User talk:Sock/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sock. 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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

This archive covers all talk page posts in 2017.

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. 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 equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything 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 help 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, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Small Crimes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pat Healy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fictional antiheroes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laura Bailey. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Walking Dead title card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Walking Dead title card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanz

Please stop changing the songwriters on Humanz. Sample credits count as songwriters and it's a well-known fact that people like Noel Gallagher have written songs for the album and that Mavis Staples did not write "Let Me Out". Please stop changing the writing credits as they are all correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaniBoy139 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sputnik (website) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sputnik (website). Since you had some involvement with the Sputnik (website) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. f e minist 09:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Code unrendered

Hi Sock, please check your last edit in Robin Williams filmography there are some code bits left unrendered in the list, like [[Chris Columbus {{{last}}} (filmmaker)|Chris Columbus {{{last}}}]]. Can you please fix this? Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That's OK, I managed to figure out this name-sorting template and did the corrections myself. The were some missing bars between names and surnames. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 17:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

However, I see that Template:Sortname/doc is deprecated and we are supposed to use the data-sort-value method instead. Hoverfish Talk 17:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: My bad on that, thank you for the heads up and the help. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 21:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, 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. 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, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

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 Needed. 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 reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! 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 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Truman Show delusion

Please stop. This is not the world as it was 50 years ago, two brothers do not necessarily have the same last name anymore, for any number of reasons. Each is an individual person, and deserves to have their name listed individually. Years ago, it was the habit of publishers to credit books written by husbands and wives together as by "Jerry and Melinda Feinberg", but today they would almost invariably be listed as by "Jerry Feinberg and Melinda Feinberg". Same for fathers and daughters. Please respect the individuality of the individual, and list each name individually. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I'm not sure why you're being so rude about this straight off. You reverted with no explanation, which confused me, and is very much against how experienced editors tend to act. I asked for an explanation, you gave one, and I went to your talk page to discuss further so I could understand your viewpoint. I've been nothing but polite, and you're acting like I've never edited here before because I'm being courteous and trying to figure out your reasoning. You're saying it's to "respect the individuality of the individual", but I feel like that's reaching personally. I understood that you said they don't necessarily have the same last name, but in this case, they literally have the same last name. So that point is completely moot. I don't see anything in the MOS about this, and if there's some literary mention you can point to on why the format you describe as "invariable" is used, I'd appreciate it. I'm more than willing to let it go, it's not like it's the end of the world, but I'd like to understand why the phrasing is the way that it is. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 03:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't Assume

Don't assume the basis of what I did. I didn't even notice that. It was something else. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: I'm confused? I didn't "assume the basis" of what you did, I explained my edit in a revert and asked you to explain your reasoning for reverting. You said the edit was useless when it wasn't, so I reverted. I also reverted assuming good faith, not vandalism. I'm not sure what I did wrong here, but I assure you it wasn't intentional. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 01:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted [[Ninja Sex Party|Ninja Sex Party]]. That's what I saw. That was the useless and redundant edit I reverted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Unadjusted for inflation in Film Box Office

I noticed you edited Rogue One recently and queried the specificity of including 'unadjusted for inflation'. This criteria is explained in the article List of highest-grossing films. It is also a criteria shown on Box Office Mojo website; a source which is commonly used across all film articles. I would argue that this specific criteria should be added to all film articles because it reminds the reader that you cannot compare a film's gross from 1977 with a film from 2017, for example, because you are not comparing like with like. Hence the necessity of 'unadjusted for inflation'. When adjustments are done, as is shown in the list article already mentioned, or on Box Office Mojo, it can be seen that many older films have better grosses than recent films. Robynthehode (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: Makes sense to me! Thanks for answering, just haven't seen it around much on newer films. I always figured the "unadjusted for inflation" was more often used on older films to point out how their gross may appear much lower, but when adjusted increases significantly. But I follow your logic. Thanks again. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 17:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome. Of course 'unadjusted for inflation' is not really relevant for films released in the recently but is clearly useful for across year or decade comparisons.

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Tyler, The Creator discography and Bubbling Under peaks

Hi. Please don't do this in future. We don't combine Bubbling Under peaks with the threshold of other charts per WP:USCHARTS (and is also against WP:SYNTH, as it combines two charts with different methodologies). The Billboard Bubbling Under charts are not simple extension charts, because songs that fall out of the Hot 100 do not (re-)enter the Bubbling Under chart, so songs fall between the two lists, and therefore number one on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 is not necessarily what is technically 101. Either way, I don't think it's a matter of readability, it's simply not correct. The content guideline I linked to explains it. Thanks. Ss 112 03:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Sock.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sock. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edits regarding the Run the Jewels articles

You removed the co or additional producers off the Infoboxes of the Run the Jewels articles, each as this. I strongly disagree with this change, while El-P did produce the albums, but there are also other producers credited on the albums. Adding only one producer in the infobox while there are others is WP:CHERRYPICKING to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)