This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 |
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Gooday. I intended to explain (well before now) the reason why I had added a particular source, and a recent change to the draft article history prompted me into action.
You objected to a source that was about Skinwalker Ranch in this edit summary.
You probably didn't trawl through the previous changes, but the Las Vegas Sun ref qualified the previous team; I had templated the prose "Thanks to a new team of scientists and skeptics {{clarify|date=February 2021|reason=who were the 'old' team?}} in this edit, so I had sought to answer my own query and succeeded ( June 2021).
The words "...a new team..." appear in each episode as a part of the voice-over intro. I reacted to the then-existing prose, and sought to improve the draft. Per AGF, I didn't anticipate anyone would simply delete the prose (written by other than myself).
The ref was germane to the prose as it was then, before you deleted it. You edited-out the prose first, arguing the ref not suitable; you deleted the ref separately soon after the prose. I believe it was relevant, otherwise I wouldn't have added it.
Thank you.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 21:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I see that you are an admin - I just undid a couple of changes from a user that does not seem to be here to help. Can you do something more about it? Superboilles ( talk) 21:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
tell me everything about candle cove i just started watching it and i felt the tv attracting me. I didn't want to take my eyes off the screen. I had to stop. My head started to hurt. When I paused it stopped. This show is known to brainwash kids. Like 1970s kids not 2000s. I listened to the theme song and I swear I was being hypnotized. Send help. More about the show is that adults can't see it. It's static to them and to kids it's the actual show. 2600:8804:8682:7100:80E4:E7FF:FEFD:F9F3 ( talk) 00:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I tagged this page for speedy deletion because it is spam. The account that created this page is a sock that is used to repeatedly promote this website and should be blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inumwanews24. Johnj1995 ( talk) 15:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the close at WP:Articles for deletion/Murder One (film). I was surprised by your comment, and reread the thread. I have no idea how the word "ass" slipped into my final comment. I think I was originally going to write something like "passing quickly", and then reworded it! Despite your closure, I've edited my comment back to what I meant to say, to avoid unnecessary offence. I do however remain concerned by JPL's delete voting, which they often do so quickly between edits, that there's can't be any BEFORE - which I find very troublesome, especially when they are the first or second person to weigh in (as is often the case). Nfitz ( talk) 19:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Happy adminship anniversary! Hi ReaderofthePack! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC) |
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Can you rewrite an article on this film? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Can you also create an article on The F**k-It List? [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 10:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello, ReaderofthePack. I wanted to message you today for two reasons. I remember reading a comment you wrote on the original draft about the difficulties internet personalities face with obtaining their respective Wikipedia articles, and seeing your response (along with Vinesauce's mention on the Super Mario 64 article) encouraged me to find as many sources as I could that prove Vinesauce's notability. I'm mostly done with the draft for the moment, but I wanted to get some feedback before moving forward with final edits and submitting the draft, especially from someone who reviewed the draft before and especially with the numerous deletions and rejections of the article in the past. I stated on the talk page that Vinesauce had received coverage in multiple WP:VG/RS, including Kotaku, VG247, PC Gamer, GamesRadar and Nintendo Life and that they should pass WP:GNG and WP:WEB, but I would like to ask if you would like to unofficially review the draft and leave feedback about it (preferably on your talk page here).
Also, since you're an administrator, the second thing I wanted to ask is if you could unsalt the Vinesauce page after you read it, if you decide to do so. This way in case it does get accepted in AFC it would just be as simple as publishing it to mainspace. It seems the original admin who salted it isn't too active here anymore, and seeing as how you have admin privileges and reviewed the draft, I figured why not kill two birds with one stone?
Thanks in advance, PantheonRadiance ( talk) 06:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
P.S. In case you do decide to read the draft, here are a couple notes about it you may wish to see beforehand.
Notes on Draft
|
---|
|
YEAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SirInfinity0000 ( talk) 02:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
Just wanted to say thanks for digging for sources to improve the article. I hope you don't mind that I was a bit heavy-handed turning quotes into summaries. While the notability is being debated I think it's helpful to have things distilled a bit but I do appreciate your work. I've also realised that I mis-remembered/oversimplified WP:SCHOLARSHIP-- a Masters dissertation is not an RS unless it is shown to have significant scholarly influence, but a dissertation can be used "with caution". So I think some of the dissertation material that I cut could go back in. I don't think I will get to that soon but I wanted to let you know you can selectively restore some of that if you're interested / want to. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For saving Virgil Dronebogus ( talk) 12:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC) |
Hello! :)
In a rather spontaneous act, I was listing to the aforementioned band in the title and I thought I'd read a bit about them at Wikipedia. Turned out an article for them didn't exist. I researched a bit and saw that many years ago an article for that band had been deleted by you because of notability reasons.
If you check my contributions, here or globally, you'll see that I rarely deal with article creation/editing, dealing mostly with the technical details. So, I'm not that good myself in determining notability inclusion criteria or other similar details like that. I became curious to know what would you think of an article about them being re-created now? Would it still not be able to pass the notability criteria? The band doesn't look like it has countless of YouTube video views. That all made me wonder about swing music in general nowadays. It is one of those genres that surely isn't as famous as rap or pop so I was wondering what may be considered as notable enough (or famous) in its aspect. Trying to make some "relative measurements" I searched for categories related to swing bands here to see what other contemporary swing artists we have included and I believe there weren't many (maybe as you'd expect?) or maybe I just couldn't find the right categories. In a last try I tried seeing if Postmodern Jukebox had an article and it did, so I tried looking for the categories that article is part of and I was a bit surprised to see that it had none related to swing, they were all related to jazz (not that surprising when you think of it). That made me think that maybe that's why I couldn't find many swing entries on categories.
I don't know much about the SSB and I'm surprised I got invested this much in this matter but, since I did, I'd be grateful, just for the sake of quenching my curiosity, for whatever information you can provide in regard to the article recreation matter, general music notability aspects and any information about jazz/swing articles/categories in regard to what I mentioned above. - Klein Muçi ( talk) 12:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Barnstar of Recovery | ||
Thanks for your contributions to
Dorothy Mills. Because of your hard work bringing the article up to WP standards, I have withdrawn my
AfD nomination. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 16:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
Hello, ReaderofthePack. Remember the user who worked hard with a draft about a character from the actual first Pixar short film? After spending months studying 3D Animation, I'm back. With my return to this wiki, I just want to get out my issues on the article about The Adventures of André & Wally B.:
As of May 15, 2022, one user added an "Other appearances" section in the aforementioned article. Despite having one source in it, this section violates the following guidelines and policies: MOS:YOU, WP:NOR and (possibly) WP:TRIVIA. That is to say, this section is mostly inaccurate and it may be considered fancruft despite the responsible for creating this section is not an André and Wally B. fan at all.
If I were you, I would remove the entire "Other appearances" section, with stating that "Wally B. (the bumblebee) doesn't have a monopoly regarding André & Wally B.-related cameo appearences" and that it is not necessary to create an "Other appearances" section in individual articles about Pixar films. I say that because the list of Pixar film references still exists and the author of this section's creation appears to be disinterested in this short film or has a false memory (specificially confabulation). In addition, André has his own cameo appearances and mentioning the short film in the form of a cameo doesn't mean that contains Wally B. in it. In case of the former, keep in mind it is André and not Wally B. the one who has a cameo appearance as a sticker in Soul.
If we do not act soon, this section will produce misinformation effect to future readers. What is your opinion regarding this problem? Is there any solution to remove misinformation from the article for good?-- André the Android( talk) 12:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi ther can you please help with Draft:His Wife (2014 film)? DareshMohan ( talk) 02:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello ReaderofthePack, please forgive the length of this message. I am reaching out to you as some years ago you unpacked a walled garden surrounding the Menotti Lerro in an AfD a number of years ago [1]. A couple days ago, I came across a new article for the Contemporary Center of Arts (CCA) founded by Lerro, I then looked at the Menotti Lerro article and the other articles created about his work, business ventures, and projects - by one editor User:Gingeksace - it became quite clear to me that I had encountered a WP:WALLEDGARDEN filled with promotional articles - all of which promoted Lerro and his various projects and books.
I reached out to another experienced editor, who speedied the CCA article as unambiguous promo [2] and [3]. I then noticed many photographs in these articles (dating from 2015) were all uploaded as the "own work" of Gingeksace used in the articles, which seemed like a clear-cut conflict of interest. [4].
The editor in question sent me a message on re: my tagging the article [5]. They admitted that they were in fact connected to Lerro, so I posted a Managing a COI message on their talk page [6], and started a discussion. I have never filed at WP:COIN and wanted to reach out to an admin first who is familiar with the case from the past for advise and feedback on my observations as I want to assume good faith of the editor Gingeksace, and I don't want to be too heavy-handed if I do decide to file at COIN. I hope that is ok with you.
Here is a list of the articles in the walled garden: Menotti Lerro, Ritagli, Il Dottor Faust, Augusto Orrel: memorie d'orrore e poesia, 2084: Il potere dell'immortalità nelle città del dolore, I Battiti della Notte, New Manifesto of Arts, Cultural Pyramid of Cilento, Empathism, Donna Giovanna, l'ingannatrice di Salerno, Cilento Poetry Prize.
Many thanks in advance, and sorry this is so long! Netherzone ( talk) 02:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This film needs an article - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. DareshMohan ( talk) 23:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 |
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Gooday. I intended to explain (well before now) the reason why I had added a particular source, and a recent change to the draft article history prompted me into action.
You objected to a source that was about Skinwalker Ranch in this edit summary.
You probably didn't trawl through the previous changes, but the Las Vegas Sun ref qualified the previous team; I had templated the prose "Thanks to a new team of scientists and skeptics {{clarify|date=February 2021|reason=who were the 'old' team?}} in this edit, so I had sought to answer my own query and succeeded ( June 2021).
The words "...a new team..." appear in each episode as a part of the voice-over intro. I reacted to the then-existing prose, and sought to improve the draft. Per AGF, I didn't anticipate anyone would simply delete the prose (written by other than myself).
The ref was germane to the prose as it was then, before you deleted it. You edited-out the prose first, arguing the ref not suitable; you deleted the ref separately soon after the prose. I believe it was relevant, otherwise I wouldn't have added it.
Thank you.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 21:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I see that you are an admin - I just undid a couple of changes from a user that does not seem to be here to help. Can you do something more about it? Superboilles ( talk) 21:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
tell me everything about candle cove i just started watching it and i felt the tv attracting me. I didn't want to take my eyes off the screen. I had to stop. My head started to hurt. When I paused it stopped. This show is known to brainwash kids. Like 1970s kids not 2000s. I listened to the theme song and I swear I was being hypnotized. Send help. More about the show is that adults can't see it. It's static to them and to kids it's the actual show. 2600:8804:8682:7100:80E4:E7FF:FEFD:F9F3 ( talk) 00:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I tagged this page for speedy deletion because it is spam. The account that created this page is a sock that is used to repeatedly promote this website and should be blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inumwanews24. Johnj1995 ( talk) 15:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the close at WP:Articles for deletion/Murder One (film). I was surprised by your comment, and reread the thread. I have no idea how the word "ass" slipped into my final comment. I think I was originally going to write something like "passing quickly", and then reworded it! Despite your closure, I've edited my comment back to what I meant to say, to avoid unnecessary offence. I do however remain concerned by JPL's delete voting, which they often do so quickly between edits, that there's can't be any BEFORE - which I find very troublesome, especially when they are the first or second person to weigh in (as is often the case). Nfitz ( talk) 19:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Happy adminship anniversary! Hi ReaderofthePack! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC) |
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Can you rewrite an article on this film? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Can you also create an article on The F**k-It List? [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 10:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello, ReaderofthePack. I wanted to message you today for two reasons. I remember reading a comment you wrote on the original draft about the difficulties internet personalities face with obtaining their respective Wikipedia articles, and seeing your response (along with Vinesauce's mention on the Super Mario 64 article) encouraged me to find as many sources as I could that prove Vinesauce's notability. I'm mostly done with the draft for the moment, but I wanted to get some feedback before moving forward with final edits and submitting the draft, especially from someone who reviewed the draft before and especially with the numerous deletions and rejections of the article in the past. I stated on the talk page that Vinesauce had received coverage in multiple WP:VG/RS, including Kotaku, VG247, PC Gamer, GamesRadar and Nintendo Life and that they should pass WP:GNG and WP:WEB, but I would like to ask if you would like to unofficially review the draft and leave feedback about it (preferably on your talk page here).
Also, since you're an administrator, the second thing I wanted to ask is if you could unsalt the Vinesauce page after you read it, if you decide to do so. This way in case it does get accepted in AFC it would just be as simple as publishing it to mainspace. It seems the original admin who salted it isn't too active here anymore, and seeing as how you have admin privileges and reviewed the draft, I figured why not kill two birds with one stone?
Thanks in advance, PantheonRadiance ( talk) 06:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
P.S. In case you do decide to read the draft, here are a couple notes about it you may wish to see beforehand.
Notes on Draft
|
---|
|
YEAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SirInfinity0000 ( talk) 02:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
Just wanted to say thanks for digging for sources to improve the article. I hope you don't mind that I was a bit heavy-handed turning quotes into summaries. While the notability is being debated I think it's helpful to have things distilled a bit but I do appreciate your work. I've also realised that I mis-remembered/oversimplified WP:SCHOLARSHIP-- a Masters dissertation is not an RS unless it is shown to have significant scholarly influence, but a dissertation can be used "with caution". So I think some of the dissertation material that I cut could go back in. I don't think I will get to that soon but I wanted to let you know you can selectively restore some of that if you're interested / want to. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For saving Virgil Dronebogus ( talk) 12:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC) |
Hello! :)
In a rather spontaneous act, I was listing to the aforementioned band in the title and I thought I'd read a bit about them at Wikipedia. Turned out an article for them didn't exist. I researched a bit and saw that many years ago an article for that band had been deleted by you because of notability reasons.
If you check my contributions, here or globally, you'll see that I rarely deal with article creation/editing, dealing mostly with the technical details. So, I'm not that good myself in determining notability inclusion criteria or other similar details like that. I became curious to know what would you think of an article about them being re-created now? Would it still not be able to pass the notability criteria? The band doesn't look like it has countless of YouTube video views. That all made me wonder about swing music in general nowadays. It is one of those genres that surely isn't as famous as rap or pop so I was wondering what may be considered as notable enough (or famous) in its aspect. Trying to make some "relative measurements" I searched for categories related to swing bands here to see what other contemporary swing artists we have included and I believe there weren't many (maybe as you'd expect?) or maybe I just couldn't find the right categories. In a last try I tried seeing if Postmodern Jukebox had an article and it did, so I tried looking for the categories that article is part of and I was a bit surprised to see that it had none related to swing, they were all related to jazz (not that surprising when you think of it). That made me think that maybe that's why I couldn't find many swing entries on categories.
I don't know much about the SSB and I'm surprised I got invested this much in this matter but, since I did, I'd be grateful, just for the sake of quenching my curiosity, for whatever information you can provide in regard to the article recreation matter, general music notability aspects and any information about jazz/swing articles/categories in regard to what I mentioned above. - Klein Muçi ( talk) 12:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Barnstar of Recovery | ||
Thanks for your contributions to
Dorothy Mills. Because of your hard work bringing the article up to WP standards, I have withdrawn my
AfD nomination. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 16:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
Hello, ReaderofthePack. Remember the user who worked hard with a draft about a character from the actual first Pixar short film? After spending months studying 3D Animation, I'm back. With my return to this wiki, I just want to get out my issues on the article about The Adventures of André & Wally B.:
As of May 15, 2022, one user added an "Other appearances" section in the aforementioned article. Despite having one source in it, this section violates the following guidelines and policies: MOS:YOU, WP:NOR and (possibly) WP:TRIVIA. That is to say, this section is mostly inaccurate and it may be considered fancruft despite the responsible for creating this section is not an André and Wally B. fan at all.
If I were you, I would remove the entire "Other appearances" section, with stating that "Wally B. (the bumblebee) doesn't have a monopoly regarding André & Wally B.-related cameo appearences" and that it is not necessary to create an "Other appearances" section in individual articles about Pixar films. I say that because the list of Pixar film references still exists and the author of this section's creation appears to be disinterested in this short film or has a false memory (specificially confabulation). In addition, André has his own cameo appearances and mentioning the short film in the form of a cameo doesn't mean that contains Wally B. in it. In case of the former, keep in mind it is André and not Wally B. the one who has a cameo appearance as a sticker in Soul.
If we do not act soon, this section will produce misinformation effect to future readers. What is your opinion regarding this problem? Is there any solution to remove misinformation from the article for good?-- André the Android( talk) 12:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi ther can you please help with Draft:His Wife (2014 film)? DareshMohan ( talk) 02:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello ReaderofthePack, please forgive the length of this message. I am reaching out to you as some years ago you unpacked a walled garden surrounding the Menotti Lerro in an AfD a number of years ago [1]. A couple days ago, I came across a new article for the Contemporary Center of Arts (CCA) founded by Lerro, I then looked at the Menotti Lerro article and the other articles created about his work, business ventures, and projects - by one editor User:Gingeksace - it became quite clear to me that I had encountered a WP:WALLEDGARDEN filled with promotional articles - all of which promoted Lerro and his various projects and books.
I reached out to another experienced editor, who speedied the CCA article as unambiguous promo [2] and [3]. I then noticed many photographs in these articles (dating from 2015) were all uploaded as the "own work" of Gingeksace used in the articles, which seemed like a clear-cut conflict of interest. [4].
The editor in question sent me a message on re: my tagging the article [5]. They admitted that they were in fact connected to Lerro, so I posted a Managing a COI message on their talk page [6], and started a discussion. I have never filed at WP:COIN and wanted to reach out to an admin first who is familiar with the case from the past for advise and feedback on my observations as I want to assume good faith of the editor Gingeksace, and I don't want to be too heavy-handed if I do decide to file at COIN. I hope that is ok with you.
Here is a list of the articles in the walled garden: Menotti Lerro, Ritagli, Il Dottor Faust, Augusto Orrel: memorie d'orrore e poesia, 2084: Il potere dell'immortalità nelle città del dolore, I Battiti della Notte, New Manifesto of Arts, Cultural Pyramid of Cilento, Empathism, Donna Giovanna, l'ingannatrice di Salerno, Cilento Poetry Prize.
Many thanks in advance, and sorry this is so long! Netherzone ( talk) 02:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This film needs an article - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. DareshMohan ( talk) 23:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)