User talk:Aesurias

September 2025 October 2025 November 2025 December 2025 January 2026 Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

I apologize for missing the typo in that article. I wrote that at 5 in the morning on my iPad with about an hour of sleep. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot more sense as I had a curious look through some of your other edits and saw that you had perfect comprehension. I became very confused aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Taffy Brodesser-Akner. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meant to add a source and forgot about it ... but I can no longer find the source. I'm still wondering what happened and why I did that! TY for reverting aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Edward Clere when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 14:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your help in trying to reign in the early election calls in 2026 New Jersey's 11th congressional district special election. Happy editing! Ahuman00 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've seen you active on a lot of current political campaign pages, and was wondering what your view is on why individual social media accounts shouldn't be permitted for citing an endorsement. One example I'm thinking of is Sen. Elissa Slotkin who posted a clear endorsement of Mary Peltola for Senate, but this wasn't allowed even though it's a verified account and the tweet was linked to in an article by 'The Hill' - even thought they didn't explicitly say 'Sen. Slotkin endorsed Peltola'. I just don't see the need for caution when it's the endorser posting? But it's fine for organizations?

I read through the WP:endorse page but there is so much information and debate that I thought it would be easier to message a member of the community.

Thanks! Thebritishsenator (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree with you. I hold strong personal views on this but there are many editors who actively work against trying to modify WP:ENDORSE despite not editing election pages – looking at the talk page of ENDORSE will show you how many arguments we've had lol aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Riposte97. Thankyou. TarnishedPathtalk 06:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TY for letting me know. I don't know if my input would help at this point, you have covered everything. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Could you please clarify your point about what is required to include a candidate in 'Declared'? I can't locate guidelines specifically for it. (I read Wikipedia:Reliable sources)

In particular:

In the absence of media coverage, what sources would you recommend?

Once the candidate achieves ballot access, is there a straightforward way to include them?

I'd like to voice two concerns (granted I'm new to this)

1. If media coverage is necessary for inclusion, this gives media gatekeeper status, which would be problematic is smaller races. How would a candidate in a small town election get on Wikipedia?
2. Exclusion of candidates risks misleading the public if inclusion criteria are not clear. I worry that the standard practices for candidate inclusion have previously mislead significant numbers of people (myself included).

Thank you! Thoughtzerker (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage is what is needed, because it is both independent and reliable. Campaign websites can't be used, and filed paperwork can be used to put them in a "filed paperwork" section (but in the case of LA, the intention to declare is not the same as filing to actually run, so it is not applicable) If a candidate were to get on the ballot, there is no doubt they'd be covered by the media. All elections have pages titled something like "Candidates running in X" Small town elections are almost never on Wikipedia, because they aren't notable. I have to fight sometimes to keep mayoral elections held in the capital cities of smaller states, because many editors don't view them as notable. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! Regarding media coverage, I'm assuming that mention of name in a list of "who is running" is not sufficient? I found an LA times article including a list of ~30 candidates who it says "are running" (as a list of names w no further info)... See https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-02-07/who-is-running-for-la-mayor (Paywall) A more basic knowledge question- is it somehow acceptable to add only one candidate while using as sole source an article that would just as readily support the addition of 30 others...? Such selective inclusion is an obvious an avenue for bias, but it also feels weird to compel bulk inclusion. I'm not sure where in the guidelines this is mentioned, for example I did not see it mentioned in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Sorry for not simply finding these answers myself. Thoughtzerker (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hmmm... the list is clearly just people who have filed some sort of paperwork, but it does technically meet all the criteria, so I would say it is a bit of a loophole. Just be careful not to add their professions even if its listed on the filed paperwork, because they aren't listed on the source (the LA Times article) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias: Hey! Would you be willing to do a Good Article QPQ for your nom of 2016 Colorado Proposition 106 in return for your choosing of one of these two of my noms: 1976 Missouri Amendment 5 OR 1987 Mississippi Amendment 3?

In other words, I review your nom, you review one of mine. Y Let me know! Delcoan (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I am being totally honest, I think I would struggle to find the time to do it properly right now but can probably do so in the next few days. One major thing straight off the bat is that you have a tendency to bold and hyperlink one word, i.e. Franklin Payne in the "Support" section. This should never be done. To be honest, the bold shouldn't be in the section in the first place (vaguely covered in MOS:NOBOLD) – aside from being incorrect as outlined in the hyperlink above, it makes the sub-sections (Legislators, Organizations) very difficult to distinguish between aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you deny the existence of the special elections that took place earlier this month? “See above” was reference enough, especially with the special election results right there. Please put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-42848-28 (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"(see above)" is inappropriate for a Wikipedia page. Nobody is "denying the existence" of the elections, your changes were just unsuitable. I'll take another look at it and see how it can be rephrased. Please always remember to sign your comments – see WP:4TILDES if you need assistance with that. :) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HorseBro the hemionus here and i have a question, could you review First Sino–Kazakh War? I don't think it's reliable and could be used LLM for the article so yeah. Also how do you archive your talk pages? — The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I archive my talk page messages manually but many people use a bot to do it – see Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archiving. As for the page, I don't review new pages anymore, but I will say that I don't think it is written by AI. However, I am concerned about some overdramatic and potentially biased wording – for example, "The battle ended with the Kazakh troops crushed to defeat". I don't think it's AI because there are some small writing issues – for example, "their supply route was too far, causing problems to the Qing Chinese, majority were unfamiliar with the conditions". The "to" should likely be "for", and there should be a word preceding "majority". They also use "it's" a number of times, whereas a large language model wouldn't conjoin two words like that. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oh i see, I don't want to recklessly nominate pages or draft them. Just asking an another experienced user since Airship is away.— The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't think the page is suitable for either of those things. Maybe something to discuss at the talk page. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also, could you please amend your signature? You don't necessarily need to remove the existing words, but perhaps add "HorseBro" or something in brackets? It's very confusing. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] No. — The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]