User talk:Lightburst
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Talkback[edit]
Message added 18:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
March 2024 GAN backlog drive[edit]
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Beaver drop[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beaver drop you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Beaver drop[edit]
The article Beaver drop you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beaver drop for comments about the article, and Talk:Beaver drop/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bruxton -- Bruxton (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building[edit]
The article Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building for comments about the article, and Talk:Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. Building/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bruxton -- Bruxton (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:The 3:16 game[edit]
Hello, Lightburst. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The 3:16 game, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Re: Olga Hartman[edit]
Thanks for the review. I agree with you about the images. I've been trying to figure out how to best approach them. I plan on uploading two images in the next several days, but I'm running into roadblocks on the newer image. The colors are just completely wrong. I believe her student is wearing the crimson USC colors of the doctoral robe and Olga herself is wearing a marine blue dress, but the photo looks all wrong and this disturbs me. What's incredibly weird is that I have a memory (false perhaps) that when I was knee deep working on putting the article together last year, I ran across the same image, except it was color corrected. I can find no such image, but I will keep looking. It's possible it's out there or my mind just wants it to be real, I don't know. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- On a whim, I thought about searching through the USC digital archives. Don't know why I never thought of it before. Lots of interesting stuff there. Just found a video of her on an expedition. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Viriditas That's great. I am sure it will only make the article better! Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I spent a lot of time on this. I determined that the entire film was released by the foundation as CC BY 4.0, but the cut scene of Olga Hartman was strangely absent from the digitized cut scenes in the main archive. My personal opinion is that this is an administrative error or oversight, as the scene in question is currently only found on the USC Libraries site. Therefore, I uploaded it as a non-free image, however, I am fairly confident that this image also falls under the CC BY 4.0 licensing, but I have no way of proving it, since I just spent three hours pouring through all the archival footage and deleted scenes on the main site (in high speed), only to discover that they weren't there. Still, I think the image isn't protected by copyright at all, and one might be able to make an argument that it is still a free image. Another issue that comes up is why was the only woman scientist aboard the entire, decade-long expedition cut from the main documentary film? I watched the whole film and all of its outtakes, and it's just one long sausage fest. Really does seem like institutional sexism to me. I ran across a similar issue while working on a proposed Georgia O'Keeffe article about her time in Hawaii (still in my sandbox right now). Interestingly, both Hartman's expedition aboard the Velero III and O'Keeffe's trip to Hawaii occurred around the same time in 1940. O'Keeffe was unable to paint the pineapple plants as she desired because the people who ran Dole said that it was unheard of (and completely unacceptable) for a white woman to mingle with the mixed race farm workers in the fields, let alone a woman artist. Given that this was the same era, I'm wondering if Hartman was cut for the same reasons, in other words, it was unheard of for women scientists to mingle with men on research expeditions, and what would the common people say if they saw this film? Women would be demanding to be included in everything! Cats and dogs would be living together, it would be pandemonium! Super interesting that I'm seeing the same issues arise across totally different disciplines in the very same year. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like you dud a load of work. The photo requirements are always the trickiest on WP. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Viriditas That's great. I am sure it will only make the article better! Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park[edit]
The article International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park and Talk:International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I have noticed that you have yet to address comments made in my review of this article. Please note that the article will be failed if the comments are not all sorted by the date set by me in the review. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park[edit]
The article International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park for comments about the article, and Talk:International Aviation Meet at Belmont Park/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
- Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
- Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
- Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
- Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
- Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
- Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
- Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 3:16 game you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The article 3:16 game you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:3:16 game and Talk:3:16 game/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3:16 game until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.—Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of 3:16 game[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 3:16 game requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at [[1]]. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The article 3:16 game you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:3:16 game for comments about the article, and Talk:3:16 game/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)