Jump to content

User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024/November

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Re: mentorship

Lets start :) 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer: Great! The process starts with you picking out a DYK nom or hook (as described on your talk page) and telling me what you think. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
By way of example:

Example (nom)

Example2 (nom)

  • Here's my review of Example2, an unapproved nomination:
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - Mm, I'm not sure why I'd click on this article.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I will start a bit later since I'm editing Tropical Storm Pakhar (2017) and fixing it. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Done! I'll instantly start (I'm really excited lol) 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviews

Mały Brzostek (nom)

  • Here's my review of Mały Brzostek, a nomination created by a new nominator:
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: No - All of the hooks don't seem interesting, all of them are normal for old towns due to a lack of documentation.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The main problem is about the interest, please fix that. I can't access the source so I'm Accepting the source in good faith. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Not too shabby! Gonna need a while to get back on this, as I have a few other things on my plate, but looking forward to kicking this off in earnest. :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Uh oh, just noticed another person already reviewed the article. It's okay though. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of GIF

Hello! Hope you are doing well. I've recently translated your featured article Pronunciation of GIF into French and I've been told that the first sentence of the second paragraph in "Arguments" section seems to have nothing related to the rest of the paragraph since Casey Chan doesn't mention frequency analysis in his article. I think that it is true so I've moved the sentence, in the french version, to the end of the first paragraph so it can make more sense but I want to know if it is really a mistake or is there a reason I don't see. L'embellie (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Bit of a mental health break

Stepping back from projectspace/my inbox for a short bit to process what's in the news. Then I'll be back to coordinate some fixes to the new recall process, get GalliumBot back up and running, respond to messages, etc. Stay safe, everyone 💛 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As long as no one notices...

... the log entry for Voorts... :-p Primefac (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

😄trout Trout theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ewa Ligocka's goose

The goose (center)

The source for Ewa Ligocka's goose uses the same wording for the story about another mathematician winning a goose as a prize (for which we have photographs!) as for Ligocka cooking the goose. There is no reason to treat this merely as a rumor; it is labeled as an anecdote. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: there's no reason for both sources to report it as a "story" or "anecdote" unless they didn't know it was true firsthand. this is basically lighthearted hearsay. we can call it something other in a rumor, but it can't stay in wikivoice. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
They are not reporting it as something they are not sure of. They are reporting it as something true but incidental to the life of the person they are writing about. The story of the goose prize itself is widely documented and accepted as true (again, photograph!). This is additional detail from the same story, reported as equally factual.
Additionally, elaborating on the true or false nature of the story destroys the whole intended double meaning of the hook, a play on the phrase "to cook one's goose" where the joke is that in this case the meaning is literal rather than metaphorical. If we state it in a way that makes it clearly intend the meaning to be factual but at second hand, then there is no joke any more and no point to running that hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Saying "another anecdote says" she was the one who cooked it is another way of saying "I've heard someone say this is true, but have no way of verifying it myself". Anecdotes, as I believe you've pointed out before, can't speak. It's a way of attributing to another source, and a vague one at that. And this source isn't fact-checked or editorially controlled, it's just a mass email. Would you be okay with adding "according to an anecdote" to the hook? I understand it ruins the punch a little bit, but the sourcing is already very shaky. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I said above and will say again: describing the ontological status of this statement, in the hook, destroys the point of the hook. If you refuse to run a hook with a point, I think it is better not to put boring pointless hooks into DYK at all. DYK hooks are not the place for pedantic elaboration, as you should already know. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
All right, well then, pulled. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think it "destroys the point of the hook" at all. You lose the pun, but i think cooking another mathematician's goose is still interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the remaining point left, after removing the joke, is: when a group of Polish mathematicians needed some kitchen work done, they selected a nearby young woman to do the work, without regard to her mathematics. Is that the point you wanted to make? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, I think that's a strange takeaway from the story itself. Someone with a doctorate in mathematics kills and cooks a coworker's goose, and the only takeaways from that are wordplay and gross sexism? You wouldn't be the least bit curious why a university math professor slaughtered and cooked her coworker's goose? Seems pretty interesting to me, and it was interesting to the person that sent out that email blast, too. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t read the phrasing as casting doubt on the veracity. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Wendy's on Twitter

Information icon Hello, Theleekycauldron. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wendy's on Twitter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

In response to the referral to the Arbitration Committee of an enforcement request from the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, where you participated in the administrators' discussion, the Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

Motion 2b: Word limits

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Motion 2c: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
  • The initial parties will be:
  • Aoidh will be the initial drafter
  • The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
  • All case pages are to be semi-protected.
  • Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

For the ACE voter guiders

@Ealdgyth and Giraffer: I actually have 4 FAs and 2 FLs, not five and one! United States congressional delegations from Hawaii is an FL. Marked with a smaller star, very easy to miss. Sorry to bug! Ealdgyth, I hope to be available enough to answer your question tonight. 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out! Giraffer (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bohemian Baltimore

Hello, Theleekycauldron,

I was just reviewing cases at AE and I think you made a mistake in this one. You presented evidence against the editor the complaint was about and then you participated in the Administrator's discussion putting forward a view of how they should be sanctioned. By presenting a statement outlining problems, you were, by definition, "involved" and shouldn't have weighed in on the outcome of the discussion. The admin section is for uninvolved admins only (it states this underneath the header) and I think you should not have participated here. If I had seen this in time, I would have commented but the discussion has been closed so I'm just mentioning it to you here. I think you should keep your AE participation separate from your admin participation in the future. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, Liz :) I appreciate your diligence on INVOLVED, and of course want to avoid any conflicts of interest in the course of admin work. If you're perturbed by the fact that I both made a statement (which is usually reserved for acting in a non-admin capacity) and participated in the admin's section, I can clarify: I'm not involved with Bohemian Baltimore in any editorial capacity and didn't introduce any new evidence. I only organized some of my thoughts in a statement because it would have been too unwieldy to put it in the admin section. All of the threads and diffs I cited were already available by virtue of other commenters in the AE discussion.
So, my use of a statement section wasn't me double-dipping, airing personal grievances against BB and then acting on them with admin powers: I was just using the statement as an organizational tool to analyze evidence that was already available in a case I'm not involved in, and using that to come to a conclusion on the remedy I thought was best. You can see in the thread that I commented in the admin section that I was going to use a statement to list out the evidence I'd seen and then did exactly that. I hope that clarifies :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Actually, sorry. Technically, this diff (which I seem to have cited incorrectly at AE) wasn't cited by anyone else, but it's directly relevant to a merge discussion that was cited by Hemiauchiena and Andrevan, so I think that's within scope. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:27, 18 November 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) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Best of luck

Glad to see you running for election. I hope you win!--FeralOink (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

cand q

Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:

What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

well, I guess it says that 80% of classical composers have infoboxen :) but actually, doing a quick search with PetScan, it actually looks like only 20% (588 of 2898) have them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I rather see that there are classical composers with an infobox without debate. The few with debate: do you think what you see needs "contentious topic" treatment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places

Thank you for improving articles in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy (Belated) First Edit Day!

P.S. I am so sorry for the lateness. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

rpa

Hi Leeky! I disagree that this is a personal attack, certainly in the context of determining if someone is a good fit for the mop. I reverted but I am too lazy to have a fight so if you disagree you can just revert again. Polygnotus (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, Polygnotus :) I'm inclined to revert because I'm not sure why you disagree with me. I left my thoughts on JoJo's talk page; could you take a look at that and let me know your thoughts? Would love to hear you out. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Responded there. Please don't kill me if I misremember a book I read a long long time ago. Polygnotus (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Maybe {{redacted}} is better for comments that don't pass the vibe check but aren't unambiguous PAs. Polygnotus (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
@Polygnotus: Fair cop :) will be taking that on board for the future. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Question?

Hi Leeky, I noticed that you did not answer my question on the ArbCom election page. I'm still very interested in hearing your response even thought it won't be part of the community discussion. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Netherzone :) haven't gotten to it yet, but the election's not over, and I've got an answer in progress already! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Best Wishes

Hi Theleekycauldron , I noticed that you are running for Arbcom elections. I want to wish you good luck for it. I have just voted for you :) Maliner (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Maliner (and FeralOink)! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Give me a link and I'll vote for you too. BorgQueen (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Election's here! And hey, if you're reading this – yes, you, talk page stalker – voting gives you a werewolf sticker and the inalienable right to complain about the Committee for a whole year, so you should absolutely go do it if you haven't already. 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Long time no talk, I would also like to offer you my best wishes in the ArbCom election! Unnamed anon (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Van Dyke

Hi Leeky, just wanted to message you and give you a heads up that GalliumBot doesn't seem to have done a Van Dyke run in a couple days. I'm seeing no activity for two cycles.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024/November&oldid=1261406479"