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]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue X, October 2021 Headlines Australia report: Open access as Australia reopens Belgium report: Wikimedia Belgium GLAM report October 2021 Estonia report: Wikipedia Art Month + Heritage Days Italy report: Collaborations and partnership Netherlands report: How Wikipedia helped to create a Serbian stamp; Many GLAM-related presentations planned at WikiconNL New Zealand report: Outreach by members of the Aotearoa New Zealand Wikimedia User Group Nigeria report: Wikidata for Libraries and notable Librarians in Nigeria Serbia report: A good start to GLAM Fall Spain report: Women Writers Month Sweden report: The Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk; More museum data on Wikidata; LGBT edit-a-thon; Local business history in Nyköping; Stockholm City Museum ♥ Wikipedia; Writing about fashion at Nordiska museet UK report: British Library and Khalili Collections USA report: Wikiconference North America + Workshops Content Partnerships Hub report: Needs assessment interviews; Cultural heritage on Wikidata – thousands of monuments in Norway; Structured Data uploads continue Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: A Wikimedia Commons Reconciliation Service, You Say? WMF GLAM report: GLAM office hours, GLAM newsletter moving to Meta-wiki, and more Calendar: November's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue XI, November 2021 Headlines From the team: Migration from Outreach to Meta: your opinion is needed France report: Study day on open content; Open content GLAM report India report: Second proofread competition ended on Bengali Wikisource in collaboration with the British Library Italy report: Traing course and conference in November Serbia report: GLAMorous November Sweden report: Art, design and history from the museums of Göteborg; Maps in the National Archives of Sweden UK report: Khalili Collections Ukraine report: Aricle contest for librarians «Local cultural heritage and prominent people» USA report: Smithsonian demos new Wiki API Connector tool and other meetups Content Partnerships Hub report: We continue building for the hub; SDC for fun and profit: detecting bad coordinates; Needs assessment – video recorded interviews; Improving ISA WMF GLAM report: Wikisource birthday celebration, Community Tech Wishlist, and upcoming conversation about courses for GLAM professionals Calendar: December's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

		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]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 19 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]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue XII, December 2021 Headlines Australia report: Writing The Record: the Australian Music Wikipedia project launches Colombia report: We were editing about Bogotan writers Croatia report: Ab ovo. Towards future reports... New Zealand report: The New Zealand Wikidata thesis project Poland report: Safeguarding the heritage of a community Sweden report: Commons project with Göteborg museums was a success; Digital humaniora meets Wikidata; HBTQI, Europeana and WiR UK report: 2021 in Review USA report: Smithsonian Institution Training Content Partnerships Hub report: Adding more Structured Data on Commons statements WMF GLAM report: Some structured data developments Calendar: January's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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]