Vestigium Leonis

Welcome!

Hello, Vestigium Leonis, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Aaron Liu (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Velma

Since my topic was closed because an extremist (YoungForever) felt they are wikipedia, I would like to ask if the topic can be reopened or if I can remake it as the topic is valid. I had nothing to do with whatever argument took place before my comment about the person above likely feeling disenfranchised. Instead of YoungForever feeling like they need to respond, they simply said personal attack (nothing personal about stating the leanings of wikipedia, unless she is wikipedia) and had you close the discussion.

Why do I say extremist? There is not a single democracy in the world that does not place restrictions on abortion. Not a single one. YoungForever believes there should be no restrictions. She[their wiki page says she otherwise I'd have used they] says she supports an extremist ideology of no restrictions.

Thank you for your time. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:8863:BAE1:B4CF:3E7E (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I would suggest to use YoungForever's talk page if you feel the need to discuss this further. If you have anything constructive to add to the Velma article, just add a new topic. But please do not use it as a forum but add in content that you would like to see together with sources that you consider as reliable. If you want to add something to the other article (Woman King), please open a new topic on the respective page and do the same regarding content and sources. I usually go and check WP:RSP if they are reliable. This would also be a good place to look for if you feel like that a source is treated in an unfair manner. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hogwarts Legacy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hogwarts Legacy 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of The Night Watch -- The Night Watch (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hogwarts Legacy

The article Hogwarts Legacy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hogwarts Legacy for comments about the article, and Talk:Hogwarts Legacy/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of The Night Watch -- The Night Watch (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harry Potter: Quidditch Champions has been accepted

Harry Potter: Quidditch Champions, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Anarchyte (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

re: Variety Leak on Harry Potter: Magic Awakened

Hi there, Vestigium Leonis. I just noticed the information you added regarding a leak of the videogame, but I'm a bit skeptical about adding this information into the draft article. It appears the article is actually referencing Hogwarts Legacy judging by the description and images. I think the leak may have mixed up the names of two separate videogames. Thoughts? Skipple ☎ 14:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yeah you are probably right. I just saw that Variety had another article with more information and screenshots (here). The shots seem like an early Hogwarts Legacy version and do not look like Magic Awakened's style at all, so I remove the source again. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I went down the same path as you when looking for RSes for that article. :) Skipple ☎ 14:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There is not much available as of now, most likely due to the China-only release. I was able to dig up some additional stuff though. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Hogwarts Legacy

On 13 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hogwarts Legacy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the early-access period of Hogwarts Legacy, the game set a new record on Twitch with the largest number of concurrent viewers for a single-player game in history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hogwarts Legacy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hogwarts Legacy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harry Potter: Magic Awakened (May 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Harry Potter: Magic Awakened and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not see the sources as trivial at all, and given how many crappy stubs are still live on Wikipedia this is in a way better situation now to get live and more visible for others to participate on editing. All of these sources are listed as reliable either on WP:VG/S or WP:RSP except for the source of Lianhe Zaobao. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not meant to be that overly blunt about it or to belittle your editing. What I meant was that any secondary sources were trivial in nature. All the non-trivial coverage is of the primary source variety, rather than being one step removed. For example, this source is a pure announcement taken from a press-release sent to the website. They must contain analysis of the game, i.e. previews or reviews, to qualify as secondary sources. Hopefully that explains my reasoning. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I also think that it's probable the game will become notable eventually, but it will require it to get closer to or past the actual release date in order to accumulate full previews/reviews. That is what I mean by TOOSOON. There are some games which journalists put their impressions of far before they are actually released, but this doesn't appear to be such a game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. As there is nothing more to add right now, I am fine with keeping it on hold. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I should add that there may be Chinese reviews I am missing, but I can't read the language or find them easily. They are admissible on English Wikipedia if they do exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no experience with that either. That was one of the reasons to move it to main space, to get more attention on it, and maybe catch someone with better knowledge on chinese reviews. But yeah, a couple of months of holding it won't change much I guess. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Forbes CON

I think you might be misunderstanding WP:FORBESCON it is a somewhat confusing policy that hasn't aged well. That was written at a time when Forbes had main writers and bloggers and there were a flood of low quality articles being used as references. Senior Contributors such as Tassi and other regula contributors or subject matter experts were never intended to be blocked by that policy, it was the no name bloggers being syndicated by Forbes for quantity that policy was intended to block. (They also used to be very clearly delineated into a blogs.forbes.com subdomain.)

Please consider carefully if removing opinions from critics from sources such as Tassi really is an action that makes this encyclopedia better. -- 109.79.168.48 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence states "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable." I do not think it can be any clearer that we should avoid these contributor sources, or not? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The wording is more forceful than I remember it being (the guidelines may have been rewritten) and Paul Tassi is a jackass with some weird takes but IGN and others are also jackasses. He's far from the worst critic out there and he is actually a regular contributor to Forbes not some blow-in. Tassi has some weird takes even then they're just opinion or him repeating facts reported elsewhere. The intent when that policy was first written was quite different. I encourage you to not delete on sight but instead to try and replace with better sources. -- 109.79.168.48 (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I am just following the rules to avoid doing work for nothing. I do not have a problem with well researched contributor pieces honestly, but the consensus disagrees. You are right about that one sentence though, I should have at least only added a better source needed tag or something. Was a bit rushed. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)