User talk:Tomica/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

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)

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)

Reverting a deletion request

Hi. Why did you revert my deletion request for this article? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The article Physical (Dua Lipa song) should be deleted

Hi. I don't find any results for the article Physical (Dua Lipa song) on English Wikipedia when trying to search for it on Google, which means that this article failed to gain popularity outside Wikipedia. I therefore wants this article to be deleted. Please discuss the deletion here. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Dua Lipa Case

Lipa's case had a media impact, I can cite many more sources to demonstrate it. Why was it necessary to add the information? If you read the article in the "activism" section, the artist has maintained a feminist idea throughout her career, and the controversial strip club case contradicts everything she has supported throughout her career (feminism) and that is why the matter had merit of textual presence in the article. I insist, I can add many more news sources, it was not a magazine issue. Alexismata7 (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, it got coverage. The coverage was Dua went to a strip club, fans are not happy about it. That was it! This is an encyclopedia, here we discuss relevant things. That seems like a story from a plain gossip magazine. Plus you are citing what some random Twitter users said? No, no, that is not how things are working here. Plus, your opinion is biased. If something doesn't seem feminist to you, it doesn't mean it is not. It's a huge fluff. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The news was relevant to the singer's environment, I am not interested in adding gossip issues, I just like to add important information. I never said what it was that seemed feminist to me or not, I only put the point of view of the two parts, it was a topic that generated criticism on social networks, and as you know social networks are another world with people. The tweets I quoted are provided by the own source (The Independent). Later the singer defended herself from criticism, expressing her point of view on the matter. I ask you to reconsider this, I have references from The Guardian, CNN, The Independent and BBC. Alexismata7 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you got your sources from but it's more if is the information they are presenting important for an encyclopedia content. Do we add everything that those sources write on Wikipedia? No! Why? Because not everything matters or is an encyclopedia content. Just like this "scandal". Plus, again, whatever tweets those sources cited, it doesn't mean we are using them here. And no, I am not re-considering this. It's clear as day. — Tom^(T2ME) 21:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, the matter altered the public image of the artist because she has declared herself a feminist throughout her career and that is why she generated criticism, she even had a hashtag on Twitter that was notable on social networks. You are wrong, it does matter where I get the sources from and what those sources are because the relevance of the information is demonstrated by the provision of reliable sources. It is not so clear, because you are imposing your opinion but I am abiding by what a rule of the English wikipedia itself says: "Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed." The text here The relevance of content is not defined by you or me, it says it the own encyclopedia. Alexismata7 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Tomica: It also seems to me a scandal, but I remain in my position to add such information because it is relevant for the reasons that I already explained to you and because the encyclopedia says so. So what happens to that information and why don't you agree? (even though this encyclopedia claims that the information is valid). Alexismata7 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Having a hashtag on Twitter makes things relevant to Wikipedia? Maybe, if it's a movement like #MeToo or something relevant for this world. Dua and her friends going to a strip club and throwing $$$ at strippers is certainly not. Also, Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Exactly your answer! Did Dua's career decline? Did her last album flop? Was she dropped by her label or sabotaged by major feminist groups? NO! There you go. I suggest you read WP:TABLOID for further information on what's relevant and what's not. — Tom^(T2ME) 22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to give my opinion but I think you won't mind. I am a very fan of Dua, for me the event is relevant because she has promoted a feminist idea throughout her career, in addition to the fact that there is a section in her article that expresses it. The subject would not be relevant if she were not a feminism activist. It's curiously that you name #MeToo because that was viral on social network, and it's a hashtag. I only complied with what the encyclopedia norm said, and I agree with you that the event is not important, but I think that in the case of Lipa it really was it... due to her feminist behavior that was questioned (a fact that the sources indicated). I will not continue discussing the matter, you have much more time than me here and I think that there is no remedy. Thanks for your time. Alexismata7 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Again Dua Lipa

How many paragraphs I should add for that your own opinion to say she is a model and fashion designer? We must guide us by your consideration or what do reliable sources say? I don't want to take this any further. That information has been there too long, and you realized it now ... It's incredible. Alexismata7 (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. How's Dua Lipa known for being a model or a fashion designer? Has she modeled for Victoria's Secret? Or has her own creative house? Just because she struck a deal or two with a brand and promoted it doesn't mean she is a fashion designer/ model. Dua is known for having a great voice, songs, and co-writing her songs... hence Dua Lipa is a singer and songwriter (at least for now). It doesn't matter how long it has been there, the question is whether it was supposed to be there in the first place? — Tom^(T2ME) 20:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I accept that you remove the "fashion designer", but the "model" is undeniable. Several Wikipedia languages ​​also say so. In her musical beginnings she modeled and then signed for the record label, later she continued modeling and has been the protagonist of covers of major magazines. I leave this references for example: [1] [2] So, she's not recognized for it from the media point of view .. but and from the conceptual point of view? Alexismata7 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Every pop star does covers for famous magazines, which are notable (for the month), but not for including them on Wikipedia and try to connect them as part of a certain career of that person. Lipa might have modeled, but again, the first sentence is always about what she is famous for? When you say Dua Lipa to people, do they consider her a model? No, they know her as a singer. It's enough that some of that information is already included in the body of the article. There is no need to include it in the lead sentence. — Tom^(T2ME) 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And so?. Isn't modeling posing for a photograph now? I really do not understand. The matter of the "Fashion" section is that she was model for magazine editorials, your edition removed all modeling. There are interviews without photos and editorials where the artists model for the image of the magazine publication. What does modeling mean to you? Really this is hard. Alexismata7 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It is hard for me to explain to you that Dua is not considered a model too. Kendal Jenner is a model, Gigi Hadid is a model as well. People who work as models on the regular are models. Dua is a singer. Yeah, she did several covers, but that's not modeling. Plus, I explained to you several times now, the first sentence should be about the person's main profession (what is most known for) and it's a fact that Dua is not known for modeling, but for singing and songwriting. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're playing with me. That she is a model has been in the article since its creation in January 2016[3] and you come to tell me that no user could see that she was never recognized as a "model" 4 years later. Does it mean that if I had never edited the article you would not have noticed?-- I do not think so.

If she not is a model, why she is in a page of models like Models.com?- -That's is other question. A lot of languages on Wikipedia recognized her as a model too, this is the only article that I was seen on the encyclopedia that not has that detail for her. I have two references as example: [4] [5]

It is incredible that (after 4 years) a user comes and says "No, she is not a model now." It does not seem correct to me, and less when you belong to the WikiProject Dua Lipa since February 2019 (membership that would cause you to improve or correct article details) and you did not realize that she was not a model? - It definitely has to be a bad joke.

In the event that you say that in 4 years the information changes and the article is corrected: said information that says that she is a model was also placed since November 5, 2019 [6] So, are you going to tell me that no member of the project or any user did not notice the detail 7 months later like you?[7] – Alexismata7 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

So, what if no one noticed this far? Is that a problem, that I noticed after 4 years? If it is such a huge deal, then put it as a discussion on the talk page of the article and see if we find a consensus to recognize her as a model in the first sentence. I personally, am against it and it seems everybody else, since no one reverted me, or opened a discussion about it with me except you. — Tom^(T2ME) 17:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I am sorry if I am being arrogant and pushy. I appreciate the time you have invested in the artist, in the Spanish Wikipedia community (where I really am from) there are no people dedicated to this specific singer because perhaps the artist has not yet caught the attention of the editors in Hispanic America or Spain. I tell you in advance that I am a person who likes to do things well, and if I am insistent today or in the future I ask you to be patient to me. I insist on this matter because we have the power of information for the people by pressing "edit". Although Wikipedia is not considered a primary source itself, it really is for the globe. So I ask you to think about it just for a moment, that said fact of which I complain is placed since the article was created in 2016. I am here to help us, this is a collaboration. I personally think that some user sees that you change something in the Dua Lipa article and then enter in your profile and see all the time you have and the obvious experience that gives you respect, maybe you contradict me because I am new and it, is so or not I understand you ... a user who has been registered for a month with a blank user page probably gives a feeling that he does not know or is wrong (I am not saying that this is the case but it can happen). I do not think it is necessary to make a consensus and ask other users for time in a minor detail, when in fact we can solve it ourselves. I am surprised that you have corrected me here and have not realized that the word "model" should not be in the introduction, your last edition in the article before me was on 21 December 2019[8] and in that moment the word "model" was there under your sight... For that I say that you want to impose your opinion because when you saw that I put the section "Fashion"[9] then you deleted part of the section's content[10] just to make it would seem right to have deleted the word "model" from the introduction[11]. In response to your comment where you gave credit to what people think to define the introduction[12].= No user on Wikipedia should take into account what people think as a factor to define details or information of an article, I know thousands of people on social networks who when you ask about Lipa tell you that she is "the best singer of actuality" but that is not indicated by any source ... should I put that?.

You are wrong when you argue that celebrities do not model for magazines[13]. They are included in a story because obviously the magazine does an interview to them (in the Lipa's case because she's a singer), there is even editorial modeling (which you deleted in the "Fashion" section). According to the international agency "Model Management" Editorial modeling is a type of modeling[14] in the fashion industry and other sources indicate the same [15] [16]. Therefore it has encyclopedic relevance, in addition to that, that type of modeling is paid, so I solicite you to revert the edition where you deleted the content of the "Fashion" section.

References as example:

• Dua Lipa model for Elle cover magazine two times:

- 2019: [17] [18]

- 2020: [19]

• Dua Lipa starred a editorial of the brand of Stella McCartney in 2016.

- [20] [21]

• Lipa starred a editorial of British Vogue called "Youth Quake" in 2019.

- [22] [23] --

Editorial modeling is what is done for fashion magazines like, Lipa had already gained experience when she modeled for an internet catalog when she was young ... it's just a matter of researching.[24] Also had gained it throughout her carrer starring magazine covers and editorials.

Lipa is not a supermodel but I give you the example of Gisele Bündchen (a good article). The apparitions of Gisele in cover magazines and editorials appears in her Wikipedia article but you deleting that Dua appears in editorials... I don't understand it absolutely. You know why? = Here says that Gisele appeared in 3500 magazine editorials, but Lipa can't have that information according to you.[25]

Definitely, Dua Lipa is a model, at first you may have only known her as a singer but her presence in the fashion industry is evident because she has appeared on several magazine covers throughout her career and she has had clients in said industry.[26] [27]

I will wait for a response or I will have to restore the encyclopedic content that you deleted.

-- Alexismata7 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

S&M Remix writing credits

Excuse me, why exactly did you remove Britney Spears's name from the infobox regarding to songwriting credits of S&M Remix? It has been confirmed by Rolling Stone that she wrote the second verse on the remix. The verse literally wasn't on the original version of S&M. You're welcome to listen to both versions if you don't believe me.

P.S. I just want an answer to why you think she DIDN'T write the second verse in which she sang exclusively and which didn't bl**dy exist in the original S&M.

YouDriveMeCrazy1999 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if she co-wrote the second verse, she was not credited on the official remix when it came out. Okay? So yes, we are not including her name. Oh, and also, thanks for calling me shit on your previous post. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not my fault Jive and RCA Records did her and still do her dirty. They literally don't sometimes put her credits in songs she's clearly at least co-written. For example, she co-wrote the song I'm so Curious, which is the B-Side of Sometimes, published in 1999. It's not credited on Spotify for some reason. I'm sorry I called you that name, I was quite frustrated then. Even if you don't agree with me, I hope you'll have a good day. — YouDriveMeCrazy1999 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)