Jump to content

User talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2024/Aug

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 25

DCWC August update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 UN Plaza, John Dinkeloo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigeez/sandbox/2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigeez/sandbox/3

Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up @Bigeez. On a quick glance, I noticed that your second sandbox is extremely long, at about 18,000 words. The Wikipedia guideline WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles should be no longer than around 15,000 words. Therefore, I have a few suggestions:
  • I think the details about the architects and the neighborhood could be added to the architect and neighborhood articles themselves, rather than to the UN Plaza article. Then, on the UN Plaza page, the info about the architects and neighborhood can be condensed to one paragraph each.
  • In addition (or alternatively), I'd suggest that 1, 2, and 3 UN Plaza all be split into separate pages. Even though they were designed as part of the same master plan, all of these buildings are also probably notable on their own.
Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Great, will work on it. I'll probably split them up, just for simplicity.
Query: are my drawings acceptable as original work? I drew them off of articles/books etc. to depict the buildings.
I emailed the archivist at Roche Modern for an updated pix of Roche and Dinkeloo.
Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius, please take a peek at your earliest convenience. I took your advice and split them up. I realize there are necessary edits forthcoming, and I also wanted to tell you how very impressed I am with your acumen of NYC and your articles. I will email Linda (RD archivist) to tell her to become a Wiki editor and edit the articles where it is needed. Between you, her, and me, we should be able to place a decent article on the UN Plaza buildings and Dinkeloo. Cheers, Eli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigeez/sandbox/5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigeez/sandbox/6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigeez/sandbox/7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigeez/sandbox/3
Thanks for the heads up @Bigeez. I will take a look at these soon. And thanks for the praise; I appreciate it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New York State Pavilion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New York State Pavilion 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 Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New York State Pavilion

The article New York State Pavilion 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:New York State Pavilion and Talk:New York State Pavilion/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New York State Pavilion

The article New York State Pavilion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New York State Pavilion for comments about the article, and Talk:New York State Pavilion/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 Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence

In March 2019, you added lots of valuable content to Seneca Village. One particular phrase that caught my attention - "Some residents, such as foundry owner Edward Snowden, simply relocated elsewhere [in New York]". I found this to be an interesting coincidence of name (to Edward Snowden), and I found your source to be accurate.

In short, thanks very much for providing and properly citing material to Wikipedia. I appreciate your contributions, and I think it would make an interesting DYK hook if it was nominated five years ago. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That really is interesting, I didn't even realize that. Thank you for the compliments. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Brookfield Properties locations

Hi again, Epicgenius. Just letting you know I've reposted what I wrote to you earlier at Talk:Brookfield Properties#Updates to Brookfield Properties locations, as you advised. You had said you might have a look, since the new sources I found seemed reliable. Thanks again! Claudiailagan (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out @Claudiailagan. I'm currently on vacation and may not be able to take a proper look for a while, sadly. However, I'll see if I can look at this later anyway, if someone else does not take a look at this edit request first. Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Brooklyn Bridge

What the reason of the reversion? My sources say Ronald Reagan did not participate in the centennial. Even if you look at the following hyperlink in NYT, you might see the president missed this event. Vicpeters (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vicpeters, I removed the statement 5 minutes later because I realized that you were correct. Sorry about the reversion. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn)

On 14 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that horse and sleigh racing once took place on Ocean Parkway (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn)), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:TransLink (BC) station layout has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You removed my PROD, stating that this one-item "list" should be merged elsewhere. Where? There is no list of all the NHRP listings in South Dakota; only a list of lists by county. A redirect to that page wouldn't be helpful, nor would redirecting directly to the actual building, which would suprise someone looking for an actual list. Mach61 17:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61, thanks for bringing this up. I would support merging this (along with the other one- and two-item lists about NRHP listings in South Dakota) to the National Register of Historic Places listings in South Dakota page. We already do this for other states like North Dakota.
I can see why we want to avoid tiny lists. In general, I think we should be merging, rather than deleting, tiny NRHP lists because the topic of NRHP listings per state is notable. These are just split up into county lists so that we don't have a massive 500-item list for each state. If we merely deleted this particular list without merging it, however, then this would be inconsistent with all other states—Wikipedia already contains complete lists of all NRHP sites in every other state, and this would leave a gap in our coverage of NRHP sites. Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sat August 24: Roosevelt Island Wiknic

August 24: Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island
2019 Wiknic group photo, last time we held it on Roosevelt Island

You are invited to the picnic anyone can edit on Roosevelt Island, at Southpoint Park.

Following up on this month's Wikimania in Poland, this Wiknic will have as guest of honor User:DerHexer, the 2024 Wikimedia Laureate of the Year, marking his triumphant North American tour!

Bring a picnic blanket and some potluck, as well as some sunscreen! We'll also provide a little something for everyone, but we encourage you to bring your own favorite dishes to share, especially for those food cultural topics you would like to improve on Wikipedia.

We'll also do a portal thing for a bit with West Coast friends at the WikiLA ocean life edit-a-thon.

All are welcome, new and experienced!

Saturday, August 24, 2024 NYC Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island (RSVP on-wiki)

  • Time: 2:00 - 7:00 pm (come by any time!)
  • Salon-style Discussions: 3:00 pm - 3:30 pm (session A) 5:00 pm - 5:30 pm (session B)
  • Location: Roosevelt Island (Southpoint Park, look for our Wikipedia/Wikimedia NYC banner).

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

sortcategories.js

Hello Epicgenius, I've been using your script, thanks for writing it. I was wondering if there was a way for it to run on article talk pages? I do a lot of talk page maintenance, it would be nice to be able to run it in that namespace, ex... Talk:Thomas Jefferson. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@FlightTime, good question. In the case of Talk:Thomas Jefferson, every single category on that page is transcluded via one of the wikiproject templates.
Sadly, the script can't sort categories that are transcluded onto the page via a template; it can only sort categories that are physically in the wikitext (i.e., categories with the code [[Category:...]]). It also is not technically possible to sort categories that are transcluded onto the page via a template. For a similar reason, it is also impossible to remove these categories using a tool such as HotCat; you have to remove the template itself in order to get rid of these categories. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
My bad, I should of known that. Nice script anyways. Thanx again. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Image question

Hey Epicgenius, sorry to interrupt your vacay. I was wondering if you can assist--I know you've worked with images of buildings a lot. I ran into a problem with a user, in Houston, Georgia; the most detailed explanation of their issue is in this edit summary. I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, thanks for the heads up. Buildings in the United States (but not artwork) have freedom of panorama, so images of them can be freely uploaded to Wikimedia sites. The Commons page about freedom of panorama in the US says: for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. ... For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building.. In other words, provided that a building in the US is photographed from a public place, it is acceptable for an image of it to be published on Wikimedia sites. (Such an image can, however, be deleted if the image itself is a copyright violation.)
However, this isn't a copyright issue, but an issue of whether the image of the house should be on that page. If the user is really insistent that they don't want to have a photograph on that page, perhaps the best thing to do is to open a talk page discussion. I do doubt, however, that "I don't like it" is a winning argument for them. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the quick response! I'll bring that up with them. I was a bit bothered by the attitude and some of the comments--for instance they said the house wasn't even called that, but the NRHP registration says it quite clearly, and that's a source that's pretty reliable. OK, back to your vacation, and thanks again. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello - I appreciate what you're trying to do in moderating this problem. Admittedly, I am new to Wikipedia editing so I'll concede my efforts have been a bit ham-fisted. However, there is a real problem here. Let me explain what it is.
I myself used to write NR nominations. The quality of NR nominations before the 1980s was often spotty at best. Very few of them were fact-checked by the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer). This one is a particularly egregious example. I asserted my ownership of the house not to have some supra-authoritative claim over the article's existence (with admittedly one exception, see below), but because I know from firsthand sources that the owner at the time the NR nomination was written particularly wished to obscure its true "common name," i.e. "The Boykin House" by appropriating the name of the nearby (then defunct) town of Liberty Hill. The reason for this as well as the effect are both problematic, to wit:
1. At the time the NR nomination was written in 1975 there were still descendants of the enslaved people who built this house living nearby, mostly on land they and their ancestors had once sharecropped as freedmen. In a situation not uncommon in Troup County, Georgia, they had kept the name of their former enslavers and were, therefore, "Boykins". I still know a couple of them. The white owner of the house when the NRHP nomination was written particularly wanted to avoid any association with the black neighbors who (again, I must point out for the sake of sad historical irony) were the descendants of the enslaved people who had built "The Boykin House".
2. Moreover, this type of "name appropriation" is not uncommon in these situations in the South, along with its concomitant phenomenon, "name erasure," in which black settlements were obscured by not including them on maps or in government documents. In this case, it's a combination of the two: the settlement of Liberty Hill (about 3 miles north of the house) was called "Liberty Hill" by the black residents there and "Houston" by the local government and white establishment. (A Liberty Hill had already been incorporated elsewhere in Georgia so even if the residents had agreed on a town name it could never have officially been "Liberty Hill".)
Therefore, ironically, Wikipedia is actually creating a situation of "common naming" a phenomenon that did not have that name before someone uploaded a copy of the NRHP nomination to a crowd-sourced website. We therefore have a tautology: I am being criticized for changing something that is allegedly "common knowledge" even though it was mis-named by a single person and the real "common knowledge" among the people in the area long acknowledged the error. Instead, that knowledge is obscured and erased (all the more problematically in my view since it directly involves African-American history, long misrepresented by the establishment) and we have the authority of a crowd-sourced website insisting that something is true which is not, all for the sake of "authority" that is itself fraudulent.
Finally, please note that nowhere in the NRHP nomination is the name itself documented. There is no footnote or reference in the NRHP nomination itself. I would assert that this omission is still a problem on Wikipedia: any source is good enough; the quality of the sources for a particular source often go unexamined. (You are obviously free to disagree, and I am not trying to denigrate the efforts of all those who try to keep Wikipedia going.) No one doubts that the house was called "The Boykin House". The white Boykins lived there from 1840 until 1922. That is, therefore, its correct name. "Liberty Hill" is not.
I hope you see why the above is problematic and why I have made an effort to change it. As the owner of this house and as someone with training in historical research (and the ethics that accompany it) I believe I had to make an effort to change the entry. If you have a suggestion about how to fix this problem (and the skills I will need to edit the solution) then please suggest them to me. I am not trying to be a problematic Wikipedia contributor, but I am rather frustrated.
Now, I know I will have to accept the photo. I knew it was out there and never liked the fact, but this summer a friend of mine saw it on her airplane seatback screen when she hit "landmarks" on the airline's moving map. Of course, it had been "scraped" from Wikipedia. I defy anyone not to find that a little creepy. Yes, I own the house, but I bought it in 1992 before the "invention" of the internet and the even worse phenomenon of AI. I may have to live with it, but you can't blame me for trying to edit out the photo. If its appearance is part of the merciless, rolling barbarity of the Internet I'll simply have to put up particularly prominent NO TRESPASSING signs. Alas.
However, I don't have to accept mis-representation, all the more so when the platform doing it is ironically creating the very problem that needs to be corrected. I'm assuming you (like me) want the best Wikipedia possible. Again, if you have a suggestion (like a re-titling along the lines of "Boykin House (sic Liberty Hill)" or "(aka Liberty Hill)" I am open to that.
At the very least I've documented my own effort to fix the error. If it's not corrected then it's not my fault.
Thank you. Libertyhellion (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response @Libertyhellion, it is much appreciated. My comment above was primarily in regard to the image, not about the house's NRHP status or its name. I do understand that it might be a bit creepy to have a picture of your house on the internet. However, I'm not sure what recourse is available, given the fact that—unless you live in a gated community, or your house is a mile from the nearest road—your house is visible to everyone. From a copyright standpoint, it is permissible to take an image of a building in the US from a public place and then upload it to Wikipedia.
While I can't look into the broader naming dispute right now, I do recommend that you cross-post this to the article's talk page. I also recommend that you look for any books, websites, newspapers, or other sources that describe your house. Perhaps these sources might refer to your house by another name, in which case the article's name could be changed. Otherwise, Wikipedia has to adhere to the "common name" guideline, which says: Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.Epicgenius (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the helpful response, Epicgenius. I'll take your advice and if i can find a way to document that the preferred common name is "the Boykin House" I'll run that past the moderators. As I mentioned in my long reply I simply want to honor the families, both Black and white, who were the actual builders of the house. Since the town of Liberty Hill was also a Black settlement, I feel like it is a matter of correcting an important historical error.
Thanks again for your reply. Libertyhellion (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Drmies - last night I wrote this very long explanation of my attempts to correct the entry on "Liberty Hill (LaGrange, GA)" - however, I actually sent it to Epicgenius rather than to you, as I had intended. I'm cutting and pasting below. At the very least I wanted to make it clear why I believe the common name issue is important, especially in our area of Georgia where Black history has often been erased or obscured. Text below:
Hello - I appreciate what you're trying to do in moderating this problem. Admittedly, I am new to Wikipedia editing so I'll concede my efforts have been a bit ham-fisted. However, there is a real problem here. Let me explain what it is.
I myself used to write NR nominations. The quality of NR nominations before the 1980s was often spotty at best. Very few of them were fact-checked by the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer). This one is a particularly egregious example. I asserted my ownership of the house not to have some supra-authoritative claim over the article's existence (with admittedly one exception, see below), but because I know from firsthand sources that the owner at the time the NR nomination was written particularly wished to obscure its true "common name," i.e. "The Boykin House" by appropriating the name of the nearby (then defunct) town of Liberty Hill. The reason for this as well as the effect are both problematic, to wit:
1. At the time the NR nomination was written in 1975 there were still descendants of the enslaved people who built this house living nearby, mostly on land they and their ancestors had once sharecropped as freedmen. In a situation not uncommon in Troup County, Georgia, they had kept the name of their former enslavers and were, therefore, "Boykins". I still know a couple of them. The white owner of the house when the NRHP nomination was written particularly wanted to avoid any association with the black neighbors who (again, I must point out for the sake of sad historical irony) were the descendants of the enslaved people who had built "The Boykin House".
2. Moreover, this type of "name appropriation" is not uncommon in these situations in the South, along with its concomitant phenomenon, "name erasure," in which black settlements were obscured by not including them on maps or in government documents. In this case, it's a combination of the two: the settlement of Liberty Hill (about 3 miles north of the house) was called "Liberty Hill" by the black residents there and "Houston" by the local government and white establishment. (A Liberty Hill had already been incorporated elsewhere in Georgia so even if the residents had agreed on a town name it could never have officially been "Liberty Hill".)
Therefore, ironically, Wikipedia is actually creating a situation of "common naming" a phenomenon that did not have that name before someone uploaded a copy of the NRHP nomination to a crowd-sourced website. We therefore have a tautology: I am being criticized for changing something that is allegedly "common knowledge" even though it was mis-named by a single person and the real "common knowledge" among the people in the area long acknowledged the error. Instead, that knowledge is obscured and erased (all the more problematically in my view since it directly involves African-American history, long misrepresented by the establishment) and we have the authority of a crowd-sourced website insisting that something is true which is not, all for the sake of "authority" that is itself fraudulent.
Finally, please note that nowhere in the NRHP nomination is the name itself documented. There is no footnote or reference in the NRHP nomination itself. I would assert that this omission is still a problem on Wikipedia: any source is good enough; the quality of the sources for a particular source often go unexamined. (You are obviously free to disagree, and I am not trying to denigrate the efforts of all those who try to keep Wikipedia going.) No one doubts that the house was called "The Boykin House". The white Boykins lived there from 1840 until 1922. That is, therefore, its correct name. "Liberty Hill" is not.
I hope you see why the above is problematic and why I have made an effort to change it. As the owner of this house and as someone with training in historical research (and the ethics that accompany it) I believe I had to make an effort to change the entry. If you have a suggestion about how to fix this problem (and the skills I will need to edit the solution) then please suggest them to me. I am not trying to be a problematic Wikipedia contributor, but I am rather frustrated.
Now, I know I will have to accept the photo. I knew it was out there and never liked the fact, but this summer a friend of mine saw it on her airplane seatback screen when she hit "landmarks" on the airline's moving map. Of course, it had been "scraped" from Wikipedia. I defy anyone not to find that a little creepy. Yes, I own the house, but I bought it in 1992 before the "invention" of the internet and the even worse phenomenon of AI. I may have to live with it, but you can't blame me for trying to edit out the photo. If its appearance is part of the merciless, rolling barbarity of the Internet I'll simply have to put up particularly prominent NO TRESPASSING signs. Alas.
However, I don't have to accept mis-representation, all the more so when the platform doing it is ironically creating the very problem that needs to be corrected. I'm assuming you (like me) want the best Wikipedia possible. Again, if you have a suggestion (like a re-titling along the lines of "Boykin House (sic Liberty Hill)" or "(aka Liberty Hill)" I am open to that.
At the very least I've documented my own effort to fix the error. If it's not corrected then it's not my fault. I've made a good faith effort.
Thanks very much for reading, Drmies - Libertyhellion (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations, Epicgenius! The article you nominated, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Review

hi Epicgenius, i'm just wondering if you'd be willing to review the Tesla Model S article for FAC? As your userpage literally says it's your favourite car i thought i'd come here to ask. No worries if not though 750h+ 05:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@750h+, sure, I can take a look soon. (Incidentally, I probably gotta update that, since it's now only my second favorite after the Lucid Air ) – Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
lol, maybe Lucid Air will be at FAC soon 750h+ 13:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)