User talk:Luxtaythe2nd

Subsidies in Iran has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you got the wrong person, sir. Luxtay the IInd (^{talke to mee}) 17:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently emailed ExoQuest about a reward board offer on the draft mentioned in the title. They stated that you are also working on it. I started a draft at Draft:Alberto Caballero (astronomer) with just the basics - that he's an astronomer. Do you want to work on it? He gave me some text to begin the draft, which I will add to the draft shortly. --interstatefive  16:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the image on Elizabeth II? I don't see a reason why you would change it, the old one was perfectly fine. RteeeeKed💬📖 18:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The old image represents the end of her reign more than its overall duration, as the peak of the concerns of her reign came about in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, and the 1986 image is way better at representing that. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not very important to me but I'm interested in your reasoning on changing the image  AltoStev (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's mostly because of the fact that the 2015 image was made during the later years and I think the 1986 one represents her better (the peak of her reign could be argued to have come about in the 80s and 90s). Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect IIIRP and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#IIIRP until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For improving articles especially the short description areas... You deserve one of these. Volten001 ☎ 14:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change it back again, so I am asking why, etc etc, on your talk page, but I am not sure how long I can be patient Shoreranger (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry! I am here. I changed the Hamilton potrait because the posthumous potrait by John Trumbull embedded on the original article is not actually a good representation of Hamilton, considering that there were authentic and high-quality Hamilton portraits. Since Trumbull also made a portrait of Alexander Hamilton back in 1792, when he was actually Secretary of the Treasury, I think it would be better to have this authentic portrait by the same artist than a posthumous one. tl;dr Authentic, same artist and high quality. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 19:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

since when has art had to be contemporary? i understand the decision, but a lot of art is posthumous and honestly i just prefer the previous one. they clearly represent hamilton in different tones and perhaps even time periods. considering the political relevancy, im willing to put it up to a democratic vote. i, for one, vote for posthumous fancy handsome hamilton from presumably his prime. shoeranger seems to agree. thank you for reading. sorry if i sound tense or upset, im not good with conveying tone. Baguetteboing (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put it up to a democratic vote? Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 06:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gdańsk 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 ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gdańsk you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gdańsk for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Luxtay. I noticed your review of Talk:Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe/GA1. Usually, if there are some issues with a GA candidate, but none of the quickfail criteria are met, an article is placed on hold for up to a week to allow the nominator to smooth out any wrinkles (see e.g. my interaction with Vami IV at Talk:Sarah Ashton-Cirillo/GA1). Is there a reason why you failed this directly, or should it be placed on hold instead? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed fail to mention the third quickfail criteria as my reason for the denial—a banner like {{POV}} or {{cleanup}} would certainly be needed in such an article, not only because of its biases that I mentioned in the review, but also of the constant inconsistent spelling and overly-long paragraphs within the article, which I also mentioned in the review—and these issues pile up. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 17:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any overwhelming bias there. If you're going to quickfail this, I would suggest spelling out at the GAN page, in detail, which parts of the article you see as quickfailably biased and why. Focusing on negative acts committed by a group of people is not inherently biased, as long as that focus is due based on what's in reliable sources; is it that you think there is undue focus, or that you think the tone used is non-neutral? (Inconsistent spelling and overly-long paragraphs are the sort of thing that should be handled at the GAN.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Assassination of Paweł Adamowicz, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that after a stabbing attack on Paweł Adamowicz (pictured), the mayor of Gdańsk, at least 41 blood packets were used in an unsuccessful attempt to save him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Assassination of Paweł Adamowicz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Assassination of Paweł Adamowicz), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 41,206 views (1,716.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gdańsk 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gdańsk you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gdańsk for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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