User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Toa Nidhiki05. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Your GA nomination of 2015 Camellia Bowl
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Camellia Bowl you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2015 Camellia Bowl
The article 2015 Camellia Bowl you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2015 Camellia Bowl for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2015 Camellia Bowl
The article 2015 Camellia Bowl you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:2015 Camellia Bowl for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
WT:MOSFILM
Hello, regarding WT:MOSFILM, can you please assume good faith? There is no need to call the editor's post a rant. You can disagree and say you feel like film articles do a good job covering the plot in brief. You could also ask for examples of where they've seen the lead section lacking the plot. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
DYK for 2015 Camellia Bowl
On 13 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2015 Camellia Bowl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the champions of the 2015 Camellia Bowl, the Appalachian State Mountaineers, became the first team to win a college bowl game in their first year of eligibility? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Camellia Bowl. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2015 Camellia Bowl), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Don't revert that discussion
It needs to stay deleted Robert-M-Gervais (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- This user clearly doesn't understand the Streisand effect. Posting in multiple places where several users keep watch only brings more attention to you. Sigh... –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Robert-M-Gervais, the portions that violated policy are gone. However, as others have warned you, you can’t just wipe talk pages of stuff you dislike. You’re actually achieving the opposite of what you want here Toa Nidhiki05 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Huey Long edits
I have added and fixed this Huey Long page and my edits have been constantly been undoed by you. I wish to address this issue. I am 100% also willing to cooperate with you to make compromises and i want to know your argument as well to take into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian Stud (talk • contribs) 03:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.- The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D,
Kingsif, 
Enwebb, 
Lee Vilenski and 
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 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.
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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 March 2020
- From the editor: The ball is in your court
- News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide
- Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews
- Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?
- Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed
- Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman
- In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019
- From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?
- Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark
- Gallery: Feel the love
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Opinion: Wikipedia is another country
- Humour: The Wilhelm scream
Sorry for bothering you, but...
- New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
- New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
- Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
- If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 
L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Help with Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones consensus
@Toa Nidhiki05: Hi, I pinged you on the talk page for Attack of the Clones a few days ago requesting assistance on how the reception consensus should be worded, but wasn't sure if you'd received it as I never got a response back. I apologise if you've been preoccupied with other more pressing queries. Thanks. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 March 2020
- From the editors: The bad and the good
- News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report
- Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters
- In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story
- Discussion report: Rethinking draft space
- Arbitration report: Unfinished business
- In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"
- Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19
- From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own
- Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world
- Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
"Please stop citing to parties themselves and op-Ed’s. Opinion pieces aren’t sources of fact"
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so I'm probably in the wrong here. However, I'm confused as to why citing opinion pieces in certain contexts isn't allowed. There's obvious cases where they wouldn't be allowed, but in this context the pieces are being cited to prove the ideology of the party. When the party is described as, say for example, "progressive", in the opinion piece, that's what's being cited. The opinion piece may also have certain factual statements, which in this context is obviously the important citation. What am I missing here? As a side note, WP:PRIMARY says that primary sources (in this context citing the actual party websites) should only should be used when nothing is being interpreted, but rather the statements being cited are directly given. So, in this context, primary sources should be okay when a secondary or tertiary source can't be found. If a party declares itself as a progressive party, that's evidence enough, right? Once again, I'm sure I'm missing something, I'm just asking for clarification. Thanks! SebastianTalk | Contrib. - 04:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:OPINION. Scholarly sources or actual news articles are preferred. Allowing a party to label itself presents a conflict of interest of sorts in my view, especially when most of these parties are only on the fringes of notability. If there's actual media coverage of them, that should be used instead. Toa Nidhiki05 18:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The article is up for deletion again, thought you'd want to know.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2020
- News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?
- In the media: Coronavirus, again and again
- Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit
- Featured content: Featured content returns
- Arbitration report: Two difficult cases
- Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night
- Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias
- Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors
WikiCup 2020 May newsletter
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
- Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
- Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews- Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
- Lee Vilenski with 869 points,
Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, 
SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 
MX with 515.
The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Bionicle: Quest for Mata Nui
On 20 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bionicle: Quest for Mata Nui, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the in-development fangame Bionicle: Quest for Mata Nui was praised for having better animation than the direct-to-video Bionicle films? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bionicle: Quest for Mata Nui. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bionicle: Quest for Mata Nui), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Bionicle: Quest for Mata Nui
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
One of the edits you've made to the Bionicle: Quest for Mata Nui article recently has reintroduced various errors into the text. The errors in question are a typo in the "Combat trailer" reference; typo in the link to the 3D modeling article; italicization of the Lego Universe link; and capitalization in the link to the YouTube channel. Some of these issues I've fixed various times[1][2], but you have continued to revert them. It so appears that you've violated the three-revert rule by reverting content six times in the past 24 hours. It also looks like you're simply copy-and-pasting content from an older revision back over content in newer revisions of the article, leading to these issues. Please be aware that all of these persistent actions are indicative of ownership behavior.
In addition, you have also used invalid edit summaries to remove various additions to articles, such as:
- "...open world isn't a genre, per other pages"[3]
- In my very first edit to this article, the game was already described as an "open world" game.[4] In fact, you didn't remove any instances of "open world" from the lede or remainder of the article during your revert. Many other articles also utilize "open world ... game" as adjective phrases in the lede, a short list being: Grand Theft Auto clone; Crazy Taxi (video game); Borderlands (video game); The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind; and Mafia (series). In fact, there is an entire category dedicated to this denotation, located at Category:Open world video games.
- "Not sourced"[5][6]
- Most of the content that was unsourced was located in the lede. You previously reverted two of my edits on the basis that "...Citations shouldn't go in the lede..."[7] and "...citations and references should not go in the lead"[8]. I am assuming this is in accordance with the guideline on when not to cite. Your clear understanding and adherence to this guideline shows you are aware that most of the content you flagged as uncited is not meant to be cited in the first place. In addition, the video source you added in this revision, titled "Multiplayer" and located here actually indicates that the information you removed was correct as well. At the 2:37 mark in the video, it can clearly be seen that the developer said "we have decided to for now remove this feature [multiplayer] from the game", which corresponds to the removal of "multiplayer game" from the infobox. At the 8:00 mark in the video, it can be seen that the developer responded affirmatively to whether the game was or was not a Starcraft II mod; this corresponds to the same information you removed. At the 5:12 mark in the video, it can be seen that the developer said that owning StarCraft II would be a requirement for playing the game; this also corresponds to the same information you removed.
In addition, there was a third revert towards this set of edits in which your edit summary was simply "Stop". It's very clear what you wanted to be stopped, but as previously evidenced, your reasons why just don't hold up. It's clear this is an extension of the ownership behavior previously detailed.
- Most of the content that was unsourced was located in the lede. You previously reverted two of my edits on the basis that "...Citations shouldn't go in the lede..."[7] and "...citations and references should not go in the lead"[8]. I am assuming this is in accordance with the guideline on when not to cite. Your clear understanding and adherence to this guideline shows you are aware that most of the content you flagged as uncited is not meant to be cited in the first place. In addition, the video source you added in this revision, titled "Multiplayer" and located here actually indicates that the information you removed was correct as well. At the 2:37 mark in the video, it can clearly be seen that the developer said "we have decided to for now remove this feature [multiplayer] from the game", which corresponds to the removal of "multiplayer game" from the infobox. At the 8:00 mark in the video, it can be seen that the developer responded affirmatively to whether the game was or was not a Starcraft II mod; this corresponds to the same information you removed. At the 5:12 mark in the video, it can be seen that the developer said that owning StarCraft II would be a requirement for playing the game; this also corresponds to the same information you removed.
I am asking you, please, to stop these behaviors, for the benefit of the article which you seem to care so much about. --ElKabong888 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Gorski and Sharyl Attkisson
Hi! I'm a bit lost on what to do regarding Gorski. My understanding was that we can;t use his articles in Respectful Insolence, as they are self published, amongst other issues, but we can use his publications in Science Based Medicine. So my intent was to replace the criticism from Gorski in Respectful Insolence with criticism from Gorski in Science Based Medicine, in the hope taht that would retain teh criticism but get rid of the problem. Is there a better solution? - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your understanding is wrong. Gorski is an eminently reliable source and his response to Attkisson is important. If it’s not there, her claim should be removed. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps this will need to go through RSN. On some articles I'm being told we can't use Respectful Insolence and it is being deleted, and here I'm being told that we must. I'm not horribly worried either way, but maybe we need some sort of consensus to work out a consistant approach. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2020
- From the editor: Meltdown May?
- News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
- Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct
- Featured content: Weathering the storm
- Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction
- Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam
- Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book
- News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement
- Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
- Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime
- WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles
- On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia
Please see my comments for this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Invitation to RedWarn
Hello, Toa Nidhiki05! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
- Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
- Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.
- Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
- Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.
- Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.
- Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.
- Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!
- and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.
RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 20:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
DYK for All Star (song)
On 11 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article All Star (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a June 2015 performance of the 1999 Smash Mouth song "All Star" went awry when audience members began throwing loaves of bread onto the stage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/All Star (song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, All Star (song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Your GA nomination of All Star (song)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article All Star (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of All Star (song)
The article All Star (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:All Star (song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 June 2020
- News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine
- Community view: Community open letter on renaming
- Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd
- In the media: Part collaboration and part combat
- Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals
- Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow
- Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation
- Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths
- News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice
- Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking
- Humour: Cherchez une femme
- On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter
Your GA nomination of All Star (song)
The article All Star (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:All Star (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
- The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
- Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.
Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 
MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Laden VS USA
I don't see the game on the page you reverted my edit on. You said it was already listed. The Lord of Falafel (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- My bad, wrong link. It's still not worthing listing though. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey
I strongly object to this revert ([9]), and I wanted to let you know, as we may want to start this discussion. When I have more time, I will post on the talk page, and if it becomes warranted, I would even be happy to start an RfC. My edit, I believe, would add to precision and balance, and is the more accurate reflection of reliable sources on the topic.
You said that the edit minimizes the left, but I find this claim to be baffling. Ending the sentence at "centrists, liberals, and progressives" would have been sufficient, but the emphasis on "left-wing or socialist movements" is unjustifiable, at least not without a similar mention of the conservative faction, which undoubtedly holds more influence in the party than any socialists. As an example, please remember that there are 26 Blue Dogs in the House, but only 2 DSA members.
Looking forward to working with you. RedHotPear (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is objectively incorrect. The left-wing Progressive Caucus has over 90 members - 3x as much as the Blue Dogs. Toa Nidhiki05 12:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- The characterization of the CPC as strictly left-wing is dubious in itself, but we can put that aside. More than any other descriptor, CPC members are and identify as progressive, and progressives are noted within "centrists, liberals, and progressives." The number of CPC members who identify as socialist is in the single digits, far less substantial than Blue Dogs (e.g., two DSA members). To emphasize "more left-wing or socialist movements" using the CPC as evidence, in addition to the "progressives" already mentioned, is, in my opinion, deeply mistaken. Such an emphasis would be redundant and/or WP:UNDUE, particularly without a parallel reference to the more significant conservative faction.
- Let me know what you think. RedHotPear (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to argue that about the CPC, it’s worth noting the Blue Dogs aren’t nearly as conservative as they used to be, either. Toa Nidhiki05 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely, the Blue Dogs are not nearly as conservative as they used to be, but my point stands. Given the "centrists, liberals, and progressives" framing, the conservative faction (such as the Blue Dogs) may roughly fall into the "centrists," while the handful of socialists would fall into the "progressives" (e.g., both DSA members are in the CPC). What is undue is to further highlight the socialists without also mentioning the conservatives, when the conservative wing is more sizeable. I can settle for neither (i.e., just "centrists, liberals, and progressives") or both (e.g., my edit), but the "just socialists" version you reverted to is a skewed presentation. RedHotPear (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to argue that about the CPC, it’s worth noting the Blue Dogs aren’t nearly as conservative as they used to be, either. Toa Nidhiki05 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 August 2020
- Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?
- COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
- News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin
- In the media: Dog days gone bad
- Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
- Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom
- Traffic report: Now for something completely different
- News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users
- Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil
Disambiguation link notification for August 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Super Paper Mario, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Sharyl Attkisson CBS relevance
Forgive me if this is not who this should be directed to. However, if it is, the relevance is that the head of the organization (David Rhodes) she accuses of bias towards the Obama administration has a brother (Ben Rhodes) who was the deputy NSA under President Obama. The first line in my source states: "Ben Rhodes is the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes.” If CBS News is posting that in an unrelated story, I think it is relevant even more about an accusation of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreap3421 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I have requested a dispute resolution regarding the Sharyl Attkisson page. Thank you.Dreap3421 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2020
- News and notes: The high road and the low road
- In the media: Storytelling large and small
- Featured content: Going for the goal
- Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way
- Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax
- Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics
- News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online
- Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles
- Arbitration report: A slow couple of months
- From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;- Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
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 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
RE:EGM scans
Sure thing! Here are the pages:
The three reviewers are Bryan Intihar, Patrick Mauro and Chris Baker. Issue number 182, pages 94–96. Hope it helps! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so much - this will be incredibly helpful! Toa Nidhiki05 20:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Almost There (album) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Almost There (album) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 14 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 14, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this the article "the first album Christian rock band MercyMe released after signing to INO Records. The album was praised by critics and did well in sales almost exclusively off the success of “I Can Only Imagine”, which was a Christian radio hit in 2002 and then inexplicably crossed over to mainstream radio in 2003. It’s been certified 3x Platinum (3,000,000 in sales) as of 2019, making it one of the best-selling Christian albums ever, and “I Can Only Imagine” received that certification as well, making it the best-selling Christian song ever."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 |
Every once in a while, I have a TFA as well, happy that it was also a tribute to Brian, in great collaboration, fine Main page, and see also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Re: Super Paper Mario
Hey Toa!
You recently reverted a minor edit I made to the Super Paper Mario article. You're absolutely right that it's not explicitly stated that these figures appearing in the post-credits scene are Blumiere and Timpani. But all that my edit achieved was adding spaces between the words "man" and "woman" and the characters' names. With spaces, the wording implies that these figures are Blumiere and Timpani; without spaces, the wording implies that these figures are Blumiere and Timpani and is grammatically incorrect. So my edit was essentially a positive change to the sentence's grammar and a completely neutral change -- no change at all -- to its meaning. So I think an even better edit would be something like this:
In a post-credits scene, a man and woman (who seem/appear/are suggested to be Blumiere and Timpani) stand on a grassy hill.
Thoughts? Thanks for your time! --Danberbro (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that. Someone must have snuck the edit in there - I had assumed you added it. I’ve gone ahead and removed the claim entirely given it’s ambiguous. Obviously it’s hinted at, but generally interpreting works on Wikipedia in Wikipedia’s voice isn’t preferred Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 September 2020
- Special report: Paid editing with political connections
- News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki
- In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
- Featured content: Life finds a Way
- Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests
- Traffic report: Is there no justice?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases
The Signpost: 27 September 2020
- Special report: Paid editing with political connections
- News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki
- In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
- Featured content: Life finds a Way
- Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests
- Traffic report: Is there no justice?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases
The Signpost: 1 November 2020
- News and notes: Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
- In the media: Murder, politics, religion, health and books
- Book review: Review of Wikipedia @ 20
- Discussion report: Proposal to change board composition, In The News dumps Trump story
- Featured content: The "Green Terror" is neither green nor sufficiently terrifying. Worst Hallowe'en ever.
- Traffic report: Jump back, what's that sound?
- Interview: Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner
- News from the WMF: Meet the 2020 Wikimedian of the Year
- Recent research: OpenSym 2020: Deletions and gender, masses vs. elites, edit filters
- In focus: The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia
WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is 
Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. 
The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with 
Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were 
Hog Farm (submissions), 
HaEr48 (submissions), 
Harrias (submissions) and 
Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. 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 in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
- Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
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 2021 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Opinion
Hey Nidhiki! There's no real point to this question, just curious because I've been doing a lot of editing in Paper Mario: The Origami King. What did you think of it? Have you played it? Are you a TTYD fan? Le Panini (Talk tome?) 17:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's an excellent game! I had a blast with it. Great soundtrack, fun exploration, cool battle system - especially boss battles. Story was nice, too. Some twists and turns! Toa Nidhiki05 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. Just wondering because I've been improving the game's article, and you seem to be one of the top contributors there. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 23:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wrote most of the plot section. I think the edits are good so far - this is an article worth that, imo. Toa Nidhiki05 23:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. Just wondering because I've been improving the game's article, and you seem to be one of the top contributors there. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 23:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
The Signpost: 29 November 2020
- News and notes: Jimmy Wales "shouldn't be kicked out before he's ready"
- Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia
- Opinion: How billionaires re-write Wikipedia
- Featured content: Frontonia sp. is thankful for delicious cyanobacteria
- Traffic report: 007 with Borat, the Queen, and an election
- News from Wiki Education: An assignment that changed a life: Kasey Baker
- GLAM plus: West Coast New Zealand's Wikipedian at Large
- Wikicup report: Lee Vilenski wins the 2020 WikiCup
- Recent research: Wikipedia's Shoah coverage succeeds where libraries fail
- Essay: Writing about women
TFL notification
Hi, Toa Nidhiki05. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Billboard Christian Songs number ones of the 2000s – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 25. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh wow, very cool - and Christmas day at that! Everything checks out to me. Thanks so much for the notice, Giants2008 Toa Nidhiki05 04:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)