to draftify them since I rarely see any of the drafts that I've come across get worked on.

As far as the JJ article goes, there is no timelimit on Wikipedia, and the stuff that you added could have just been added while it was an article so why not just do that? And the fact that you keep saying "keep doing that if you want to, I can't stop you" just makes a good case for the fact that you don't really think very highly of any of the work that I do, even if you claim you "appreciate it". In the end this comes of (to me at least) as an example of one editor thinking they know the only right way and trying to force that without anyone asking them to. You're pretty much the only person I've come across that's taken such an issue to the content I've added and felt they needed to be hidden away until you or someone likeminded could fix it in the style that you like. Much like you said to me, I'm not going to try to hinder you form turning more articles into drafts but I don't like it and I don't see the benefits from it. Again, sorry if my work looks that bad to you and I hope my future work won't be as bothersome, but I can't change how I function and I'm not about to give up the joy I get from editing Wikipedia my way, and I really don't see the harm in it so unless more people feel I'm being disruptive or am having a negative impact I think I'll go on to do things the way I work. I don't agree that what I'm going is poor conduct.★Trekker (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that I can succinctly say the following: Personally (from new page reviewing), if an article is incomplete (by which I mean large swathes of blank content, not a stub), I move it to draft first. That's a good way of getting half-finished stuff outside of the mainspace as well as seeing if someone really cares about the article that they will work on it and improve it. It's not saying "this is bad and has to go to AfC," it's just an easy way to keep track of stuff that needs to be touched up. I also move stuff to draft because I may not have the energy or time at the present moment to improve it, but I will when I do have the time as I did at JJ. I also am sure to tag stuff I move with the comics WP draft class so that I can keep track of it that way as well. I wouldn't say that I "keep track" of your edits, but like I said you do have a habit of leaving poorly-formatted tables and blank sections in articles. That's different than a stub that is just lacking information in general. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

None of my tables are ever poorly formated, at the worst they're not all filled out. And again, I don't feel like you've done a good job at adressing my points very well. You've yet to explain to me how putting somehting in a draft really helps it at all, you keep saying it does but none of your claims combat my concerns.★Trekker (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I've said it a bunch of times: Moving incomplete articles to draft is common procedure. It gets incomplete articles out of mainspace, provides an easy way of tracking articles to improve, and shows which articles have editors that care about them and want to improve them. As per the table comment, see the table I removed from the JJ article. The columns are far too wide for the amount of text that is put in them and it disrupts the structure of the article. That's what I mean by poorly formatted. Not filled out is different--that's easier to manage. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You say that but back it up with nothing.★Trekker (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I hope you take the time to upload the images again that you're going to get deleted since they can't stay in the draft. Since I live in Europe and risk having my rights to upload copyrighted images soon I might not be able to do it myself.★Trekker (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Like this. Also, have you made sure to remove all the redlinks from navboxes and such since redlinks aren't meant to be on those?★Trekker (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Etzedek24: @Treker: I've moved Love Is Love (comics) back to the mainspace. I strongly disagree that articles should be moved to draftspace solely because they are incomplete, especially one year after they were created. We have a ton of stubs that are incomplete in the mainspace and that is fine. The article as it is is not violating any of Wikipedia's policies. Yes, new articles are sometimes moved back to draftspace during by new page reviewers if they are sorely lacking, but this article is not sorely lacking, nor is it a new page. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker: fixing my ping. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want to move articles back to the draftspace that have already been reviewed and been in the mainspace for awhile just because they need to be expanded, I highly recommend you at least start a discussion somewhere first because such moves are extremely controversial. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Lafargue Clinic

Nice work on this article. I have a couple print sources that might be useful to expand it some more (A Wertham-centric issue of Alter Ego and a collection of essays by Mark Evanier). I'll see what I can dig up. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate it, Argento! Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Midnighter (2015 comic book)

The article Midnighter (2015 comic book) 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:Midnighter (2015 comic book) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fearstreetsaga -- Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Public Domain

However, I have concerns about some of your claims of Public Domain status, e.g. File:LafargueParishHouse.png, File:WerthamLafargueConference.png, and File:LafarguePlayroom.png with claims of "MCNY does not hold copyright on digital images. No other assertion of copyright." or "No assertion of copyright in publication." Failure to assert copyright by a museum or repository does not make an image "free": copyright is general held by the original creator and in the U.S. it is the date and copyright notice in the original publication that determines when an image falls into public domain. Subsequent republication or posting of the image does not change initial copyright unless copyright is explicitly renewed or the rights are transferred or explicitly released into the public domain or under a free license. See Copyright rules in the United States and the Hirtle Chart on Wikimedia Commons for more information. The Copyright Village Pump is a good place to ask any questions about particular images or sources. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Animalparty: I appreciate your vigilance with regard to these images, and I will be updating the ones from the MCNY. Per their website,

"Researchers may use, free of charge, copies of low-resolution images from the Collections Portal for non-commercial use, such as illustrating a school paper or website, or for study. Each image must be accompanied by the following credit line: [Name of creator] / Museum of the City of New York. [Accession number]. If the image will be posted online, please provide a link back to the catalog record in the collections portal."

If this means I need to update the templates from PD to CC BY 3.0 or fair use, let me know. With regard to the image from the book, I have gone back and checked the sourcing and am confident that image remains in the public domain as it was published without a copyright notice. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia hardly qualifies as "personal use": it's not just a website, or school project, and posting material here violates non-commercial use: when material is posted it can immediately be viewed, downloaded, and reused by anyone in the world, for any purpose, including commercial (Reusing Wikipedia content), with the exception of non-free material, which is tightly restricted, as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content. The MCNY rights page also makes several other statements that cast doubt on the free use of images:

• "In some cases, the Museum owns only the physical object and does not assume copyright ownership... clearing copyright and any other rights that may be vested in an image is entirely the responsibility of the researcher."
• "Reproductions of objects in the Museum's collections may be licensed for personal, scholarly or commercial uses"
• "Permission to use an image is based on the rights stated on the invoice or permission form. No image may be distorted in any way, whether by rotation, inversion, change of proportion, color alteration, superimposition, animation or any other method without prior approval from the Museum"

What this boils down to is that the Museum restricts use beyond personal, and simply does not claim copyright of material it does not have rights to. And similarly, the inclusion of images in Mendes (2015), Under The Strain of Color does not bear upon the images' underlying copyright: the publisher may well have acquired permission from the rights holder or museum, as is the case in most commercial publications. And note you can't change licenses to CC-BY because only the copyright holder can choose the license. The easiest way to prove Public Domain for post-1923 works (and it is not always easy) is to find a book or periodical where the images were originally published, check for valid copyright notice, and then, subsequent renewal after the required legal period. Demonstrable failure on either of those would make a good case for PD. The default assumption should be that something is in copyright unless there is credible evidence to the contrary. It is possible that some of the images may qualify for fair-use, provided they satisfy all of the non-free content criteria. We cannot add images just because they make an article look nicer: there must be no free equivalent, they must be essential to explaining the article subject, etc. I hate to see good images deleted, so I suggest you ask the community at the Commons Copyright Village Pump for possible more legal loopholes, but I fear that with existing documentation the images just won't stand up to a challenge. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Krentz

Hi Etzedek24, thanks for withdrawing the speedy delete on the Krentz article—needed just a bit more than two minutes to add more sources & justification. ;) -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. If it were me, I'd make the page in userspace and then move it to main once I've gotten sources and notability criteria in. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent work patrolling new articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (True Comics) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating True Comics, Etzedek24!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your informative new article on True Comics.

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm JJMC89. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Pratibha sharma, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Whoops, I didn't think that I actually clicked patrol on that page. I was going through sources and must have done it accidentally. My bad. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Or rather it was marked when I PROD'd it. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

— JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Zoll article

Hello Etzedek24:

Thank you for your suggestions on how to improve the Rachel Zoll Wikipedia article. Please examine the latest version to see if it meets notability requirements in your opinion. Please consider removing the deletion template.

Heron10 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Heron10 The deletion template cannot be removed unless I withdraw the nomination (which I won't unless the consensus changes). The page isn't encyclopedic, and is just a list of accolades with excessive citations. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know you views of the additions to the page. Heron10 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

About us.

I don't want to be on bad terms with you. I'm sorry if I was very rude during our last interaction. I know I have problems with overreacting.★Trekker (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As long as you know your own shortcomings, no hard feelings here. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks man.★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Lafargue Clinic

Hi, I just promoted your hook and one of the images to Prep 4. I'd just like to note that the hook fact must be sourced in the article per WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria 3. Cited hook. You only provided the cite on the nomination template. I added the cite to the lead, which is the only place this hook fact appears. That surprised me; I think you should say that it was the first further down in the article, and move the cite there.

Also, you may want to check out WP:SRF to learn how to do Harvard referencing for your book sources. That way, you can print a short list of book sources in a bibliography, and the notes would each consist of a few words and automatically direct to the bibliography. If you need help on that, drop me a line. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed your discussion above with Animalparty. If the images are indeed ineligible, they must be removed before the DYK hook hits the main page. I have opened a discussion at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Herron Gymnasium

Hello! Your submission of Herron Gymnasium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Lafargue Clinic

On 12 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lafargue Clinic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1948, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, and Fredric Wertham helped establish the Lafargue Clinic in New York City, one of the first to provide low cost psychiatric services to black patients? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lafargue Clinic. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lafargue Clinic), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Wisconsin basketball comics

Thank you for quality articles such as Weidner Center for the Performing Arts, Philadelphia Sphas, Real Fact Comics and Lafargue Clinic, for work on articles for GA, such as Jack Kirby, for gnomish tasks and for copy-editing as a member of GOCE, - Zed, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, thank you so much (or should I say...vielen Dank)! I'm glad to see the running around has been noticed. Fortuitous that you should award this today, as I just got notified of my scholarship acceptance to attend the North American WikiConference! Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I like these coincidences, enjoy! - This was due at least 2 days ago, but never before has it happened that three articles that I reviewed for DYK appeared one day, and then all three by users not called precious so far. I look for one a day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit of Date Masamune

Hi Etzedek24! Thanks for your copy edit of Date Masamune (Sengoku Basara) for the September copy-editing drive. It's a huge improvement to the article. I just want to give you a little feedback:

• I think you're probably right to go with the character's surname, Date. With works of fiction we use whatever is the character's common name in those works (as opposed to non-fiction biographies which almost always use the surname).
• Wikipedia uses the logical quotation system (MOS:LQ) which essentially places punctuation on the outside of the quotation unless it is actually part of the quotation. This also applies to titles.
• Foreign words generally get italics. The guideline is that foreign loanwords not common in everyday non-specialized English should be italicized (MOS:FOREIGNITALIC). So anime and katana are common and fine without italics but jinbaori should get italics.

I did some minor ce for these points and a little for conciseness. But I'm being picky, for a C-class article your copy edit was plenty thorough. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: No, I very much appreciate the feedback. I'm kind of just going off of my general copy-editing background, and am still working at mixing in the MOS stuff, as you noted. Thanks for your suggestions and kind words! Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Bob Wood (comics)

On 17 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bob Wood (comics), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bob Wood, co-creator of the comic Crime Does Not Pay, served three years in prison for manslaughter, and was murdered a year after his release? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Wood (comics). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bob Wood (comics)), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of E.C. Stoner

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article E.C. Stoner 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 Fish and karate -- Fish and karate (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Etzedek24, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

stay off my talk page

you are annoying. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You were the one that reverted my edit. I engaged in BRD, and instead of discussing it with me you just call me annoying? Don't cover up the fact that you haven't been able to offer a solid rationale for reverting my edits by being a rancor, John. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And reverting the edit where you were taken to task on your lack of rationale? Bad form... Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of E.C. Stoner

The article E.C. Stoner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:E.C. Stoner for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fish and karate -- Fish and karate (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Real Fact Comics

On 20 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Real Fact Comics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that science fiction writer Harlan Ellison's earliest known published work was a fan letter to the comic book Real Fact Comics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Real Fact Comics. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Real Fact Comics), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 drive bling

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Etzedek24 for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 20:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Herron Gymnasium

On 12 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Herron Gymnasium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Miami University's Herron Gymnasium, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, was demolished and replaced with a parking lot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herron Gymnasium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Herron Gymnasium), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)