User talk:It is a wonderful world

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre butterfly you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre butterfly for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre butterfly/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 Riley1012 -- Riley1012 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

G'day,

We’ve been discussing this issue on the 100 Free talk page for several days. If you still do not agree and wish to continue, I suggest escalating the matter to dispute resolution. Our dispute concerns whether Brett Hawke’s claim that Pan Zhanle’s speed is "not humanly possible" should be included as expert analysis, implicitly suggesting that Pan must have cheated. I have informed you that this statement violates Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sourcing (WP:RS), undue weight (WP:UNDUE), and verifiability (WP:V), and should be removed entirely.

The issue is not just with Hawke’s personal views, but with the potential for people unfamiliar with him to mistake his claims as expert analysis. However, those of us familiar with him (as seen in the comments in SwimSwam magazine about him) know that his assertions lack credible evidence and, in this case, appear driven by personal bias. His statement is unsupported by science or consensus and is, frankly, quite ridiculous.

Including his claim as expert analysis misleads readers, gives undue weight to an unverified opinion, and is dangerously close to original research (WP:OR), presenting poorly substantiated conclusions as established fact. Hawke’s statement is based on his personal views about human performance limits, not on scientific data or expert consensus. Including it would introduce an unfounded interpretation (that Pan's performance is impossible) without credible, verifiable evidence from authoritative sources. To avoid misleading readers into accepting unverified statements as fact, the better course of action is to remove it entirely.

Wikipedia’s role is to summarize what reliable sources say, not to amplify personal opinions that lack expert consensus. I firmly oppose allowing disinformation that casts doubt on Pan's swim. Claims based on unsubstantiated speculation could mislead readers into believing that no human swimmer could achieve such speed, and thus, Pan must be cheating. This reasoning is flawed on multiple levels, and I cannot, in good faith, support its inclusion as an expert statement of fact.

If you wish to escalate this issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard and argue that the coach’s reasoning should be treated as credible expert analysis regarding Pan's swim, then I am fully prepared to do so. However, please note that I will be extremely busy until the end of the month as I have duties. If you proceed, feel free to include this message as my argument.

Thank you. IP49XX (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @IP49XX. thank you for engaging with me about this. I think our fundamental disagreement lies in whether Hawke can be considered an expert or not. Since you seem to be quite familiar with allocating due weight, I'm sure you're probably right, however I can't find policy that backs up your opinion that he is not an expert. I agree dispute resolution is probably the best place to go next, so I'll figure out how that works and setup a post over there. IAWW (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Just do it and make a Post and have others tell you Please. I rather not want to waste my time on this but I want to point out that I may need to apologize. When I read your reasoning , I admit it made me frustrated and my words may have expressed that.

::When you say that we should use the coach because there are no quality studies to support what he say and hence it should be okay to use him as "its the best we have". you are effectively saying that if no quality sources exist to back a fact, then it's now okay to use unreliable poor quality sources instead.

:: That's not how Wikipedia works and after reading your last reply, I just did not want to continue dealing with you. BUt I admit I could have been nicer and less of a jerk. Still, I rather you not solely ask me but someone else. Preferably far more experienced and trustworthy. Thatt's why I suggested noticeboard for you.IP49XX (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @IP49XX, thanks for this. I have set up a discussion at dispute resolution. I think you should be able to copy paste the relevant parts of your argument at the discussion page I pinged you at. IAWW (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::@It is a wonderful world Btw the fastest potential human speed limit for swimming is an extraordinary fact, and requires the most advanced sports scientists to even begin to find that answer. It's your opinion that the coach is qualified to know that answer but I'm sure others will tell you he is not. YOu keep saying there's no policy to say we shouldn't use him as an expert for a highly advanced scientific fact, but I already gave you at least 3. if I didn't explain them thorioughly - here it is again.

::1. Hawke's lack of scientific authority: While Hawke is a respected coach, he is not an expert in sports science or anti-doping, and therefore, his speculative claim lacks credibility for highly advanced scientific facts.

::2. Lack of supporting evidence: The statement that Pan has to be cheating because no human can naturally swim that fast - has no backing from authoritative sources such as WADA, World Aquatics, or peer-reviewed research. As a result, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sourcing (WP:RS) and verifiability (WP:V).

::3. Misleading and undue weight: Including the claim without proper scientific backing gives undue weight to an opinion that is not substantiated by factual evidence. It can mislead readers into thinking the claim is a verified fact. (fribge and undue)

::4. Neutrality and verifiability: Wikipedia's role is to present neutral, well-sourced facts, not to amplify personal opinions or unsupported claims. IP49XX (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{talk page stalker}} Hi IP49XX, I'm not a neutral third party you may be seeking, but perhaps my input will help here. Most of your concerns here appear to be about whether this coach is an expert in doping, which is really mainly a concern for if we were putting the claim in wikivoice. If we were simply treating him as a reliable source for "this coach said this" then he is certainly a reliable source for such a statement. Your statements on whether he lacks credibility are certainly a consideration, and I'm glad you're bringing them up here, but they're really not applicable here. They would be a key consideration if, for instance, he published an opinion piece, we may choose not to include his opinions as, as you say, he is not an expert in doping and it's just his opinion. However. This case goes beyond this, it is considered WP:DUE not because of his expertise, but because it has been reported widely in reliable sources. Therefore, your concerns about 1 and 2 are, for Wikipedia's purposes uncontroversially overridden. Regarding your concerns with DUE weight, it would be undue weight if the equally reported responses by Pan and other commentators responding to the allegations were not included. This is what it means to apply WP:YESPOV. This also goes to your fourth point: "Wikipedia's role is to present neutral, well-sourced facts". This is simply not true. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 21:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The issue is that people may mistaken his words as actual facts. And he is not an expert when it comes to determining the fastest human speed limit. regardless you say you are not neutral and so these matters must be done proper. THere needs to be no undue weight given to imply the coaches claims are credible. I am fully prepared to go through the process of ensuring the article doesn't mislead readers into believing disinfo. IP49XX (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I am not neutral and I support you going through other channels such as WP:3O. I do think you may be overthinking the credibility people will attach to the coach's words; they clearly have a conflict of interest and are not a neutral party. Besides, if they are effectively presented through WP:YESPOV, you can well situate the credibility (e.g. if the Chinese swimming team responded by challenging the lack of expertise in making such a statement, you can report that). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 21:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hello, @Rollinginhisgrave, thank you for your input. Just to note, I set up a discussion at dispute resolution just before you posted. I hope that was the right place. IAWW (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think dispute resolution may be more heavyweight than is needed here and generally for cases involving multiple parties, but I don't think it's the wrong place. You may consider undoing and bringing it to WP:3O to save some volunteer resources although I don't think anyone will be upset if you don't. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 22:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Always happy to save volunteer time, and after your comments the discussion overview I wrote is outdated, so I removed it. I will bring it up at 3O. Thanks again. IAWW (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@IP49XX Per the above reasoning, I listed it at 3O. IAWW (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@It is a wonderful world I don't particularly like third opinion because a non neutral party who doesn't care if it's disinfo, can just take over and say stuff like Pan cheated because he is Chinese or don't care whether disinfo is made without sufficient scrutiny. I am not saying that's gonna happen but these things aren't foolproof. I rather you first streamline to establish whether the coach is an expert who can make claims like fastest potential human speed limit. we need to establish whether his statement is disinformation or not. And after we minimally establish that then we can discuss policies as Wikipedia has strong policies against misleading readers to believe in pushing disinfo and poorly sourced factual ideas and statements.

:::::::::so I would actually suggest;

:::::::::1. Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN) – This is maybe the best place to first establish whether Hawke qualifies as a reliable expert on human speed limits. If the consensus is that he is not a valid expert for making such statement, it will prove to you at least he is making unfounded claims.

:::::::::Later we can acknowledge how to address fringe claims in a neutral way. If the coach is pushing disinfo, we cannot just quote him without the readers knowing it's not supported by any real studies or sciences, I still advocate in removing it but open to suggestions if it makes it clear his claim is fringe and not accepteby the wider scientific community on human speed limits.IP49XX (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Based on your comments here {{u|IP49XX}}, the most appropriate noticeboard is the fringe theories noticeboard rather than RSN. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 23:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Rollinginhisgrave Thanks. That would indeed be the better starting place. @It is a wonderful world Your 30 description needs refinement. - the core issue is not whether or not allegations shoud be mentioned at all. I removed your edits where it's undue weight where you only quote non experts who say Pan cheated. but you cited literally zero authority and doping bodies that state that he is Innocent and not found guilty of any wrongdoing - My comment in talk was either don't mention it as it's not crucial, or do mention allegations but balance it by having it fairly countered by the authoritive sources so readers at least have the full picture and not just narrowly on the Fringe allegations dominating the article. Also THe coaches statement is a prpoblematic fringe view and you can say that I oppose adding that in entirely as it can risk readers to believe it's a professional known fact. As suggested to me, I would say it may be better to go first to to Fringe theory noticeboard but (only if you still disagree with me the coach's claim is fringe and u still think it's a well established fact from an expert.) ANd then I think we can FINALLY make progress if we can agree if the coachs idea is fringe theory and it must be dealt accordingly per Fringe rules. IP49XX (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hi @IP49XX, per Rolling's first comment, I don't think it is relevant whether he is considered an expert or not, and hence whether the argument is considered fringe. I won't repeat what he said, but it does mean we can jump straight to ensuring the reliable sources are summarised neutrally. Can I just check you agree with this before we continue? IAWW (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@It is a wonderful world If you don't repeat what he said then I am fine. If you want to mention allegations, try to keep it brief and don't hype it up to be more than it actually is. If WADA and actual evidence do not support credibility, the page should generally mirror that. I generally stand against including allegations at all given none of it is neutral and should not be a platform for disinformation and unfair negative insinuations. If anyone deserves to have full sentences, it would be Wada and other official authorities and the swimmers in that actual race. IP49XX (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Hi @IP49XX, by "I won't repeat what he said", I was referring to Rollinginhisgrave's first comment in this thread. Not Hawke's words. IAWW (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@It is a wonderful world So I guess you can say something along the lines - that doping authorities did not make allegations and it comes from outside it, and summarise to mention allegations had been made. I am fine with quoting the two swimmers as they are at least not full on pushing a pov but simply saying it's their own belief and not necessarily hardcore insisting what the facts are to be. So suggest something like this would be fine - Pan Zhanle has undergone extensive testing and has never failed a doping test. Some media outlets have reported allegations about his performance, though they have not been made by official anti-doping authorities. Fellow swimmers, including Kyle Chalmers and David Popovici, have stated they believe Pan's swim was legitimate and expressed confidence in his achievement. IP49XX (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Unfortunately, I don't believe what you wrote is even close to NPOV. It states opinions as fact, it adds adjectives like "extensive" to push POV, I don't think statements like "Some media outlets have reported allegations about his performance, though they have not been made by official anti-doping authorities" can be sourced properly, and it is an exercise in WP:SYNTH. I think we should wait for a third opinion on whether what I originally wrote is neutral according to Wikipedia policy or not and then go from there. IAWW (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@it is a wonderful world - Saying that WADA has made any allegations against him is an indisputable fact. Do not misrepresent my suggested edit as if it were merely an opinion, unlike your own. If you believe my edit is incorrect, provide a source stating that WADA accused him officially. There is no need for a source to confirm the obvious fact that WADA did not accuse him - an article would exist if there were accusations, but there is nothing there. you generally don’t need a source to state that WADA never accused Pan Zhanle of cheating because Wikipedia follows the principle that negative claims require evidence. If there’s no reliable source stating that WADA accused him, then the absence of such an accusation is self-evident and does not require explicit sourcing.IP49XX (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Apologies for butting back in. I don't think 3O or dispute resolution will work as IP49XX has said they will not defer to third parties due to concerns of bias. IP49XX, you can be bold and drop a note at a noticeboard: try to sum up the dispute rather than just putting forward your perspective. You seem to think WP:FRINGEN is most appropriate, but WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN may be more appropriate. You can also leave a note at one and use :Template:Please see at another noticeboard if it's especially relevant. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::the other asked for a Third Opinion, and as soon as an editor responded, likely explaining it better than I did. They also reviewed the sources and found them trivial, non-credible, and potentially harmful to a person’s reputation. Instead of acknowledging this, you quickly respond shortly afterwards to tell iiaww to now disregard their input entirely because I told them to. Do not speak for me as I didn't tell them to ignore the 30 answer as I don't find it biased at all. If I tell them that I find the answer biased - I would tell them that myself.IP49XX (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I assure you that was not the intention here. He probably didn't see the third opinion answer as he might not have that talk page on his watchlist. I'm not sure Rollinginhisgrave really wants to be dragged into this discussion constantly. IAWW (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@RollinginhisgraveFor the record, you said you weren't neutral, and I merely take your word for it. But I am biased against malicious disinfo, and it can be easily proven that the coaches word to be disinfo without proper studies. The newspapers may be biased and not want to care too much whether or not the information can mislead people but Wikipedia has higher standards. Brett Hawke's claim that Pan Zhanle swam "faster than is humanly possible" is not supported by any known scientific consensus or authoritative studies.

::::::In sports science, performance limits are studied through biomechanics, physiology, and historical progression, but records are continually broken as training, technology, and technique improve. Unless a governing body (like WADA or World Aquatics) investigates and confirms that no human can swimthis fast without drugs, Hawke’s claim is undue and fringe. which is grounds to remove if it overshadows the mainstream non Fringe stances and misleads readers into believing poor scientific statements IP49XX (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think if I reply here we will go in circles so I will wish you the best with dispute resolution. I didn't mean to imply I had preexisting views on the conflict but that I am not independent of the parties in the dispute. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 22:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't want to waste time and why I didn't file it at dispute resolution noticeboard. but if the other person genuinely believes that the Coach is an exxpert on the fastest potential human speed then it's difficult to proceed. so I only ask them to ask others to first establish whether the coach is qualified to make that statement, but I know the coach is not. afterwards if we can agree on that the Coach is not qualified then we can proceed to work on whether to remove his statement or not on the basis of disinfo. IP49XX (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::But if you guys want to do dispute resolution , my stance is simple - I think the better course of is remove the coach's statement entirely as it's disinformation, and there is no easy way to tell readers it's disinfo. The coach claims in a serious manner that pan cheated because he says no human can swim that fast. But he not an expert who would know this stuff. Logically if that statement wasn't fringe and is a widely established fact then Wada and scientific community would hve disqualified Pan already because apparently he exceeded the speed limit for natural human beings. But they don't because the coache's claim is unfounded. Wikipedia has strong rules against adding things that are fringe, poorly sourced ides and misleading readers to believe in disinfo. I believe I am morally right to make clear that either the Coach is not an expert on these matters and his words and ideas aren't supported by reliable sources, or to advocate to remove it entirely if that's the simpler way to not mislead readers. IP49XX (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:You requested 30 request I see it got answered in a much better way than I could. I recommend you read them as they are not biased. And I did make a suggested proposed edit as a compromise. And I don't think that suggested edit isn’t neutral when I said that Pan never failed a drug test and no doping authorities accused him and refuse to give a platform to two sources that are not remotely neutral especially when one is just hardcore fringe disinformation. You’ve provided only two extremely biased and weak sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards. If anything is non-neutral, it’s those sources.

:But I now retract my suggested proposed edits and think the allegations should not be included in any form. If you continue to insist otherwise, then take it to Fringe theories noticeboard and npov noticeboard to see if those sources you used, are extremely biased and fringe theory or not.

:It is a hard fact that as of now, no credible evidence or official claim from WADA, a sanction on the Chinese government, or any authoritative body suggests that Pan Zhanle cheated or was forced to take drugs. WADA’s rigorous testing confirms he has competed clean. If there had been any wrongdoing, it would have been publicly reported, and WADA would have taken action. And disinfo shouldn't be included and what is not neutral is to give it a platform without providing any context why it's disinfo or baseless statements.

:Presuming guilt based on nationality is unfounded and prejudiced. It contradicts Wikipedia’s core principles of neutrality and verifiability. Without credible evidence, these baseless claims have no place in a principled and fair Wikipedia that has standards against disinformation and highly biased sources both unsupported by evidence, and let's be honest - they are prejudiced pov pushing to tell people to disregard evidence and believe in fringe theories. But it's difficult to say they are baseless and pushing purely speculative claims that aren't supported by experts or evidence, hence why I advocate not mentioning them at all.IP49XX (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for this, but I will not be able to proceed with the review for Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics - Men's 400 metre individual medley. I have been busy for a few days and will not be able to do much on Wikipedia until next week. If you do want to wait until next week when I can get back, then that will be fine, but you can find another reviewer for a faster review. Again, apologies for this TNM101 (chat) 17:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @TNM101, no worries, I am more than happy to wait until you are able to review. Thanks for your efforts. IAWW (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre freestyle/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre freestyle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File: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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metre freestyle you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metre freestyle for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metre freestyle/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 DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre freestyle you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre freestyle for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre freestyle/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 Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metre individual medley you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metre individual medley for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metre individual medley/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 DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre backstroke you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold File:Symbol wait.svg. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre backstroke and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre backstroke/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre backstroke you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold File:Symbol wait.svg. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre backstroke and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre backstroke/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre backstroke you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre backstroke for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre backstroke/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 DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre backstroke you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre backstroke for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre backstroke/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 DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre backstroke you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold File:Symbol wait.svg. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre backstroke and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre backstroke/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 1500 metre freestyle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold File:Symbol wait.svg. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 1500 metre freestyle and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 1500 metre freestyle/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold File:Symbol wait.svg. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre backstroke you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre backstroke for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre backstroke/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 DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay/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 DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 1500 metre freestyle you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 1500 metre freestyle for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 1500 metre freestyle/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 DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre medley relay you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold File:Symbol wait.svg. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre medley relay and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre medley relay/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 800 metre freestyle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold File:Symbol wait.svg. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 800 metre freestyle and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 800 metre freestyle/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File: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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre medley relay you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre medley relay for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre medley relay/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 DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just responded to the note you left at Talk:McCook Gazette, using the "Reply" button. I've been somewhat inactive at Wikipedia for a few years now, and the "Reply" feature was apparently introduced during that period of inactivity. Does it automatically ping you, or do I have to do that manually here so that you know I've responded?

Thanks for your response to this— Ammodramus (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's a little confusing. It gives me a "notice" (the inbox icon) but not a "notification" (the bell icon). Normally if I want to make sure someone responds I type the @ symbol and then it gives you a dropdown of usernames to ping. I'll do it now!:

:@Ammodramus your work on McCook Gazette is really good! IAWW (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::@IAWW — Thanks for the quick response. This was something I think I knew at one time, but forgot.

::And good luck with the citations on the McCook Gazette article! — Ammodramus (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 800 metre freestyle you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 800 metre freestyle for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 800 metre freestyle/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 DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly for comments about the article, and Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly/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 Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)