User talk:Extraordinary Writ

Jump to navigation Jump to search

By far the funniest and most clever Wikipedia page I randomly stumbled on. Kudos. The fish genuinely made me laugh out loud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumtimz I B Learnin (talkcontribs) 07:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
Multiple GA Barnstar.png
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Page move

Hello, I was looking through page move articles and requests and I came across your name several times. I thought you may be able to answer a question regarding page moves. Someone moved Gallos sculpture to Gallos (sculpture) and it was likely a correct new title. The page recently had a DYK that garnered 15k views. My question is, can the page views be moved to the new title? Thank you much in advance. Bruxton (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Bruxton – I don't think there's any way to move the pageviews directly. However, if you go to the pageviews site and check the box that says "include redirects", it should show you the combined statistics for both of the titles. Let me know if you have any more questions. By the way, great job on that article: fifteen thousand DYK views is quite impressive, particularly for a newer editor. Keep up the good work! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you much. Bruxton (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi - if you have time, would appreciate any comments, thoughts, criticisms you might have for this draft I've been working on. It was inspired partly as a result of our interactions in July ... but also far too frequently recurring conversations at AfD! Feel free to leave a response here or on my talk page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Goldsztajn – that's very useful. (I remember thinking a while back that we needed something like this: I'm glad you took the very considerable time needed to put it all together!) I think your unitary/federal/devolved classifications are quite accurate; I'll let you know if I find any that I think belong in a different category. The more interesting question is how all of this, particularly with regard to the devolved subnational polities, corresponds to community consensus. Aside from the obvious ones with state legislators in the United States, India, etc., there really haven't been a lot of AfDs applying NPOL at the subnational level, and those that have don't always make sense: for instance, the UAE AfD you cite ended up deleting an article on someone who was pretty obviously exercising legislative and/or executive power in a federal system, NPOL notwithstanding, on rather flimsy grounds (e.g. not elected; UAE insufficiently "democratic"). I think the basic answer is that most people will only afford a certain amount of grace to topics that don't seem to pass the GNG, despite all the talk about ipso facto notability etc. If I were to create a single-sentence stub about each member of the General Fono, each of whom represents about 75 people, I don't think "keep, exercises devolved legislative authority and thus meets the spirit of NPOL" would get me very far at AfD since many of them seem to have no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, even granting a certain amount of leeway for offline and/or foreign-language sources. I suppose what I'm rather inartfully trying to say is that although NPOL is written broadly enough to cover both the Scottish Parliament and the Island Council (Pitcairn) (both of which serve precisely the same function), in practice the community will interpret it inconsistently enough to ensure that it doesn't stray too far from the GNG, e.g. by keeping the Scots and deleting the Pitcairn Islanders. Just some food for thought. Again, thanks for putting this very helpful guide together: I'm sure I'll be consulting it frequently. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
A conversation about this came up on Discord lately -- someone noticed you could write a lot of articles on technically-elected North Korean figures for whom the sourcing certainly doesn't exist that were technically undeletable by NPOL at face value. It reminded me of this old conversation, musing on how a notability guideline written under American political assumptions intersected with the British system. One thing worth considering is that many NPOL subjects are BLPs, and BLP AfDs can and do go in all sorts of directions not quite driven by notability guidelines. I leaned into that on purpose at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona; there are valid questions about whether the subject met NPOL, that weren't necessarily settled by the discussion itself, but that ultimately weren't directly related to whether the article should exist. Vaticidalprophet 22:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Did you know...that proto-NPOL (and the rest of the NBIO criteria) used to apply only to BLPs, while the dead were required to meet the much higher standard of a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field"? (It didn't last very long: after this AfD, it was quickly realized that holding the living to a lower notability standard wasn't such a good idea.) Another aside: the very first version of NBIO/NPOL, which seems to have influenced the modern version quite a bit, was "just made up", apparently with little thought, as yet another front in the infamous fifteen-year-long Daniel C. Boyer war. It's always interesting to see where the guidelines that we now think of as holy writ actually originated – the effort spent interpreting them tends to exceed the time spent developing them by a rather remarkable margin. Anyways, I certainly agree with your point about political BLPs: although that Uunona case was quite a unique one (what other politician wants to be obscure?), it shows that "but it meets the the notability guidelines!" isn't always enough, and for good reason. Always a pleasure to hear from you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to look over it and for the positive comments. I'm equally mindful of the examples at the, let's say, minor end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, Tokelau is an interesting case since it sits somewhat ambiguously between being a country and a dependent territory; perhaps we should not be surprised that there's nine members of Tokelau's Fono with articles (BTW not to be confused with the American Samoa Fono!). I think members of the Yap State legislature would likely push the present editorship in the direction you describe. On Vaticidalprophet's point about DPRK "legislators", I've not given this much thought and would not necessarily make it myself, but I can see an argument to be made that while the Supreme People's Assembly is de jure legislative, it is not de facto and hence according presumed notability would be wrong, whereas I could more easily see presumed notability accorded to members of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea who de facto *exercise* legislative power. I would possibly see China and Vietnam somewhat similarly, Cuba less so. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiley Rutledge

Hi, Extraordinary Writ. I noticed you're substantially rewriting the article for Wiley Rutledge. I wanted to ask if I could add Warner (1950) and/or Birkby (1978) to the 'Further reading' list. The first book, "The Legal and Political Philosophy of Wiley B. Rutledge", is some 300 pages long and was published by Washington University; admittedly, I can't find anything about the author, Margaret Lee Warner. The latter book, "Justice Wiley B. Rutledge and Individual Liberites", is some 500 pages long, published by Princeton University, and was written by Robert H. Birkby, a former political science professor at Vanderbilt University. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, as a complete aside but a bit of a fun observation: did you notice that every one of Justice Rutledge's names (first, middle, and last) is very close to or the exact name of a notable publisher? Wiley, then Blount (Edward Blount published the wildly influential First Folio of Shakespeare's plays), and finally Rutledge, very close to Routledge. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, TheTechnician27! The sources you're referring to seem to be doctoral dissertations – I'm generally hesitant to use those per the guidance at WP:SCHOLARSHIP since they're often akin to primary sources. These two in particular don't seem to "have been cited in the literature" very often at all [1][2], so I'd probably want to pass on them. (I'm also agnostic about further reading sections in general: when I was taking Melville Fuller through FAC, I ended up removing it altogether, on the advice of two separate reviewers.) I'm almost finished drafting my Rutledge rewrite in userspace; once I move it into mainspace (hopefully this week – unless I get sidetracked), I'd be glad to hear any feedback. Interesting coïncidence with Rutledge's names: I had noticed the Wiley and Routledge similarities (I get a lot of false positives while searching in Google Books!), but I don't think I'd ever heard of Edward Blount. Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't congratulate you for your work on Socrates Nelson: bringing it from stub to FA is quite an accomplishment. Did you notice the article has already been translated into Chinese? Anyways, thanks for stopping by, and a belated Happy New Year to you and yours. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Socrates Nelson started out as something I found by trying out the 'Random article' function, and I originally just wanted to clean up a citation. Then I found a volume number was missing in the other citation, and things rapidly got out-of-hand. You have RFD to thank for that article in the first place, as I highly doubt it would've ever been created without their dedication to improving the project. And yeah, I had noticed the translation; I did my best to leave a crudely machine-translated barnstar on the translator's zh.wikipedia talk page, and it was cool to see it attain GA status shortly thereafter.
Upon further digging (i.e. checking WorldCat like I should've done), you appear to be right that they're dissertations, so I agree they shouldn't be in 'Further reading' (though I do think the section should be kept). I've been sitting here for like five minutes trying to figure out how to talk about your Wiley Rutledge expanded and enhanced & Knuckles edition without gushing over it. I looked at the Britannica entry to compare, and while I know they can't allot the same level of dedication to a single article, it's just not even close. It is genuinely incredible how much effort must've gone into it, and seeing articles get this level of TLC is the part of the project that most reminds me of how mind-blowing it is that it even exists in its current form. Props, and a happy belated New Year to you as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wiley Rutledge

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Wiley Rutledge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Melville Fuller scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 February 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wiley Rutledge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wiley Rutledge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 TheTechnician27 -- TheTechnician27 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Drogo the Destroyer on User talk:Pahunkat (21:40, 21 January 2022)


I recently posted my first article for review and had it denied due to "copyright" issue. I wrote the entire article. The only words that came from elsewhere were pieces used from fan pages that I also run. So those are still my original writings. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! --Drogo the Destroyer (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Drogo the Destroyer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry for the trouble: copyright can be a real pain, but for legal reasons we have to be very strict about it. If you own the site, you may find this page explaining how to donate copyrighted material helpful. However, my recommendation would be to start from scratch: even putting the copyright issues aside, it's important that our articles be sourced to reliable sources, such as newspaper articles and books, that aren't connected to the subject of the article. If Mista CP hasn't received coverage from those sorts of sources yet, he may not be eligible for an article, even if he seems like an important musician to his listeners. If he has received coverage from those sorts of sources, you should focus on summarizing what they say, in your own words, from a neutral and balanced point of view. I'd encourage you to read this helpful guide for more information, and let me know if you have any further questions. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Pahunkat Thank you for your response. I will see what I can find and continue looking for other interesting content to to edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drogo the Destroyer (talkcontribs) 15:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiley Rutledge GA nomination update

Hi again. I've completed all of the GA nomination except for 2(c) and 2(d). This is the longest part of the review since I'll be checking every source to make sure that a) everything you've written is contained in those sources and b) nothing you've said is plagiarism or a violation of copyright policy. I'm going to condense these two into one and review them on a section-by-section basis just so it's easier to keep track of what's going on. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Great! Feel free to take your time, and let me know if you have trouble accessing any of the sources: they should mostly be available through Google Books and/or the Internet Archive and/or the Wikipedia Library, but I'm glad to help if you run into any problems. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Amrutha Tadepalli (04:23, 28 January 2022)

Hello I want to publish an article about my self , can I do that ? --Amrutha Tadepalli (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Amrutha Tadepalli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Although you can write an article about yourself, it's generally a very bad idea, and I would encourage you to try writing about something else instead. This page, which I'd encourage you to read, explains many of the reasons why: we only have articles about people who are "notable", and even if you are notable you may find it difficult to write neutrally about yourself because you have a conflict of interest. (Additionally, you may find that having an article about yourself does more harm than good, as this page explains.) I see you've already been contributing to other articles: that's great, and we really appreciate it! If you're looking for more things to do, you might find this listing of tasks helpful. I hope this is useful, and please let me know if you have any more questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="">here</a> and attribution parties <a href=";action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>