User talk:Pbritti/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Berwind, Colorado

Hi Pbritti , I reviewed this page that you started. The date of establishment was originally mentioned in the article as 1888, but the supporting source states 1890. So I changed it to the latter. Do you have a source which backs up the 1888 figure? If so, please add it and change back the year of origin to the former. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ashleyyoursmile! Thank you for reviewing and approving the page. In the sources that were initially provided, there is an erroneous date that is repeated. While the Berwind mine began producing coal in 1890, the settlement itself was established in 1888. The conflation of the two dates appears responsible for this problem. A preferred academic source on the matter, the DU archeological project, places the date of founding in 1888 [1]. Further sourcing has been added to supplement those that caused the confusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, thanks for adding the source. :) Since the article is new and in good shape, would you like to nominate it at Wikipedia:Did you know? I do have a hook in mind, just in case you're interested. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I am unfamiliar with the process, but would certainly love to. I think a humorous "Did you know" might actually come from another page I recently completed, Guston, Colorado, where the arrival of a preacher wrought supposed divine retribution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's great, you're welcome to nominate any interesting fact from Guston, Colorado provided the statement also appears in the article and is supported by an inline citation. For Berwind, Colorado, I was thinking of this hook:

... that Berwind, a ghost town in Colorado, was a battle site in 1913 during the Colorado Coalfield War?

While the statement is present in the article's lead, if you can provide source supporting the statement, just next to the statement, it will be ready to be nominated for DYK. If you have better ideas for the hook, please feel free to suggest. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 19:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant updates have been made! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I have created the nomination page, which you can find here. Someone will review it soon and leave comments. In future, for any articles that you would like to nominate yourself, you can follow instructions on Template talk:Did you know. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 20:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you–I just did! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out, great work! :) Ashleyyoursmile! 20:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Red Mountain Town

Hey, that was clever of you to expand the information about Red Mountain Town so you could link to it! And I made a redirect to what you did, so from now on Red Mountain Town is no longer a redlink. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, thank you–the whole thing is so very much a team effort! I just hope that this attempt passes! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, great work expanding that section! I am tempted to split it off into its own article. We could do it easily by cutting it from the parent article and pasting it into the redirect. With proper attribution of course. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If you haven't already begun work on that, I would appreciate doing that myself. For whatever reason, I have a special devotion to these silly little Colorado ghost town pages and I would love to give it the treatment I try to give to my other articles in the same field. You're right, though, I think it's time to spin it off into its own article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Would you like me to delete the redirect, so there's nothing blocking your article? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant. Please and thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's gone. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW the new article is big enough for a DYK. You have seven days to nominate it. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! I think I’ll include it with the Guston DYK as a two-for-one! Here’s hoping they actually get back to me! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I was about to go ahead and approve the Guston DYK with your latest hook. Is that OK with you, or do you want me to hold off so you can modify it into a twofor? I'm not actually sure how that would work, since the two articles were completed in such different time frames - in other words they are not both within the same seven-day period between completion and nomination. I'd suggest you let Guston go forward as is and come up with a different DYK nomination for Red Mountain Town. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That might be wise. I’d like your preference submitted for approval. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Guston, Colorado at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what the bot is talking about. Your nomination is transcluded to Feb. 18 as it should be, and there's where I found it to review. I suggest we ignore this notice. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Guston, Colorado

On 15 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guston, Colorado, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the opening of a new church in Guston, Colorado, was said to have brought fire and "divine intervention" on a rival neighboring community? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guston, Colorado. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Guston, Colorado), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Red Mountain Town, Colorado

On 15 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Red Mountain Town, Colorado, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the opening of a new church in Guston, Colorado, was said to have brought fire and "divine intervention" on a rival neighboring community? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Red Mountain Town, Colorado), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Congrats on your double DYK! Between them the two articles got 5,367 views, so they may qualify for the statistics page. (I'm not really sure how that works.) Interesting that more people looked at Red Mountain Town than at Guston. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, MelanieN! I noticed that too and thought it odd. Perhaps a combination of placement in the sentence and the physical length of the hyperlinked text? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that you didn't give the town's name made people curious? They say the way to get page views from a DYK is to make people want to know more. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And on the other hand, I noticed that some people made helpful edits to Guston but not to Red Mountain Town. Go figure. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colorado National Guard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and 45th Infantry Division.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the rivalry between Guston and Red Mountain drew 5,367 combined page views (447 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Berwind, Colorado

On 30 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Berwind, Colorado, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Berwind, a mining ghost town in Colorado, was a battle site during the Colorado Coalfield War in 1913 and 1914? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Berwind, Colorado. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Berwind, Colorado), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Berwind, Colorado

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Berwind, Colorado 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 Starkenborgher -- Starkenborgher (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Saunders Jr. at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign

Can we close this one now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Bodleian Plate

On 12 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bodleian Plate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bodleian Plate is among the earliest depictions of the College of William & Mary's campus, including the President's House? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bodleian Plate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bodleian Plate), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for President's House (College of William & Mary)

On 12 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article President's House (College of William & Mary), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bodleian Plate is among the earliest depictions of the College of William & Mary's campus, including the President's House? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bodleian Plate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, President's House (College of William & Mary)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice work

...on the W&M-related articles on Did You Know? today. I could have sworn we had an article about the President's House, way back when...guess my memory's getting hazy with age.

From an '06 alumnus - happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, you’re not alone; when I was first looking into the College about six years ago, I could have sworn there was an article. I think it (like the one on the Brafferton) lacked sufficient sources. Either way, I’m planning to do a once-over on all the W&M pages and add one for Lake Matoaka. From a ‘21 alumnus, thanks for your years of diligent editing and for partially inspiring me to take a more serious role on this website. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words - and congratulations on your graduation. :-) I'll be down there for my fifteenth reunion this October, Lord willing (and Lord help me) - if there's anything you can think of that wants photographing, please feel free to let me know and I'll see what I can do.

I checked the logs for the page on the President's House, incidentally - there was an article in 2016, but it lasted barely a day and was deleted for copyvio. That's it - I can't find any other evidence of an article at the name. So maybe we're both thinking of the Brafferton article. (I know that existed way back when - I illustrated it. :-)) Either that or it was written under another name and I can't find it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! Like you, Lord willing, I’ll be done in the ‘Burg around the same time to hopefully wish my friends in the campus ministry a good Homecoming. If you can get a decent indoor picture of the renovated Alumni House, I would appreciate it! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll try, but no promises - I don't think I've ever been inside there in my life, actually.

That ministry - would it be CCM, perchance? I see on your userpage that you're working on an article about St. Bede's. I remember when the current CCM chapel was the actual church, back before they moved to the new building. I know I sang there once - I think a couple of times. And I'm pretty sure I attended a Homecoming concert there one year. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it is CCM! The students still celebrate at what we now call the Shrine (it was elevated to a new title a few years back). We still have a few groups come to sing from time-to-time. I’ll be sure to post something on your talk page if I’m in town in October if you wish to say hello! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

So it has - I think I had seen that and not remembered. Anyhow: yes, please, feel free to let me know if you're in town for Homecoming - I'd love to tip my hat for an impromptu meetup. :-) I'm actually going to be chatting with my former senior roommate today about Homecoming plans, so we can begin getting something concrete on paper. I know there's going to be some editing in the cards - I want to take the ferry across the James to Isle of Wight and Southampton Counties. Visit the Miles B. Carpenter House and Carpenter's grave in Waverly (I wrote the article on Carpenter a few years ago), photograph some towns for their articles. Maybe do something similar around Gloucester and Mathews County, depending on how much time I allot myself.

And apologies for the delayed response - I had meant to say something earlier, but I'm returning to the office this week and my attention has been focused...elsewhere, for a while, let's say. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

All good! I visited Bacon's Castle during my last month at The College and regret not spending more time on the Surry side of the James. I plan to expand some of the articles on Lightfoot, Toano, and Norge going west when the opportunity arises, but similar to you I've been recently thrust back into the embrace of employment. Thanks for chatting! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing DYK articles

Hi, Pbritti! Since you have now graduated into the ranks of "experienced" DYK nominators, you will have to do a QPQ from now on. You'll find it isn't hard; all the things you need to evaluate are listed right at the top of the edit/review page. But if you feel the need of any help or tips, or any "did I do that right?" kind of input, feel free to ask. I've done about 50 of them - that's not any kind of record, some people have done thousands - but I'm pretty comfortable with the process by now. Starting with "how do I choose one to review?" Anyhow, if you feel the need of a mentor, just holler. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Such hollering will occur as necessary! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Saunders Jr.

On 9 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Saunders Jr., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Robert Saunders Jr.'s predecessor died, Saunders took his job but not his home? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Saunders Jr.. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Saunders Jr.), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ref spacing

Do not remove the spacing, as per WP:STYLERET. The duplicate text is because of fly-by editors who stuff a news article in, ignore date formats, then leave. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Floydian: Can you hyperlink the style guide you’re referencing again. It’s a red link. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, MOS not WP. Its MOS:STYLERET. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

No need for apology! Thank you. If errors persist I’ll mention it on the talk page because the MoS on the residential school page is rather foreign to most novice editors. But otherwise I agree with you now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Colonel R. Hunter Clarkson | 6th Port

Hi Pbritti. Great pages you are writing, in particular Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign. You mentioned Colonel R. Hunter Clarkson's 6th Port and that they had previously operated the ports of Casablanca and Naples. Is it possible you could create or expand a page with more information on Col. R Hunter Clarkson and the 6th Port?

I've been reading some of what is available online from the citations but not too much. I guess it goes back to Operation Torch. I read on the cited "The Economist" article that the invasion of French North Africa is "largely forgotten".

Thank you again for your page on Allied Logistics in the Southern France Campaign. It's tremendous historical writing.

TanookiKoopa (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, take a look at this info I found: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Logistics2/USA-E-Logistics2-4.html

TanookiKoopa (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey @TanookiKoopa: Thank you for your kind words! However, the exceedingly impressive Wikipedian you need to contact is actually Hawkeye7! Hawkeye7 seems to have a unique penchant to produce academic-quality articles and could certainly be the right person to elist for this task. I merely evaluated one of his articles for registration as a WP:GA. However, I will for what it's worth take a look unto Col. Clarkson and see if there is anything I can do regarding such a project! Best to you and thanks for the merry spirit! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pbritti:! Thanks so much for your quick reply. I will contact Hawkeye7. Thank you very much for your willingness to help with this project. Best to you too! TanookiKoopa (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruthenian Catholic Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Traditionis custodes

Dear User:Pbritti, thanks for your edit here. Note that the way that I originally wrote the paragraph reflected the exact same style that you did before it was bizarrely removed. I appreciate your edits. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 23:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: Apologies if I seemed dissatisfied with your work. I hadn’t seen the previous dispute on the page history and simply wanted your work included on the basis of being one of the few supporting opinions published at a reputable institution at present. Best and good work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem at all User:Pbritti! I just wanted to note that we both worded the paragraphs in very similar ways, originally! This was also recently added. Kindly have a look and see if you like the way it is worded currently or whether it needs improvement. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from you! With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In order to avoid peeving our current compatriot editor who is doing much of the heavy lifting, I’d hold off for just a bit until discussion ends. That said, the quotation you added is good but excessively long. I would attempt to trim it in a fashion you see fit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear User:Pbritti, I agree that it is a little bit long. Would you mind if I requested you to summarize it? You might do a better job, though I can make suggestions after it is done. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 23:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: Please judge aggressively! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Pbritti! You did a good job and I appreciate you adding more information from the National Catholic Register here. Keep up the good work! With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Dear Pbritti, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity-related articles, especially your constructiveness at Traditionis custodes. Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 00:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: Thank you! Too kind! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Abrogation

Why are you and some other users insisting in pitching this idea that Traditionis Custodes abrogates or revokes the motu propio Summorum Pontificum? No source whatsoever has said this, there's no official declaration or confirmation that this is the case! There are restrictions being imposed, but it is by no means a direct and complete abrogation of Summorum! Is it a major step? No doubt. Even revolutionary. But we cannot pitch it as "Revocation of Summorum Pontificum" because that it is not. IT may be someone's opinion that it is, but it is NOT. A number of the things brought forth by Summorum are still in place. Just food for thought. I don't particularly care one way or the other. Wikipedia is not the Magisterium. 108.66.108.145 (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Summorum Pontificum was an abrogation of the previous documents issued under Pope St. John Paul II. Certain elements of the permissions extant under JPII were carried over by SP. Nevertheless, there was an abrogation of the prior document, even if aspects of the documents are identical. Any time France adopts a new constitution that retains a couple sentences of the prior constitution, we don’t say “it’s a major change that doesn’t invalidate the old document.” No, indeed the new document is where the rules are found. You are not to use SP for any portion of the permissions regarding the Tridentine Mass. If there are congruence, you are still to utilize them as expressed by the TC. That is the verbiage it utilizes and, as such, it is an “abrogation,” a “revocation.” In any case, you seem to be a semi-frequent editor. To better enable conversation on such topics, I’d really encourage you to make a profile. It’s easy and helps a ton with the editing process! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, while there is a CNA article that describes TC as an alteration to SP, that article stands in contrast to the phrasing and self-stated nature of TC. This source further emphasizes that TC is a departure from SP and an independent statement on the administration of the Tridentine Mass rather than a simple permutation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

SP is not just about the old Mass. There were other provisions in there, which TC seems not to have done away with. For instance, the use of the old Rituale Romanum (SP 9§1) and the old Breviary (SP 2§3) are not discussed in TC. If TC "revokes" SP, then no cleric can use the old Rituale and the old Breviary licitly, which in turn has major implications. That's why I would refrain from using the expression " Revocation of Summorum pontificum ". It seems to be the fruit of someone's opinion, not rooted on any official, factual source. Certain faculties were no doubt revoked, but the previous motu proprio in all its provisions was not revoked. PS I used to be a full-time editor in the it.wiki Project Catholicism and I no longer edit on wiki for personal motives. 108.66.108.145 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

We presently have no indication as to the usage of the Roman Ritual and Breviary under the provisions of TC but with the phrase “liturgical books,” Pope Francis made clear that the new motu proprio attends to Roman Rite liturgical matters beyond the Roman Missal. As the TC abrogates any previous permissions not aligning with those delineated by the document, it abrogates SP. This is not a matter of opinion, though it is possible in practice we may see certain elements of SP persist in their application. While this has a debatable meaning in relation to “revocation,” the consensus at present is to refer to this as a revocation. Discussion on this matter should remain open, though. In any case, welcome back even for a few edits on this important topic! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Colorado Coalfield War

The article Colorado Coalfield War 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:Colorado Coalfield War for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The review has finally recommenced as of 31 August. When you get a chance, please stop by to see the first sections of it, and begin addressing the issues raised as soon as you can. Thank you very much for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)