User talk:TarnishedPath

Unified login: TarnishedPath is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

The current date and time is 30 July 2026 T 00:22 UTC.

Pending changes backlog (review log) Level 5 Very low backlog [view • purge • update] 1 pages according to DatBot 00:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

AfC Backlog Level 11 High backlog (4+ months) at AFC. There are currently 4,492 pending submissions. [view • purge • update]

DYK for Hannah Green (golfer)

On 8 May 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hannah Green (golfer), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that golfer Hannah Green helped Australia win the International Crown for the first time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hannah Green (golfer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hannah Green (golfer)), 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 nominate it.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Jolly

On 20 May 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Jolly, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, according to Australian newspapers, Stephen Jolly was the only Westerner to address protesters at Tiananmen Square in 1989? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Jolly. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stephen Jolly), 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 nominate it.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hope to see you about

I hope to see you about continuing your good work, and I wish the best of luck for any future actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library

Hi there. I just want to thank you for bringing up Wikipedia Library during the GAN review of Photograph of Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell. I always find it annoying if certain sources are paywalled, and I wish I had researched this library thing earlier. It's immensely helpful, so again thank you! AdaCiccone (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@AdaCiccone no worries.

I'm not sure how much of a play around you've had with it. The mainpage for it is at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. That URL (https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=) is for pasting in front of other URLs when you already know that something is avialable through the library.

If you're ever looking for stuff that is from newspapers which is behind a paywall, ProQuest is often a good place to start (https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://www.proquest.com/ip). Also if you're looking for historical news reporting, you can apply for access to newspapers.com through the library (though there's a wait to get access to that though as Wikimedia has limited licenses). If you ever need something from newspapers.com looking up (you can generally tell from the reference parameters/URL), feel free to email me as I have one of the Wikimedia licenses (I use it a lot for verification in my work on did you know). TarnishedPath^talk 05:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. But can the URL you gave me be used that way (inserting the URL after the =) continuously? Will I hit a limit or something? Or is searching via the Search bar at the top the preferred way? AdaCiccone (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

No limit, as long as the source is one that is standardly available through the Wikipedia Library. It won't work with newspapers.com. You need to have a user license for that. Notably, Wikipedia Library doesn't give access to everything through ProQuest. They must have limited access. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Photograph of Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Photograph of Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AdaCiccone -- AdaCiccone (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations @TarnishedPath! Hopefully we can make it a featured article someday :)) Cornerstone1949 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Well done on all your hard work here, it really shows that future history is written every day. Could I partially claim this as one of my GA's? I'm not sure what the protocol is! Your Ben Roberts-Smith work was brillaint as well. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine, I think you can. You contributed, so it's in part your credit. The first GA credit I took was where someone else started it and I contributed. I didn't have enough confidence to do it by myself at that point. All it took was that little bit of experience to give me more confidence.

Thanks for your recognition on BRS. I hope to get it to FA, once it's finished being copy edited (in process). TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's great work considering how live his biography still is with the court case etc. I remember a few years ago noticing that all our Afghan war pages had started rotting away post Obama surge and pre big non-fic/podcast analysis era. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep, all that going on and the division in the Australian community about him certainly adds to the challenge. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Flawed Hero

On 8 June 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flawed Hero, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Australian War Memorial changed its rules retroactively to disqualify Flawed Hero: Truth, Lies and War Crimes from a prize it was already selected to receive? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flawed Hero: Truth, lies and war crimes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Flawed Hero), 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 nominate it.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Purple Barnstar
	Congratulations, you have been falsely accused in a New York Post editorial of being one of the "62 mostly anonymous administrators" who "led the campaign to ban Sanger". (The tabloid also complains about being designated as generally unreliable.) — Newslinger talk 05:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

A scapegoat for you!

Since the media has apparently decided that you are to blame for literally everything that happens on Wikipedia, I thought this might come in handy. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Baa. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Andrew Hastie has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Andrew Hastie has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pangalau -- Pangalau (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Spreading Peace

Issac I Navarro (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Jacob Hersant has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Jacob Hersant has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pangalau -- Pangalau (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Teresa van Lieshout has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Teresa van Lieshout has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pangalau -- Pangalau (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Inner West Light Rail

On 7 July 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Inner West Light Rail, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that services were suspended on the Inner West Light Rail for four months after cracks were discovered in the entire tram fleet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Inner West Light Rail. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Inner West Light Rail), 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 nominate it.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice relisting comment

Thanks for leaving a relisting comment here. Most of the time they are not necessary but I think we should use them a bit more often at RM, and this is a good example of a situation where a concise statement is helpful. I've been more active at WP:RFD lately and we tend to use them more often there. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

COVID-19 lab leak theory GA Review on hold

Hi TarnishedPath. I've put the review on hold for the standard 7 days. My main concern is that the article does not focus enough on the main topic, which is the lab leak theories; and that readers coming to the article to read about that theory (or those theories), plus the scientific, political, and popular response to them, are not getting the clear information they want. The article as it currently stands feels to be more about the tension between the natural theory and the lab theory, with a focus on directing readers toward the natural theory. I don't feel that the article in Wikipedia voice should be pushing readers in either direction, but should just be providing neutral and factual information about lab leak theories. I am open to discussions as to the way forward, and to my conclusions regarding the article. SilkTork (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@SilkTork, I'll try and have a look at some of your points over the weekend and see if I can address them. That said, the article exists as it does because of WP:BESTSOURCES and I think we owe it to our readers to not get stuck in any sort of WP:FALSEBALANCE and where we do cover these sorts of theories, that we should not hold back in saying what the scientific consensus is about them. Anyway I'll see what I can do this weekend. Once again, thankyou for your time reviewing the article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I have suggested using poor sources. If I have, please point that out to me. And if I have not been clear on wanting neutrality in the article rather than weight being placed either way on any theory or scenario, please also point that out. I don't wish to be misunderstood - and I know I can sometimes fail to explain myself clearly through hasty or casual or sloppy writing. It happens! SilkTork (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@SilkTork, I've just had a full read though your comments in the review to get a general sense and I guess my main takeaway is that if it was organised better it would go quite a ways to addressing your main concern. Correct me if I'm wrong there. You do on raise that article, as it presently stands, also reads like somewhat of an essay in as far is it argues for a position and that also needs addressing. Am I getting the main gist? TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you've got the sense of my concern that the tone of the article reads like an essay arguing for a position rather than a neutral summary of the topic. And I understand the way that would have developed with most rationale views being that the virus developed naturally, and that considerations of the virus being a biological weapon being in the arena of propaganda politics and conspiracy theory, and so there would be an entrenchment of the rationale view by way of attempts to dismiss the conspiracy theory notions. However, readers would be coming to Wikipedia to get quickly and clearly at what the lab leak theories are, and hoping for a balanced, neutral, factual summary. The organisation of the article is a way of delivering the facts neutrally. Information about the theories, and the responses to those theories by politicians, scientists, the media, the public. When describing the theories it would be important to remain neutral - just the facts without spin. When presenting the responses, it would be helpful to put the appropriate weight on what scientists, politicians, media, the public say or think. And it would be acceptable for these sections to have different weights, depending on the general consensus of those groups - so if most of the public are reported to believe in the lab leak theory, then it would be appropriate to summary that finding, and if most scientists do not accept the theory, then it would be appropriate to focus on that. Though it wouyld also be helpful to differentiate the theories so that the weight against a biological weapon theory could be 95%, while a leak from a legitimate study could be 20%, etc. ANd if there are sources which summarise the various responses in their entirety they would be helpful in providing an appropriate summary. SilkTork (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@SilkTork, I'm thinking that perhaps this isn't something that can be undertaken in a week or two. I honestly thought that given the prose was in good shape and that the article is well referenced this would be an easy GAN. I'd suggest that you fail it and if I'm able to undertake some of the suggestions you've made over the longer term that I'll nominate it at a latter date, that's if I think I can do it in a manner that isn't going to result in any pushback from the other established editors. TarnishedPath^talk 14:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

We share the same thoughts. One of the reasons I selected this article was because it was well written and well sourced, and it looked interesting. I thought I'd read though, learn a bit about the lab leak theories, make a few observations here and there if needed, give it a green tick, and move on. But the more I read it the more I realised that I was wrong, and that for perfectly understandable and legitimate reasons the article had become an essay in Wiki voice against extreme thinking. I'll wait out the seven days, take a look at what has been done to the article in the meantime, and then make the decision. It is not unknown for writers other than the nominator to work on an article and bring it to GA status. SilkTork (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@SilkTork no worries. I'll do what I can to get some easy wins in the meantime. Once again thanks for your time. TarnishedPath^talk 14:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Codeine Crazy

On 25 July 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Codeine Crazy, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Future's song "Codeine Crazy" plays on a radio station in Grand Theft Auto V? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Codeine Crazy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Codeine Crazy), 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 nominate it.

EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)