Jump to content

User talk:TechnoSquirrel69/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

DYK nomination of Nurture (album)

Hello! Your submission of Nurture (album) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Oltrepier (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024

Hello, and Happy Holidays! I just wanted to let you know that the sign-ups for this year's WikiCup are still open, should you wish to join the contest: it should be a lot of fun! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Oltrepier; I'd been meaning to add myself a couple days ago but got sidetracked trying to pick a flag! XD I've gone ahead and entered myself. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the WikiCup newsletter

Potentially dumb question (not urgent)

I did a decent bit of work on an article that was considered start-class. Is there a way to have it reevaluated, or how do they get a new evaluation? FortunateSons (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey FortunateSons, thanks for your message! Your question isn't dumb at all, and has a simple enough answer. For ratings of B-class or lower, any editor — including you — can reassess the article if they feel it meets the criteria given at WP:ASSESS for that rating. The GA-, FA-, and FL-classes are different, because those ratings are only given to an article once it has passed the relevant content review. If you'd prefer to get a second opinion from another editor before reassessing, you can always ask at one of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page — it's possible you might get some helpful comments on how to further improve the article as well. Hopefully that helps, and let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you so much for your help! FortunateSons (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ur grounded

THATS IT YOU ARE GROUNDED FOR ADDING AFC! Kason12271 (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kason12271: The Articles for creation templates are kept on a draft as a record for the benefit of future AfC reviewers. AfC needs certain processes in order to operate, and you opted into that process by submitting the draft to us. You have the ability to bypass the AfC process and move the draft into mainspace yourself, but I have to warn you that it will likely be moved back to draftspace or deleted due to the lack of prose or reliable sources. Additionally, I want to add that while you created Draft:The Crystalline Gamerz, you do not own it, and other editors are free to contribute to it as they would any other article or draft — that includes adding AfC templates. You cannot unilaterally revert those edits without an explanation. With all that in mind, I've restored the tags on the draft. Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I DO OWN IT Kason12271 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@Kason12271 Please read the text above the "Publish Changes" button whenver you submit a change to a draft or page. Quote:

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Even if you do not read guidelines like the ones linked by TechnoSquirrel69, you have agreed to them by publishing on Wikipedia, therefore you do not own it. If you do not want things you work on to be owned by Wikipedia and governed by its rules, including rules about civil behavior, you should find another place to submit content. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Good topic

Hey Techno! I just noticed Unfold is at GAN. Do you plan on making Nurture a good topic? I can help with some articles if needed (be it expanding or reviewing). I've also considered a Worlds topic for a while (in fact, I just expanded Sad Machine and that should go to GAN soon). It would be pretty neat to see both albums get a topic! Skyshiftertalk 21:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Skyshifter: I appreciate your interest and willingness to lend a hand! I hadn't actually started with the intention of pulling the articles into a GT, but realize now that it would be a pretty doable and fun project, and I'd love to work with you to get to that point. Since I created the "Mirror" article, and I'm fairly familiar with its sourcing, I'd be down to tackle that one next. If you feel like expanding one of the other articles, feel free to go for it and nominate it at GAN. As for exchanging more reviews, I'd rather not do that too much in the exact same topic area, and instead get external opinions on them in the interest of editorial transparency. Keep me updated whichever way you decide to go with it! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unfold (song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unfold (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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Dylan620 -- Dylan620 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Warning of deletion

Bro why u make my article to deletion mode and further if may delete. Why you doing this with me FI.214 (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@FI.214: I nominated the Mumbai–Madgaon line article for deletion because I agreed with the other two editors who had previously reviewed the article. However, you undid their actions (one move to draftspace and one proposed deletion), so I've formally nominated the article at Articles for deletion as a final step. If you feel that there are legitimate reasons for keeping the article, I advise you to read WP:SAVEAFD for an introduction to the process, then leave a comment at the discussion page making your argument. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Did u saw the main reason of deletion and my article 1st moved to draftspace, why? So i move the page, u say me did i make wrong one.
If ur article was there from mine then how u react this? Say me 59.97.42.171 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're still FI.214; please make sure you're logged in next time. To clear, I didn't nominate your article because it was previously moved to draftspace, I did it because you moved it back into mainspace without first addressing the issues. I have concerns that the subject is not notable, which is the same concerns that two other reviewers had. See my nomination statement at the deletion discussion for more details. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

FAC support

Hello. I just saw your revert. Isn't the standard to update the section title from "comment" to "support" after the user supports the nomination? I did this for consistency with the previous section by NegativeMP1. If this is not the way to do it I'm sorry. It just is strange that some sections are just "Comment" and others "Comment and Support" when some of the "Comment"-only sections also have supports. Skyshiftertalk 23:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Skyshifter! Yeah, maybe reverting was a little too nitpicky of me lol. I like my reviews looking a certain way, and it's a matter of preference whether reviewers choose to alter the section titles once they complete their reviews. It doesn't count for anything procedurally; the FAC coordinators are usually looking for bolded support or oppose !votes. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi TechnoSquirrel69. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
  • Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
  • Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Isla Phillips

Hi TechnoSquirrel, given the low participation in that RfD, would you mind reopening and relisting? Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 14:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Voorts! I don't personally have a problem with letting the discussion run for another week if you'd like more participation, but I just want to note that five editors commented on your nomination, which is very typical for RfD; if anything, it might be more than average(!) Also, acting as the closer, I must ask why you feel that extending the discussion would benefit the formation of a new consensus, given that most of the participants' !votes seem to align with the close outcome. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not super familiar with RfD, so I didn't know five editors was more than average. Additionally, I think there was a consensus for revdel Two !votes agreed that revdel is appropriate, one opposed and argued to restore one of the articles for a completely incorrect reason (that the child is notable), and one !voted keep without addressing the revdel question. There was also a !vote that suggested this is the improper forum, and you noted that in your close. I disagree with the forum point since this is a request to delete part of a redirect's history. I'm not sure what other forum exists when an admin declines to do a revdel and says to get a consensus for it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure what the right forum would be for your proposal either. In my experience, revision deletions are usually executed by an administrator's sole discretion and not by community consensus. You mentioned in your nomination statement that Nthep originally suggested the discussion, so I'm curious to hear from him about this.
Nthep, there's been disagreement about whether RfD's scope encompasses the consideration of the partial deletion of a redirect's history via revision deletion. There is consensus that both redirects be kept (RfD), but some editors felt that the history could be struck under the circumstances. Maybe that's all you need in order to execute an RD5, but if not, where would you suggest that Voorts open a discussion about this? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
RfD (like FfD) is Redirects (Files) for discussion, not just deletion. IMO, that should make it a suitable forum for discussion as to whether a redirect should be deleted, or in the event of consensus that it should stay, whether it is correct to retain the history. However WP:BLAR seems to say I'm wrong and AfD is the correct venue, I hadn't seen BLAR before suggesting RfD to voorts. If I've put everyone through a wild goose chase for a week then my apologies. Nthep (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Nthep. I'll open an AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nthep: No problem, I appreciate your help! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering again, but I am looking by for some pretty complicated advice and hoped you might be able to help.

Pre-Amble

(This is specifically not intended as a third-opinion type of situation, I’m just looking for a second opinion without running head first into disagreement a lot more experienced editors)

I am aware that this is both complicated and contentious, so I would completely understand if you are not looking to deal with it; in case you are, I greatly appreciate the help! If there is a better non-adversarial avenue for this kind of thing, I would appreciate a redirect as well.

BLUF: If I’m wrong, where do I improve, and if I’m right, what do I do?

Context

I had a bit of a hard time with making edits regarding Gigi Hadid, then started a noticeboard which was (rightly) removed because I was not extended-confirmed (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FortunateSons). As such, I discontinued making edits regarding I/P before reaching this status, which I now have.

However, there were some subsequent issues with significant overlap of the people involved which originally made me feel like the noticeboard was necessary (the last 4 or on the archived talk page of Gigi Hadid here, as well as here and on my talk page (second and last message). (Apologies in advance if I missed one or more)

While most of the comments were perfectly fine (suboptimal sourcing, issues with phrasing, Wikipedia:Criticism etc.), others felt less constructive and more unhelpful. While I am obviously still new with all the usual pitfalls associated with it, I do still genuinely believe that the attempted edits were good faith and had valid content, but were merely flawed on technique, an assessment that some editors vehemently disagreed with (clearest example being the last talk page discussion).

Specific question

If I am just wrong/if this is a genuine language barrier (unlikely, but possible as I am not a native speaker), I would like to figure out what the specific issue is so I can effectively address it, and would appreciate any advice you are willing to give.

If I am right (not necessarily on any specific issue, just with my conduct and my understanding of policy), I would like you to direct me towards a method of conflict resolution that will help me address the situation in a productive manner.

If you are (which is perfectly understandable) unwilling to engage with a wall of text, I would appreciate a quick message so I may look for help somewhere else. :) FortunateSons (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, FortunateSons. After reading through the many talk page discussions about this issue, I can safely say that I'm unfortunately unable to help you here. The topic area of your content dispute is well out of my comfort zone as an editor, so I'd rather not confuse the situation any further by giving you possibly inaccurate information. However, what I can say is that a consensus between several editors seems to have formed against your changes, so it's unlikely that any of the conflict resolution options will be very useful to you, as from an outside point of view it looks like things have already been resolved. There are other avenues that you can take from this point, but I can't honestly advise any of them. Since it looks like you've been working with this dispute for at least a month at this point, I think you should take a break from it and edit some other articles for now — it'll help you take a step back and consider the dispute from a wider perspective, and you'll accrue some general editing experience. If you come back to the article after a while and still feel like it still needs work, you might be better equipped to understand the issues that other editors brought up in the discussions. Sorry I can't be of more help, but I wish you luck with the rest of your editing journey! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Dear @TechnoSquirrel69, thank you so much for taking the time and responding.
I will follow your recommendation, it’s probably best if I wait a few weeks/months, that way this discourse can be significantly more productive if I choose to reengage in it again.
Your advice was indeed very helpful and greatly appreciated! FortunateSons (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Nurture (album)

On 1 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nurture (album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Porter Robinson chose the title Nurture for his second album due to its evocation of the word nature and as a reference to the nature versus nurture debate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nurture (album). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nurture (album)), 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Ricardo Arciniegas

Kindly, the name of the subject is Ricardo Armando Novoa Arciniegas, current name is incomplete as Ricardo Arciniegas. Please correct. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Fjnovoa (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this after nominating the redirect for deletion. As you probably noticed, the draft was then moved by MicrobiologyMarcus. So, for the record,  done. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unfold (song)

The article Unfold (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unfold (song) for comments about the article, and Talk:Unfold (song)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dylan620 -- Dylan620 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unfold (song)

The article Unfold (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:Unfold (song) and Talk:Unfold (song)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dylan620 -- Dylan620 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Query Re: Undisclosed Paid Tag

Hi, Thankyou for recently viewing the article we wrote regarding local history: Throckley Hall.

We noticed you added the undisclosed payments tag with a comment that it was due to our username? I was hoping to clarify, I (Kris) and my fellow local historian (Russle) have been researching history of our local area, we have made some historical minor edits to articles relating to our local area and for the first time today have created a new article.

If our username (ThrockleyH) is inappropriate in some way, we would be grateful for your guidance. We have used the name of our local history society we call Throckley Historical - AKA ThrockleyH online as our username for some time. If you would recommend we change this or if you would be able to provide any guidance or advice for us, we would be most grateful.

<span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span>@ThrockleyH ThrockleyH (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@ThrockleyH: Due to the formatting of your username, I'd assumed that you were an employee of Throckley Hall or otherwise connected to it. Thanks for your clarification; I've replaced the tag on the article. However, your username is probably in violation of the username policy — specifically § Promotional usernames, which states that "usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, organization, website [...]" are considered promotional and are disallowed. You can use Special:GlobalRenameRequest to change your username to something more appropriate. Also, please note that Wikipedia does not permit shared accounts. Either you or your colleague will need to create a separate account and edit independently if you would like to continue contributing. Let me know if you have any other questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69, thank you for your message and explanation. I would be glad to adjust my username to ensure no potential confusion arises in future. I shall use the link you provided. All editing and use of this account is undertaken by myself, my fellow historian joins me in local research but is not involved in using this account directly.
I appreciate your prompt adjustment of the tag. May I ask: Would you recommend any further steps I take to provide any evidence or information to aid in resolution of the new tag you added? I attempted to keep the nature of the article as neutral as possible and presented the facts we were able to discern from our local research, with as best citations as possible. Apologies if it is not your role to scrutinize the content of the article. As I am fairly new to this and have only minor edits over the past year I would be grateful for your guidance. The only advice the tag gives is "discuss further on the talk page", however I would not be certain what I should say or if there is a particular element of the article that draws your attention as inappropriate or non-neutral?
Thank you again for your guidance.
ThrockleyH (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your flexibility! About your questions related to the conflict of interest tag, I actually have a question for you first: do you have any relationships or involvements with Throckley Hall that may influence your contributions to Wikipedia? This may or may not be through your affiliation with the Throckley historical society you mentioned. (There's nothing wrong with having those connections, by the way, but some editorial guidelines might come into play; for example, the conflict of interest guideline.) Although I am a new page patroller, and began reviewing the article within my capacity in that role, I think I'll refrain from formally finishing my review in the interest of editorial transparency. By editing the article and working this situation out with you, I consider myself involved, so I'd prefer that another reviewer provide a second opinion in this case. Sorry I can't be of more help in that regard! Happy to answer any other questions you have. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance. I would be happy to clarify your query.
I personally do not have any relationship with the article subject Throckley Hall. The subject in this case is a private residence. It is not any form of business or commercial enterprise, hence nor does it have employees etc. I myself have an amateur interest in history and am a member of a local historical society. I am from this local area and live in the local area, that would perhaps be my only personal link I could think of, although I would not think that could be viewed as direct. Given my interest in history I approached the owner of the property to enquire as to the history of the estate and to gain insight into research paths to discern further information. I was able to piece together some interesting history surrounding Throckley Hall and gained this information via online research and via local archives at the City Library. Ultimately I attempted to create an article and aimed to follow the guidelines as best I could. I would hope that this maintains a neutral presentation of the facts as best possible.
When drafting this article (the first time I have done so) I attempted to follow and draw guidance from other similar articles relating to historical properties / houses that have previously been approved and are live on Wikipedia. I attempted to ensure the layout and nature of this article covered the topics of interest from my local research and would provide interesting reading and information to those whom may view the article in future. I would hope that the reading of the article maintains a neutral perspective and presents the information in a factual way. Similar to articles such as (Dunstall Hall, West Grange Hall, Wallington Hall).
I have also created a topic in the articles Talk page to ensure clarity.
I would certainly welcome a second opinion from another reviewer, if you would be able to guide me as to how this can be achieved I would be grateful.
(PS: I have lodged a name change request using the link you provided and this is now pending). ThrockleyH (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Responding on Talk:Throckley Hall. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

George Daniels

I have been editing the George Daniels watchmaker page. There is another page (go to "List of most expensive watches sold at auction" and see my comments on the talk page) which has updated watch results but has ignored the sale of a George Daniels watch in 2022. I left a message on the talk page mid January asking whoever has recently updated the whole page to add this watch but they have not replied. I didn't really want to make the edits (as I am not sure how to do so in a table and also because I don't want to check the accuracy of the other information to insert the one sale where I think it belongs and it has knock on effects for the rankings of the auction houses and the watch makers). What's the best way to get this page up-dated? The omission of the watch affects the integrity and accuracy of the whole page andmy comments have been ignored.

Link: Alfie5890 (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, Alfie5890! Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can help you very much in this situation. As I mentioned the last time we talked, I'm not familiar with this topic area, and don't edit articles like it at all, so my potential advice can only be very general. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that your talk page messages were "ignored", though. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and it's unfortunately the case that articles will often go years without editor attention simply because no one has found the desire to improve them. That's why being bold is important here: doing it yourself is sometimes the only way to get things done. If you're having difficulty understanding how to edit tables (which I can relate to), Help:Table is a great resource to learn that skill. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to help; you can also talk to experienced editors at the Teahouse or the Wikimedia Discord server. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

This award is given in recognition to TechnoSquirrel69 for collecting more than 100 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Josh! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Edited Citibank Philippines information

Hi I'm Tina Cabanayan, a representative from the PR agency of Citi in the PH. I edited/deleted old information on Citi Philippines based on updated information on their website 

https://www.citigroup.com/global/about-us/global-presence/philippines

I also updated the name of key people. Hope you can update the page based on my changes. Thank you 119.111.249.96 (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Tina, there's a couple of issues to address here. Firstly, if you're an employee of Citibank and are editing Wikipedia for pay, you are required to disclose that according to the Wikimedia terms of use. See Wikipedia:Paid-editing disclosure for more information. You'll probably have to create an account to comply with this policy. Secondly, the content of your edit was inappropriate for multiple reasons. You removed large amounts of legitimate content from the article without explanation, and the text you did add was highly promotional in violation of the neutral point of view policy. I highly recommend that you read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some appropriate steps you can take to improve the Citibank Philippines article. Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor of the Week nomination

Thanks for taking an active role in fixing the recent attempt to add a nomination. Your concern for the nominating newebie editor was above the norm. It was an example of reaching out that goes a long way in retaining new editors. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 20:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, Buster7! Obviously, I agree wholeheartedly, and I can personally attest to that impact — I almost certainly wouldn't be editing today if not for the kindnesses shown to me by other editors when I was starting out. All I'm doing is paying it forward! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Under Review Notice on Draft:Cultural impact of Depp v. Heard

It looks like you’ve left an Under Review notice on the page for more than 12 hours, you may want to remove that. Miralitt (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Miralitt! I appreciate the reminder, but I've left it marked on purpose. The draft creator is currently suspected of block evasion, so I want to keep that page on hold until the investigation is closed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense! Sorry about that. Miralitt (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
No worries! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Vladimir Levin (historian)

I appreciate that you have been editing this page. I agree that the bibliography was too long, however, I do not think that the whole sections of "Articles" has to be deleted. I brought it back, but in a significantly shortened version. Also, the word 'disciple' is important in the article, because the described person indeed perceives himself as a disciple of Jonathan Frenkel. Thus, I am bringing the word 'disciple' back. CatherineOlesh (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@CatherineOlesh: Thanks for your clarifications! Regarding the use of the term disciple, I think that should be attributed to the person who said it in the form of a quote. To me, the term carries a religious and possibly loaded connotation, so I'd appreciate it if it wasn't being used in Wikipedia's voice. Otherwise, nice work on the draft so far — let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I will try to rephrase it in a better way. CatherineOlesh (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

AfC submission left on "being reviewed" for almost a week

Isn't the template supposed to stay for less that 12 hours? (Draft:Cultural impact of Depp v. Heard) Good day. Youprayteas (t • c) 11:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Youprayteas! However, I've left the tags on the draft intentionally as the creator is currently suspected of block evasion. See also: § Under Review Notice on Draft:Cultural impact of Depp v. Heard. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I didn't notice that someone had already told you this. That's too bad, because I thought the draft was pretty good looking except for the use of emojis. Cheers! Youprayteas (t • c) 15:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mirror (Porter Robinson song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mirror (Porter Robinson 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Skyshifter -- Skyshifter (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Worlds

Hello, Techno! I am in kind of a dilemma regarding Worlds. I don't have much time until I can get it to FAC before it is too late to bring it to WP:TFA/R requesting the article's appearance on August 12 (and that's assuming it gets promoted, which is not guaranteed). For that reason, I am probably not going to proceed with the PR and GAN, and I'll probably open the FAC soon. However, could I ask just for a quick look on the article's prose? I think prose is one of my weakest points. A user copyedited the article, but I'd like to be sure before nominating the article to FAC. You did a copyedit to the first paragraph of the lead saying that it needed a rewrite, and that has left me afraid. Any kind of help in that aspect would be really appreciated! Skyshiftertalk 18:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Skyshifter! I'm expecting to have a lot more time on my hands in the next few weeks, so I'm happy to take a look (and probably pitch in myself) soon. No need to be afraid, though! The copyedits I was thinking of were mostly of the aesthetic and stylistic kind — which you'd reasonably expect comments on at FAC — rather than any substantive prose issues. I also think I can do a pseudo–source review to make sure there isn't anything big to address before this article goes to review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Jacob colliers genres

I think 'alternative' shoulld be mentioned in the lit of genres for Jcob collier beacuse wha there is there is not suffiecient in terms of the music Collier creates. You got rid of it beacuse i didnt have a source to back it up with but i am not sure how to do that so can you just leave it please because it is misleading and wrong wihout it.

Thank you. 82.3.254.25 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your message. I'm not sure whether it is or isn't "misleading and wrong" to exclude the alternative genre from the infobox on the Jacob Collier article, but our opinions on the matter are irrelevant. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, meaning that any claim made by the article must generally be supported by reliable sources, and can be challenged and removed if it doesn't. This is especially important on biographies of living persons, where policy gives editors the discretion to remove unsourced content immediately and without discussion, which I have done again. Just for the record, I did a quick search for sources to verify the information you're adding after the second time this happened, and was not able to find any immediate evidence of it. Please read the policies and guidelines I've linked in this message, and refrain from adding the information again without a citation — especially because I've already warned you about this on your talk page multiple times. Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Upcoming Porter Robinson album

Notice

The article Upcoming Porter Robinson album has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Upcoming album that is NOT highly anticipated without title, track listing and release date

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Thanks for reviewing the article! I had moved it to mainspace judging that it passed WP:GNG, but had honestly forgotten about WP:FUTUREALBUM. I've draftified the article until more information becomes available. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ronja

You moved back the page asking in your edit summary "Is there another TV series?"

The answer, obviously, is "yes of course, why else would I have made that move??".

Now please revert your action. (If you don't have the correct rights, please take it up with an admin. And please, think before creating extra work for others.) Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey CapnZapp, thanks for your message. I wasn't intending to cause you any inconvenience; what I meant to say in my log summary is that there isn't yet an article on the new series. Until that happens, the double disambiguator at Ronja, the Robber's Daughter (2014 TV series) is unnecessary. Once the article is written, you can feel free to revert the move without discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't appreciate having to redo my work.
What was unnecessary was your revert of my move. Absolutely zero harm would have been caused by the 2014 show having a "needless" step of disambiguation for a likely very short while.
I'll simply take this as a hint to let somebody else fix this. I certainly will not "feel free" to do something I should not need to do, just because you stepped in where you weren't needed, wanted nor appreciated.
CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@CapnZapp: I really don't understand where this level of animosity is coming from, especially over an action that you can undo in seconds. One of the core philosophies of the collaborative workflow on Wikipedia is to be bold; you boldly moved the article anticipating the creation of another article, and I boldly reverted your action with (upon request) an explanation for why. I'll give you another reason: WP:OVERPRECISION. You're welcome to voice your disagreement and discuss that with me here — in civil terms. What I do not welcome and will not tolerate are comments of the kind at the end of your message: "you weren't needed, wanted nor appreciated". You do not own the article, you do not have exclusive editorial control over it, and you have no right to tell other editors where they do or do not belong. If this is your way of responding to minor reversions of your actions, I strongly suggest that you work on your on-wiki conduct, because it does not currently align with the principles of collaboration and cooperation that are needed on this project. I hope that you'll take a look at some of the behavioral guidelines I've linked here and apply them. Since you no longer seem to be interested in moving this article, I don't think we have anything further to discuss about that, but I warn you not to take an approach even remotely similar to the one you did here ever again, as other editors may not take that as kindly. I wish you luck with the rest of your editing journey. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I want the pages moved alright, but I'm not inclined to do work twice for no reason. Had you looked around for even a second you would have realized the new show drops in mere days. Had you assumed even a minimal amount of good faith you would have reasoned there probably is a valid reason for somebody as established as CapnZapp to make this move. But you probably thought I was a vandal or a newbie, and you put a value of zero on my work. CapnZapp (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Now that the new tv series has released and new articles have been created, I request you undo your revert of my move and fix your mess. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've already informed you that you can move the article back once my rationale for reverting no longer applied without needing to consult with me. I don't have any further interest in this subject as a result of our dispute — do as you see fit. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ruby Gillman

Hatting sockpuppetry
—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the edit I cause but the production section of it is starting to be too spaced out. Should the wiki try to clean it up? 64.56.14.75 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I reverted your edits to the Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken article because they removed large amounts of referenced content without enough of an explanation. If you feel like the production section is getting too long, you can reduce the number of paragraph breaks or rearrange the text to improve it. You can also start a discussion on the article's talk page if you think some of the content deserves to be removed. Let me know if you have any other questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Alright. But they were all from the Art of Ruby Gillman on Youtube. Is it a good source for the article? 64.56.14.75 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure, and maybe better sources can be found. However, this may be something better discussed with other editors on the talk page instead of complete removal. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Im with TechnoSquirrel69, the art book can be used as source Exteahans71 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mirror (Porter Robinson song)

The article Mirror (Porter Robinson 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:Mirror (Porter Robinson song) and Talk:Mirror (Porter Robinson song)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Skyshifter -- Skyshifter (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mirror (Porter Robinson song)

The article Mirror (Porter Robinson song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mirror (Porter Robinson song) for comments about the article, and Talk:Mirror (Porter Robinson song)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Skyshifter -- Skyshifter (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Odd Atelier (March 27)

Moved to User talk:Zénith116 § Your submission at Articles for creation: Odd Atelier (March 27)
 – —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@BuySomeApples: I think I made a mistake and listed myself as the submitter for this draft instead of Zénith116, the author. Just pinging to let you know I've moved the notification over to the right talk page! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that! BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

I realize you were trying to help but the instructions clearly state Please do not use the editor's name in the section heading, link to the editor's user page, or otherwise ping the editor. There was an open thread titled Nomination that was available for the novice editor to use. Again. No blame intended. Just a heads up. I will let the other editor know as well. Thanks for participating at Editor of the Week. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll keep that in mind. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

IM A CHILD

I DONT KNOW WHAT IM DOING IM SORRY 73.62.175.221 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi i dont know how to talk so im editing you can delete this once you see it but my 7 year old brother just discovered how to edit and he decided to do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:43F0:4B70:B586:D4EE:DDE3:981A (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked a anyonomous user for 6 months

Just blocked 64.56.14.75 for 6 months because of disrupting editing he did. Exteahans71 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Exteahans71: Neither one of us have the technical ability to block users, which is a tool reserved for administrators. Either way, this message does not look good for you while your conduct is being discussed at ANI. Please stop your disruptive editing, or you risk being blocked yourself. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

List of tallest Hindu deity statues

Hi TechnoSquirrel69, I've added two links to this article and you have deleted the same stating that they are not reliable. Both the links were dead links and hence I updated the same with these links which provide the latest information related to that two different statues based on research using Google. Can you kindly review these links again as I sincerely believe that they adhere to the guidelines of Wikipedia and these articles are not trying to do any promotion or advertising, but stating the historical & cultural significance of those two different statues. Request you to kindly approve the same when convenient. Or kindly advise on steps to making these links to be considered reliable. Thanks a lot for your contributions to Wikipedia and thanks a lot for your valuable time. 5fighters (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey 5fighters, thanks for your message. I removed the links you added as the source seems to be unreliable — Wikipedia generally does not accept blogs as references as they are self-published. Also, as I mentioned on your talk page earlier, you appear to have a conflict of interest with the 14cosmicsecrets.com website. I appreciate that you've decided to stop using alternate accounts to make edits, but you should probably avoid inserting links to the website as well, as that may have the appearance to other editors that you're attempting to use Wikipedia to bring additional exposure to the website. That being said, I have not restored the links in the List of tallest Hindu deity statues article. If you're genuinely interested in contributing information to the article, I would recommend scouting for sources that are secondary, independent, and reliably published — something like a book from a historian or a paper in a reputable journal. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

7 new principals in Bangladeshi Medical Colleges

https://mefwd.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/mefwd.portal.gov.bd/go_ultimate/27538854_d577_4d9a_b428_aa8bd816c6e8/Principal%20GO.pdf Farhadrahman210 (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Farhadrahman210: What's the context behind this link? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Recently, The government of Peooles republic of Bangladesh ordered a press release for 9 newly appointed principal of Medical Colleges,
So I made some changes in wikipedia with reference and you removed them Farhadrahman210 (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like I reverted your edits due to the lack of sources — thanks for including a reference this time! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Bridgewater

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69, can you explain what further rationale you would like, other than the contribution I made to the edit log. The sentence I removed had nothing to do with that component of the page, so I wrote the following: 00:27, 2 April 2024‎ Noetel talk contribs‎  60,324 bytes −831‎  Removed a sentence from the organisational culture section that did not reflect organisational culture.

This seems in line with the guide you pointed to: Help:Edit summary Please indicate where my edit summary doesn't reflect the guide.

Noetel (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Noetel, thanks for your message. I reverted your edit as while you did leave an explanation, I didn't see that as a sufficient reason for the removal. Since the content is supported by multiple sources, it might be more better to move it to a more appropriate section or simply rephrase the content. Feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page if you still believe it should be removed. Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello TechnoSquirrel69,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kansas City shooting

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kansas City shooting. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 24.89.159.222 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I've responded. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the C# article

Hi there.

It's a matter of truth. In other fields, you might need a supporting source. In mathematics and computer science, everybody can check the truth for him-/herself. There's no need for support, I think. It'd take me at least the same time to look up supporting quotes as it took me to write down the facts everybody knowledgable about the subject already knows. Documentation stored at Microsoft.com, probably. The things I wrote weren't speculative assertions. Do you think the things I wrote might be misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.164.208 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your message. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability that all articles have to follow, even those about math and computer science. I disagree that the content you added is something that "everybody can check"; these fields can sometimes require specialized knowledge to understand, and not everyone has that background. One of the purposes of Wikipedia — as an encyclopedia — is to provide an accessible overview of subjects to a layperson. With that in mind, I'd recommend that you check for reliable sources that support the statements before re-adding them. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I managed to research the sources, but I'm struggling with the exact "cite web" syntax. Any suggestions where to read more about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.164.208 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Help:Referencing for beginners is a good place to start, and it covers the basic tools that help you with formatting citation templates. The template documentation has a much more complete list of parameters if you need that. Let me know if you need help with anything specific! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello again -- was unable do any attempts before this weekend. Please check the first re-introduced change regarding whether I got the citing methods right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.193.164 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The citation looks good — thanks for making that contribution! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Not sure whether identical citations will be joined automatically. If not, how do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.193.164 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate citations are not fixed automatically. However, you can reuse existing citations by giving them a name: <ref name="Citation name">(citation content)</ref>. You can then recall the citation later in the text like this: <ref name="Citation name"/>. Does that answer your question? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Page Mover granted

Hello, TechnoSquirrel69. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, Josh! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor Barnstar
Thank you for participating in the March 2024 GA backlog drive. Your contribution (3 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Ganesha811! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Explanation

Hello, I saw your message, and I deleted the numbers citation because the box office was wrong. I’ll add an explanation next time. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and for leaving an edit summary this time, Iamamodforjellymario! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TechnoSquirrel69/Archive_4&oldid=1222774989"