User talk:Utopes
This is Utopes's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).
- Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.
- The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351
- The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
- The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.
- WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!
May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award
[edit]
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | ||
This award is given in recognition to Utopes for accumulating at least 100 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 8 June 2024
[edit]- Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade
- Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor
- In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say
- News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024
- Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth
- Featured content: We didn't start the wiki
- Essay: No queerphobia
- Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!
- Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer
- Comix: The Wikipediholic Family
- Concept: Palimpsestuous
First Time Publishing - Help Needed
[edit]Hi Utopes,
thank you for your comments on my first article. I wanted to ask for your help concerning the notability of the subject: most of the articles were never digitized but are from sources that have their own Wikipedia sites (it’s a well known guitar player that is referred to as legend in many guitar or music magazines such as Relix Magazine, Guitar Player, Guitar Techniques, Guitar World, Downbeat, Premier Guitar, Guitarist, Vintage Guitar, etc., and international magazines (Japan, Thailand, etc.)). I have over 80 official magazines with articles, interviews, lessons, and such (and not only mentions) spanning almost 20 years. Could you tell me how can I include these since they’re not online, please?
Also, the subject has recorded or played live with many A-list celebrities and already has a Wiki-page in German.
Thank you immensely for your guidance. All the best. Ivhutt (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:15th-century Christian biblical scholars
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:15th-century Christian biblical scholars indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
VC-7 Squadron
[edit]Thank you for you communication about the VC-7 Squadron. I would like to make the case that the VC-7 squadron is worthy of an article separate from RVAH-7. I have read the RVAH article and the first thing I realized was that unlike VC-7, the mission of RVAH-7 was photo reconnaissance. I think that suggests a strong distinction between the squadrons. VC-7 and the other VC squadrons were created to keep the Navy relevant in the atomic age by proving that planes carrying nuclear weapons could be launched from and returned to carriers. This mission is very different from the stated role of RVAH-7. Though in Navy records the squadrons share a lineage, I believe the distinct missions of the squadrons suggest they should be distinguished from each other. Would a cross reference be appropriate? Schbrown (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
WikiCup 2024 July newsletter
[edit]The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.
The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:
Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.
The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 July 2024
[edit]- News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates
- Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board
- In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators
- Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna
- In the media: War and information in war and politics
- Sister projects: On editing Wikisource
- Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion
- Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos
- Humour: A joke
- Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps
- Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play
Administrators' newsletter – July 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
- Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
- The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more
Review timings
[edit]I have been working on an article for months. When I first published, you looked it over and offered advice. I worked hard on the suggestions, publishing changes the next day. A different editor looked at it, stated reasons for unacceptance so I went back to work. I resubmitted a few days later and a third, new reviewer looked at it with more suggestions. I complied with all the suggestions and submitted a much corrected article. I have heard nothing since! Why would three different people look something over and then when it's all corrected, no one looks at it? I am just curious about that timing. I appreciate all you do to help new people like me. Beingherenow2 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 July 2024
[edit]- Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
- News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification
- Obituary: JamesR
- Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword
Hope you're well!
[edit]Haven't seen you in a bit. Your absence is felt, I hope you'll well and that it's for all the right reasons! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).
- Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
- Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
- The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
[edit]- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
Hi, I received feedback that the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simplicissimus_(YouTube_Channel) is not notable and cites Youtube as a source, however:
the article itself already exists on Wikipedia in German, meaning it has a precedent for being notable: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicissimus_(YouTube-Kanal)
and the YouTube citation is not of any facts but rather to quote that channel's own biography. Note;
Wikipedia draft: "Simplicissimus was created on 12 April 2015 under the name Simplicissimus 2.0, after the German satirical magazine Simplicissimus which ran from 1896 to 1967"
Citation: https://www.youtube.com/@Simplicissimus
Content: "Wir machen Essays zu Fragen, die du dir noch nie, oder viel zu oft gestellt hast. Simplicissimus = Anlehnung an die Satirezeitschrift" (we make essays on questions that you've never asked yourself or have asked yourself too often. Simplicissimus = Reference to the satire magazine)
There is a precedent for this on the original German wikipedia article: citations 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are all of Youtube links for similar reasons; to provide proof of existence, etc.
Do you mind explaining what I can do to show evidence of notability, and how the citation of Youtube in this case differs with the original article?