Archives

Archive 1 (Nov 2008 - Apr 2012) Archive 2 (May 2012 - Dec 2014) Archive 3 (Jan 2015 - Sep 2016) Archive 4 (Oct 2016 - Jan 2018) Archive 5 (Feb 2018 - Aug 2019) Archive 6 (Sep 2019 - Oct 2021)

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Damien Linnane! i had a question regarding the caption for this picture, both in this article and the associated blurb. is it appropriate to state that the class is for african americans? although the description of the photo at the original source, a louisianan archive, reads "Negro literacy class at the Parish Prison, New Orleans. Interior.", i cannot positively confirm from looking at the photo that everyone receiving instruction in the picture is an african american. that being said, from what i understand of segregationist educational policies in the area at the time, i do not think it would be unusual for prison education to also be segregated at that prison in 1937.

by the way, digging a bit further, i found this photo and this photo in the same louisianan archive, apparently of the same prison in 1937. both photos suggest that education may have been segregated at that prison, even if the prison had held prisoners of more than one race. however, interestingly, the description of these latter two photos merely states "Adult education at the Parish Prison, New Orleans. Interior.", which then raises the question of why race was highlighted in the description of the first photo, but not in the subsequent two, regardless of whether the classes were, in fact, segregated. dying (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dying. Thanks for your comment. I did notice the third person on the left in the photo appears to be Caucasian, however, only his face is visible, and not his clothes. I think that person could be a staff member. The only other person who isn't obviously African American is clearly a staff member. I think it would be incredibly inappropriate to NOT call it a class for African Americans, considering the original caption considers it to be that, and there's no strong evidence that assessment is wrong. Thanks for finding the other photos; that's interesting, but I think the likely reason those photos don't mention race is simply because of US societies attitude to race at the time. That class with white people would have been considered the "normal" class, not the whites class. The "Negro" class is explicitly called that because they were regarded as the other. It's just a reflection of racism. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oh, i'm sorry, but i think i may have not made my question clear. i believe i agree with you in thinking that, if someone were to ask if the photo is of a class for african americans, it would be inappropriate to state that it was not. my concern is whether wikipedia should mention this detail in the caption, especially if the original source may have mentioned this detail in its description as part of a practice of othering. (i had initially wondered if the detail was correct before wondering if the detail should even be mentioned.)

i admittedly don't recall seeing racial segregation being addressed when i had read the article, so had likely believed it was beyond the scope of the article when i was reviewing the caption. i probably also found the caption a bit unusual, as it appears to be the only one of the captions in the article that mentions race. in contrast, a good deal of the article covers the state of prison education in different countries, so mentioning the location where a photo was taken seems relevant. (interestingly, gender segregation was addressed in the article, but the caption makes no mention of the class being for male prisoners, although the original description doesn't either.) in any case, i will defer to your judgement. thanks for the response! dying (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought you were mostly questioning whether the class was for African Americans, and also why the other photos didn't mention race. Racial segregation is probably outside the scope of the article; this article is from a worldwide perspective after all, and most countries don't do that. I think that information could be appropriate at an split article just about the US, assuming sources can be found. I think it's fair to say the photo is also the only one that mentions race at this article simply because it is the only one where race comes into play at all. Also I don't think it needs to be pointed out to the reader that the photo is of a male education class, since that's a bit obvious. Also keep in mind that over 90% of people in prison are male.

Look I can see the point you're making now, I just don't see it as an issue myself. I do note the article passed through a good article assessment, two peer reviews and two featured article assessments without anyone raising this as an issue though. I can also foresee someone complaining if we don't acknowledge that the participants are African American. I don't feel too strongly about it though, so I have no problems if you mention it on the talk page of the article to get other opinions about it. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, that was my fault for not having been more clear in my initial comment. sorry about that. in any case, your opinion is good enough for me, so i'm not really interested in polling any further, but i appreciate you mentioning that you would have been open to it. thanks for addressing the issue! dying (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Jb! Award
		Thank you for the prison education TFA! It was a good read. Panini!🥪 16:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

You're welcome, and thank you. Also sorry I didn't reply to your last message here, I didn't really know what to say to it lol. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight from Calabria, I am writing to greet you and to know how you are. I am quite well for now, I am also writing to ask you for help with these 3 articles that need a review and a wise and gifted hand like yours. I saw that you have given shape to good quality articles, I am a small worker in this immense vineyard called Wikipedia, and I go from row to row to make my contribution in every part, from Italian to Russian and so on. But I have limits, then turning the pages I saw your name and I am sure that you will do an excellent job, since you have stayed in Italy for some time and this makes me honored. In any case, to reciprocate your kindness which I am sure will not be long in coming, I renew my complete disposition if you need some articles in Italian and Italian dialects, I will try to do my best, in the meantime I salute you and respect you, waiting for hear from you. See you soon!--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino. Thanks for your message. I've had a bit of a look at Milena Miconi and have already made some minor improvements, and will try and make some more as time permits. My ability to edit the article, however, will be limited as most if not all the reliable sources covering her will be in Italian, which I unfortunately do not speak. While I do have a lot of experience on Wikipedia, I don't have much experiences working on subjects that are mostly covered in other languages. The other two articles are both tagged as potentially not meeting notability guidelines. I'm not overly experienced in judging if a subject does indeed meet the threshold for notability either, so I'd rather not work on those two until editors who are experienced in this reach a consensus that the articles should indeed exist.

In regards to your offer of help with Italian dialects - well I am always very happy when my English good or featured articles get translated into another language. As you can see from my user page, several have been translated into Chinese, and one has also been translated into French. By all means I'm not expecting you to take on a project that large just for my sake, though if you wanted to pick one out of interest and also for the experience of navigating the article through the process to become a good or featured article on the Italian Wikipedia, then I'd very much appreciate your work. Other than this there is nothing I need help with at present, though I'll very much keep your offer in mind. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Damien Linnane, Happy New Year and hope you are doing well and safe. I'm giving the Regine Velasquez article another shot at FAC and was wondering if you have some spare time to review (again)? I would totally understand if you may be busy with other projects or IRL. Thanks and I hope you are having a great week! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take a look. Glad you've renominated it. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciate it! :) Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit reverted multiple edits which is pretty stupid. You should just restore the see also section. However, I changed it to For alcohol as the single cause of death, see List of deaths through alcohol. --Bawanio (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bawanio: It was deliberate since I didn't think any of your edits were improvements. If you want to help Wikipedia you're certainly going about it the wrong way. Firstly, if you revert another users edits, like you did here [1], explain it in the edit summary, since that's what it's there for. Secondly, if you make changes to an article that are contested, you need to obtain consensus on the articles talk page for your proposed changes, not initiate an edit war. Please read WP:BRD Damien Linnane (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I merged this discussion to Talk:List_of_deaths_from_drug_overdose_and_intoxication#Damien_Linnane. --Bawanio (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bawanio: Don't give a section on a talk page the title of another user's name, since ideally we get other editors involved and it doesn't just remain between you and I. Call it what the dispute is about next time. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks. --Bawanio (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Hillsong Church that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This edit, where you stated an editor lied, is not appropriate, even if it were true. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: You need to take more care when leaving messages like this. Not only did I not make that edit you linked above, I've never even edited that article at all.

So let me get this straight, you're criticising me for calmly pointing out irrefutable evidence in a civil manner that another editor has been lying, which I actually did with this edit here: [2]. However, you haven't criticised the other editor for lying and manipulating sources, you haven't even commented on my evidence or their actions at all, the only problem you have with anything regarding this is with me for telling the truth by pointing it out what they did? Damien Linnane (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry, I must erred when posting the diffs and deleted one too many characters. I fixed it, but these are direct links where you called an editor a liar with the first in the diff and the second was one I did not read until after I posted here:[3] and [4]. I suspect that you call so many editors liars, whether calmly or not, and whether you feel justified and have supposed proof, that it's hard to keep track when editors call you out on specific instances. I will attempt to do better in the future. Cheers. I have no need to criticize the other editor, because they did not actually lie or manipulate any sources as you claimed. Even if they had, I would simply provide evidence to contradict their claims rather than make accusations about personal behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Wow. Your gall is amazing. Who is making personal attacks and being uncivil now? You just opened suggested I regularly call other editors liars, without providing any evidence. If that's not uncivil, I don't know what is. Unlike you, on the very rare occasions I make accusations, I actually provide evidence.

You see those two edits of mine above, the ones you linked in your last post? Have a good look at them. Contrary to your claims, I did provide irrefutable evidence to contradict L32007's claim that the letter he was using as a source was different from the one I posted. I found hard evidence the letter has not changed at all since Hillsong first posted it in 2012. Looks like you err about a lot of things, not just posting diffs. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I am informing you that you should not make personal attacks, that is not making a personal attack.

I clearly linked to Talk:Hillsong Church and I stated you called an editor a liar there. I obviously erred in my diff. It's amazing to me that you did not recognize that you called an editor a liar on that page. My incorrect assumption is that it was so common that you forgot about this instance and the only thing that occurred to me was that it was common for you to do so. I should not have stated that. I'm sorry.

However, on-point, you twice called the same editor a liar. Whether the editor was or was not, or was simply mistaken, calling an editor a liar is against policy. If you want to continue this discussion, WP:ANI may be the correct place to point out that other editor's behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Of course I called an editor a liar. I've never not recognised that and I don't understand why you think I didn't. The issue is I firmly believe it's appropriate to point out someone is lying if there's evidence. Look, this conversation is going nowhere so I'd prefer if it stopped. Let's agree to disagree on whether you're making personal attacks on my talk page, and whether pointing out someone is lying with hard evidence is appropriate or not. I'm actually already drafting an ANI submission regarding this. You'll be pinged there when it's finished. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#How Hillsong Church garnered incivility and SPA edits until it is archived or the heading is changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello pal. I made a bold edit to this page recently: List of people executed in the United States in 2022 and I would like your input as you are an experienced editor who has previously worked on these pages. These executions by year pages have always normally included scheduled executions for the year in a separate table beneath the ones that have occurred. Understandably, these scheduled executions are usually always changing. The issue is that these scheduled executions can already be found on the List of people scheduled to be executed in the United States page. It seems silly to me to have two pages saying the same thing so I have remodified the page with this edit: [5]

Do you think this makes sense or should it go back to how it was? This is how it used to be to give you an example: [6]. You had the execution list followed by the scheduled execution list. The problem is that this info is already found at List of people scheduled to be executed in the United States. So when an execution is stayed or cancelled, you would have to modify both tables on both pages. I summed up my reasoning on the talk page here: [7] But I wanted to get others input on this. Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inexpiable. Sorry for the late reply; I didn't notice your message here until today. I've just commented at the talk page discussion you started basically saying I don't disagree with your bold changes. Well done on continuing to be pro-active with this topic. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Earlonne Woods, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Earlonne Woods details the experience of co-hosting the first podcast created entirely while incarcerated in his book, This Is Ear Hustle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Earlonne Woods. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Earlonne Woods), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article This Is Ear Hustle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Earlonne Woods details the experience of co-hosting the first podcast created entirely while incarcerated in his book, This Is Ear Hustle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Earlonne Woods. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, This Is Ear Hustle), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Damien! I hope things are going well on your end. Here's me dropping by (again) and wondering if I could trouble you for some feedback on a FAC? I wanted to ask because you have provided solid review(s) in my last FAC that finally got the star on it's third try :) So on to new projects! Totally understandable if you don't have the time or busy IRL. Have a great start to your week! Pseud 14 (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately I'm a bit busy traveling for work this coming week, but I'll if it still needs comments the following week I'll try and find some time. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and absolutely ok with me. Much appreciated! Pseud 14 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

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)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning from distant Calabria, I am writing to greet you and thank you for the commitment of these months for me. I am writing to tell you that I have recovered and improved the page by Dado Coletti. If you want to give me a hand right in the minutiae, I would be infinitely grateful. Sure of your nod and waiting for your news, I thank you for everything you have done and been able to do for me. a greeting and thanks again.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your message. Unfortunately I don't have much time for editing these days so aren't very open to taking on new projects, but in any case it looks like that page has unfortunately already been deleted. I hope you're able to address whatever reason that was for. Best wishes. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are still interested in the Resident Evil franchise but I've recently tried expanding Resident Evil: Damnation with real world information. It still needs some tide up so I wondered if you wanted to try it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tintor2. I don't have heaps of time but I'm happy to give it a read and and fix anything that stands out. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I rarely edit Resident Evil articles but I'm kinda wondering if the reception section needs an expansion. Couldn't find other reviews.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember 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. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, 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. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your single-handedly keeping the Triple Crown Award going through your constant and selfless attention. This is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Gog. It was a one-man show for a long time but thankfully I do have a couple others pitching in these days. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you really look at this old website? It is a site for art and the contact is not at Marit Larsen but other persons: https://www.maritlarsen.com/contact Please take a closer look! Little Big Sister really is the management Marit Larsen is currently being looked after. It's that you can find Marit Larsen officially there: https://www.littlebigsister.com/artist/marit-larsen - if you don't believe me ask there! --Tristram (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one looking at the wrong website. I'm looking at the one linked in her Infobox. Is is not an art site. See here: http://maritlarsen.com/. I've now updated the link in the External links section to match the correct link provided in the infobox. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expanding Leon's article in the past months with comments from his voice actors and redesigns. However, I think this section is becoming ridiculously long. You think some parts could be trimmed to be like the FA Jill Valentine? Cheers Tintor2 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tintor2. Thanks for letting me know. I'm very time poor at the moment but if I get a chance to look at Leon S. Kennedy I'll let you know. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. You think Resident Evil: Damnation is ready for a GA nomination? No idea if it is missing something important.Tintor2 (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tintor2. No part of Resident Evil: Damnation seems obviously lacking to me for a GA nomination. I'd go head and nominate it if I were you.

As for Leon, I made a few changes I thought were needed for FAC. Here's my other feedback so far, up to the Reception section:

• "Leon's design was inspired by the bloodhound of Capcom artist Isao Ohishi" - this is confusing and needs explanation.
• "His design is meant to be that of a civilian to fit the narrative as well. Still the clothing is meant to make him easy to fight." - this wording is awkward, and I'm unclear what the second sentence is supposed to mean
• "being happy with the localizer" - what's a localizer? Can you give an appropriate wikilink?
• "based on model Eduard Badaluta" - can you give any more information here? Even Badaluta's nationality would be better than nothing.
• "They eventually meet again at the Umbrella Corporation" - you should clarify what Umbrella is to the reader
• "In June 2022" - It's passed this date now. This needs an update.
• In general, I think a lot of the prose is a bit sloppy. It's almost as if some of it was translated by a person with a good but not perfect understanding of English. I think you'll run into issues with prose at any nomination. I'd take it to WP:GOCE first, though I'd try and improve it myself beforehand if I were you.

Hope this helps. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert this edit please? Shktriib1 (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...you haven't linked any edit for me to revert. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops here it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_youngest_killers&type=revision&diff=1103664736&oldid=1103660673 --Shktriib1 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it now? --Shktriib1 (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at this, and it seems fair. I've reinstated the edit, though with proper reference formatting. As per WP:BAREURLS, please don't put references on Wikipedia in this manner in the future. I am quite time-poor at the moment so while I'm happy to help in this isolated case, I'd prefer not to be asked to do anything similar in the future. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shktribb1 is a sock of prolific sockmaster Cadeken, who has created dozens of accounts and used even more IPs. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken/Archive. IPs in or near Tulare, California always pop up when a registered sock is blocked. They always deny it, but if there ever was a case that satisfies the WP:DUCK test, this is it. Sundayclose (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that behaviour is concerning. However, it seems neither here nor there in regards to this edit, which upon close inspection looked relevant and well-referenced. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I suspect Shktribb1 or the many IPs they use will be asking your to do more reverts. Sundayclose (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miranda Gibson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miranda Gibson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

• Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
• Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
• BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
• Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
• Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
• Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
• PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
• Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

• Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
• Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
• Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
• Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
• Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
• SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
• Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
• Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
• Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
• Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nas Ne Dogonyat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 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 ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or 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) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
• Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
• FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
• TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
• Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I stumbled upon and saw your contributions to multiple video game character articles. If you have free time, could you review GAN? This one is a small article, while this is moderate. If not its fine. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GlatorNator. I don't really have the time to do reviews anymore these days, but since Mr X is particularly short I'll be happy to make an exception. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

• Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
• Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
• Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
• BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
• FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, PCN02WPS, and AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you had replaced instances of "committed suicide" with "killed himself" or "killed themselves" on two articles on my watchlist. Fair enough; "killed himself" is direct and unambiguous, and sounds less modern when speaking of historical figures. But on further investigation, I find that you've been replacing the phrase "committed suicide" on hundreds of pages, and in category titles as well. Are you aware that MOS:SUICIDE explicitly states that the phrase is not banned on Wikipedia? While some people perceive—mistakenly, IMO—that the word "committed" stigmatizes people by implying that the act is criminal, the phrase is also standard English and reasonably clear and direct. This belief is not a justification for removing the phrase wherever it occurs in Wikipedia, and an attempt to do so is certainly misguided and likely to be perceived as disruptive editing. I think that you might want to reconsider whether this is a productive course of action. P Aculeius (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: I'm very aware of MOS:SUICIDE. As you can see there, while the term is indeed not banned, it is noted that it is considered by some (myself included, obviously) to be stigmatising and offensive. So we have a contested term for suicide, and many uncontested ones. Replacing a controversial term with a neutral one just seems like common sense to me. I don't understand how anyone's priority could be to keep using a term that they know is offensive to some, when there are completely viable alternatives. These changes cost you nothing. In any case, I'm not going to consider stopping unless there's a consensus from administrators that this is disruptive.

I understand you may think this is pointless or silly, and you certainly won't be alone in those thoughts, but based on my lived-experience in this field, I disagree. Language isn't important to everyone, indeed many people, especially those who have not experienced severe mental health trauma, will never think twice about the term, but it will make a difference for some. For the record, my views on this matter can be summarised here: [8].

Also I haven't replaced the term in any category titles, or even tried to; your accusation there is not true. I did move one article, but only after I found an existing comment on said article's talk-page specifically requesting the title be changed, and no opposition to the proposed move. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would also agree that this is unproductive. Don't care enough to revert but it's just a waste of time. And as usual with mass changes oddities are creeping in, such as altering direct quotes or this edit where you very helpfully specified that the subject had died after shooting himself in the head rather than before. ITBF (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it was a series of page moves intended to move one list article, based on an unsigned comment by an IP editor, "This article should be renamed! A person cannot 'commit' suicide – it's sloppy and troubling that Wikipedia allows this!" with no other discussion, and with which you voiced complete agreement. You may not understand this, but you are in essence imposing your views on the entire encyclopedia—and since the anonymous comment betrays a lack of understanding of the English language, as well as a complete lack of disregard for anyone else's viewpoint, your response to it—unreserved agreement followed by changing the title of the article—and here, "I'm not going to consider stopping unless there's a consensus from administrators that this is disruptive" indicates that you know better than everybody else, and that you interpret a lack of consensus to do something as carte blanche to do it based on your own personal beliefs. I shouldn't have to tell you that you've assumed that all reasonable people agree with you, or that anyone who has experience with mental illness would agree, which is not only a logical fallacy but factually incorrect and therefore patronizing, as is the corresponding inference that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and unreasonable. Your actions are disruptive, and need to stop. P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]