Jump to content

User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

  • South Carolina Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
  • Hel, Poland Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
  • Scotland Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
  • Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Marshall Islands Nova Crystallis, Republic of Texas Iazyges, Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, Wales Kosack and United States Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

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. 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, and let the best editor 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, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Toa Nidhiki05. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • United States L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  • Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  • Denmark MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  • United States Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  • Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  • Ohio Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

== 2016 US Presidential Election ==

Trump, but rather on about 78,000 votes from only three counties in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (by comparison, Obama won in 2012 due to three counties in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania).

2. Just three counties – Macomb County, MI; York County, PA and Waukesha County, WI – elected Donald Trump. If those three counties had cast zero votes, Trump would have lost all three states and the election. By the same logic, just three counties re-elected President Obama in 2012: Miami-Dade County, FL; Cuyahoga County, OH and Philadelphia, PA. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170715170550/http://cookpolitical.com/story/10201)

Both pieces of information came from the same source. Is there a source explaining why they were right about Trump but not Obama?

Peaceandlonglife (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Toa Nidhiki05 14:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Republican Party (United States). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:CambridgeBayWeather...what is your full rationale to block this editor who has not been blocked in nearly 8 years for 60 hours yet allow others who were also clearly edit warring a free pass?--MONGO (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I misread the last blocking date. I've changed it to 24 hours. They were the only one to make four reverts in 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for warning everyone involved in the dispute, really appreciate it. Toa Nidhiki05 11:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Try not to edit war about the content. You can seek dispute resolution or craft an Rfc for the disputed material. I am in general agreement with your alterations so have chimed in at the talkpage.--MONGO (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's quite defensible to revert people who are insisting any change to an article is "removal of long-standing material" and quoting non-existent policy. User:Snooganssnoogans did not even provide any justification in his last revert. Literally all he's doing is making incorrect assertions and accusing anyone who reverts him of edit-warring. That's, quite frankly, disruptive. Toa Nidhiki05 18:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a brazen lie. I explained both in the edit summary and on the talk page why we should attribute to the NY Times, not individual reporters. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh hey, thanks for showing up! While you're at it, can you link to the specific policy that says in-text attribution of authors shouldn't happen? Insisting something is a thing without evidence isn't evidence. I've cited policy and you haven't - you never have given an example of that and didn't even give a justification in your last revert. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Blue Dog Coalition

Hey, sorry that I wasn't very helpful with reverting the latest disruption to that article. As I had given a WP:3O, I feel obligated to take responsibility for it. I am glad it received page protection though, so hopefully it should stabilize. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No big deal! I’m glad it got protected, ultimately, which is all that matters. Toa Nidhiki05 13:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
  • Wales Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
  • Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
  • Kingdom of Prussia Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Chicago Barkeep49 with six GAs, United States Ceranthor, England Lee Vilenski, and Saskatchewan Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and Denmark MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For Herculean labours nominating ancient, ill-sourced articles on non-notable political parties and groups for deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, really appreciate it! I'm just surprised nobody noticed this sooner. Toa Nidhiki05 23:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Dearth of editors is Wikipedia's great weakness. Although the fact that we drive good editors away with nastiness, politically-motivated purges, and an overburdening load of arcane rules comes a close second.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--MrClog (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

MercyMe sales changes

I noticed that you were updating the sales figures, but the links to RIAA are broken. Could you please update them while you're making the other changes? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll go ahead and fix the dead links on all the pages I can. I've been going to back to some of the older articles I've done and finally prepping them for FAC, so this is a good start. Toa Nidhiki05 21:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:NUMERO

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style where it states, "style and formatting should be consistent within an article. Where more than one style is acceptable under MoS, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." Some articles use No. and other use number. Both are acceptable. Changing because some other article uses a different format is not a good reason as some articles use this format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If it's worth anything to you, and I'm not sure why you care so much, I'm the one who originally brought that article to GA. I don't think anyone else has really made any contributions since, so it's not really a big deal. Toa Nidhiki05 23:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For choosing to edit in places that are contentious, while maintaining your composure, and seeking the betterment of the overall project by ensuring neutrality of politically sensitive articles, I hereby present to you this barnstar. May it strengthen your resolve to continue to contribute in those difficult areas, where others may fear to tread. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I try. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Tracy Lawrence

Why did you web.archive.org every single source on Tracy Lawrence? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

To prevent link rot. I was going to look at reviewing it later if I had time (saw your message on WikiProject Albums) but figured regardless that having every link checked and archived ahead of time would be helpful. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems like overkill to wayback EVERY link though, doesn't it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really, there’s even an automated tool for it on the history page (“Fix dead links”).. I’ve been going back to modify some of my old GAs from six years ago and there were a fair number of dead links - some of which don’t have suitable replacements. It’s the best way to make sure the references stay functional forever, especially for a GA or FA - better fixing now than later, right? Toa Nidhiki05 21:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Tracy again

Think I've addressed everything you brought up in the GAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Stalking

Please stop stalking me and reverting whatever I add. In this instance[1], you removed peer-reviewed academic publications and expert assessments. You were warned about this in April 2019[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted a change you made that was not accurate to what the sources said (namely, they did not find near-unanimous agreement on cost-effectiveness), and you corrected it - although it would have been better to go to the talk page, per WP:BRD, your change is exactly the change I suggested in the edit summary, and it’s why I thanked you for correcting the change. That’s how Wikipedia works.
And no, reverting errors is not “stalking”. Editors that follow politics tend to follow a wide variety of areas. I do not care about your “warning”. If you actually have an issue, report it to the appropriate noticeboard - otherwise quit with the bullshit accusations (which can in fact be harassment - see WP:AOHA). Toa Nidhiki05 14:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A star

Just dropping by to give you a barnstar. I understand your feelings about the my interactions with another editor - certainly there is an ugly back and forth on the ANI. I just wanted to say that I hope that someday we work together for the good of the project! My best wishes to you

The Special Barnstar
For contributions to the project and helping settle disputes! Lubbad85 (☎) 15:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I really hope you take a few things away from this - I had issues early on myself. Try to avoid conflict areas if you can, find stuff you are interested in and improve it, and in your case be very careful about copyvio. You’ve clearly got passion, you just should find somewhere you can really use it. AN/I really just makes everyone uncomfortable. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It crushed my soul. I stayed off WP for about 5 days to collect myself. Life exists outside of the drama here. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ichthus June 2019


ICHTHUS

June 2019
The Top 6 Articles
By Stalinsunnykvj

The sad news was the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Louis XIV of France – a monarch of the House of Bourbon who reigned as King of France. He did say, "Every time I appoint someone to a vacant position, I make a hundred unhappy and one ungrateful."
    2. Mary, Queen of Scots – arrested for Reigning While Catholic (RWC), Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I of England in 1586, and was beheaded the following year.
    3. Elizabeth I of England – The Virgin Queen, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor who ushered in the Elizabethan Era, reversed re-establishment of Roman Catholicism by her half-sister.
    4. Henry VIII of England – King of England, He was an accomplished musician, author, and poet; his known piece of music is "Pastime with Good Company". He is often reputed to have written "Greensleeves" but probably did not. He had six marriages.
    5. Martin Luther King Jr. –
      " There are three urgent and indeed great problems that we face not only in the United States of America but all over the world today. That is the problem of racism, the problem of poverty and the problem of war."
    6. Billy Ray Cyrus – Having released 12 studio albums and 44 singles since 1992, he is best known for his number one single "Achy Breaky Heart", which became the first single ever to achieve triple Platinum status in Australia.
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj

... that the first attempt to build the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra resulted in the demolition of the nearly completed structure?

Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork, Ireland
Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork, Ireland

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral is a Gothic Revival three-spire cathedral in the city of Cork, Ireland. It belongs to the Church of Ireland and was completed in 1879. The cathedral is located on the south side of the River Lee, on ground that has been a place of worship since the 7th century, and is dedicated to Finbarr of Cork, patron saint of the city. It was once in the Diocese of Cork; it is now one of the three cathedrals in the Church of Ireland Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, in the ecclesiastical province of Dublin. Christian use of the site dates back to a 7th-century AD monastery, which according to legend was founded by Finbarr of Cork. The entrances contain the figures of over a dozen biblical figures, capped by a tympanum showing a Resurrection scene. (more...)

Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.


Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here
Delivered: 10:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Some Advice

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers You need to read this. At core, your very first perception should be that Sharyl Atkisson is a New Editor. She doesn't know. Anything. Second, she's a Tier-1 media professional who cares about the fact that the Article has gotten fundamental facts wrong, such as her place of birth. Third, the fact of the matter is that none of the Editors in the Article have been what I would call "good role models". They have taken her efforts to improve an article and made it "personal" and she in turn has made it personal right back. And now everyone is running around like their hair was on fire because she's made it personal. Well DUH. Who created that problem? You seem to think that what the topic of the Biographical Article has to say is totally irrelevant, when in fact there is an entire page of specific parameters for dealing with "biographies of living persons". Wikipedia cares. You should care too. Sharyl could have been a resource to improve the Article. Who knows about the topic better than she does? And you had an opportunity to demonstrate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and why they exist, and how they are implemented. But instead, you seem to have preferred to jettison the possible resource, adopt an adverserial "let's get her blocked or banned" attitude and instead of taking a situation and turning it into a positive, your actions have aggravated the situation into a negative. She's a Tier-1 media professional. It's not like she's a stranger to conflict, or that she doesn't know how to turn conflict into a career advantage. Duh. How do you think she got to where she is? I suggest you rethink your whole tack, and stay away from the Article and it's conflicts until you are realigned with "the big picture". She's a NEW EDITOR. Treat her as such, and stop with the continous reporting on her every utterance on Twitter, her blog, and what your next door neighbor told you she said. It doesn't improve the Article, it doesn't resolve the conflicts, and it's not going to help you either, should this whole thing blow up and get handed over to some kind of Administrative review. I can't claim to know Wikipedia Policies and how an Administrator might implement or enforce them, but if this were a generic "workplace" situation, the first thing I would to is separate you and your involvement from the Article as you seem to be making things worse instead of better. Leadership is BY EXAMPLE, which in this case, means yours. Again, read the "don't bite the newcomers". There are several lines in there that were specifically created for you.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

She's not a new editor. She's been editing the page on and off from various IP addresses an accounts since 2012. Cheers, Toa Nidhiki05 23:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
How many edits total? How many total edits did you do before you had a clue?Tym Whittier (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Dozens of edits. She's also regularly published articles about Wikipedia off the platform - she knows how things work here. It's been nearly seven years at this point, she's not a newbie. Toa Nidhiki05 01:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Well. My basic position hasn't changed, but over the last 24 hours I've done some research and now I'm starting to see your point. Meaning, I still think she should be treated as a New Editor, locked in that box, and Editors as a general rule should avoid getting into any off-Wikipedia drama, but that's now a more strategic position vs. one based in Wikipedia philosophy (really too complex an idea to convey via text, here). What's changed is my realization that she seems to "not get" certain aspects of the story. Best example of this I can come up with is the idea of "fairness" (her word) and how that absolutely does not apply to Wikipedia. I've never seen the word used once in any of the Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc... It's simply a word that does not apply to Wikipedia. As a layperson, this was a hard lesson to learn, and a hard transistion to make. In fact, IMO there should be an essay titled "Wikipedia is not Fair", as the word describes a standard that Wikipedia does not use. If the RS is "unfair", then Wikipedia is unfair, full stop. Point is, you only learn this if you want to. The obverse of this is that if you DON'T want to, it's real easy to pretend that it's a workd, and a standard that applies here, and it absolutely does not. Overall point here is that I think more of you than when I started, and less of her. There's just too many convenient gaps in her awareness, and gaps in her "reporting" for it to be explained simply as a "new Editor that needs a clue". Still think she needs to be handled carefully, probably by a single, experienced Editor. Extend every courtesy and let her demonstrate a delibarate unwillingness to learn the what's and why's of Wikipedia. Best way I can characterize this atm is "preying upon the ignorance of the masses". This could be a strategic opportunity if someone, or a group of someones, were careful about it. Primary concern here is that if this is her character with regard to Wikipedia, can she be trusted as a journalist to report on the high-risk topic of immunizations, which could have life-terminating consequences on children. Stakes are high; people should be thoughtful, careful, and strategic.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

T-bans

Something to note, besides the fact that use of the talk page is preferred to edit warring, is that what you said in this edit summary is disallowed per WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED. Please use arguments for gaining consensus on material rather than personal attacks, thank you. petrarchan47คุก 22:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That applies to editors who have been completely banned from the project, not to editors who have been topic banned. Your previous editing history is in fact open to scrutiny. I would suggest you read policies more closely in the future before trying to use them against people. Toa Nidhiki05 22:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • Norfolk Island Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
  • South Carolina Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
  • Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
  • United States Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Amazing work on Center for Immigration Studies Britishfinance (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 20:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Remembering You (song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Remembering You (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 Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Remembering You (song)

The article Remembering You (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:Remembering You (song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Remembering You (song)

The article Remembering You (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Remembering You (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on this, Toa! (I enjoy that song.) SunCrow (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I was a big Steven Curtis Chapman fan and liked the Narnia movie but only discovered it fairly recently. Really good song! Toa Nidhiki05 17:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

numero

MOS:NUMERO says to use "number", "No." or "Nos."; do not use the symbol №. The use of "no." is not discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please mention it at the FLC then. I was advised the other way which is why that change was made. Toa Nidhiki05 18:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm advising you again not to change the format. Next will be a formal warning. No clue what FLC is. 04:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If you want to open a discussion at this FLC place, ping me and I'll make my case there because changing formats is not supported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You’ve never heard of featured lists? 11:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ichthus July 2019


ICHTHUS

July 2019
The Top 6 Articles
By Stalinsunnykvj

A suicide attack on July 11th claimed by Islamic State (IS) near a church in the Syrian city of Qamishli shows that Christians remain a major target of the terror group. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Henry VIII of England – King of England, He was an accomplished musician, author, and poet; his known piece of music is "Pastime with Good Company". He is often reputed to have written "Greensleeves" but probably did not. He had six marriages.
    2. Elena Cornaro Piscopia – was a Venetian philosopher of noble descent who in 1678 became one of the first women to receive an academic degree from a university, and the first to receive a Doctor of Philosophy degree. In 1669, she translated the Colloquy of Christ by Carthusian monk Lanspergius from Spanish into Italian.
    3. Mary, Queen of Scots – arrested for Reigning While Catholic (RWC), Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I of England in 1586, and was beheaded the following year.
    4. Bob Dylan – American singer-songwriter, author, and visual artist.
      " Take care of all your memories. For you cannot relive them."
    5. Elizabeth I of England – The Virgin Queen, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor who ushered in the Elizabethan Era, reversed re-establishment of Roman Catholicism by her half-sister.
    6. Billy Ray Cyrus – Having released 12 studio albums and 44 singles since 1992, he is best known for his number one single "Achy Breaky Heart", which became the first single ever to achieve triple Platinum status in Australia.
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
... that The Vision of Dorotheus is one of the earliest examples of Christian hexametric poetry?
Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.
Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.

When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Approach to Guy/Girl Relationships is a 1999 book by Eric and Leslie Ludy, an American married couple. After becoming a bestseller on the Christian book market, the book was republished in 2004 and then revised and expanded in 2009. It tells the story of the authors' first meeting, courtship, and marriage. The authors advise single people not to be physically or emotionally intimate with others, but to wait for the spouse that God has planned for them.

The book is divided into five sections and sixteen chapters. Each chapter is written from the perspective of one of the two authors; nine are by Eric, while Leslie wrote seven, as well as the introduction. The Ludys argue that one's love life should be both guided by and subordinate to one's relationship with God. Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to formerly unchaste or sexually abused individuals. (more...)

Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.


Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here
Delivered: 12:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Open Here

I see that Laser brain archived the Open Here FAC despite the fact that you had indicated you were planning to leave some feedback. Which is fair enough, since the FAC didn't seem to be heading toward approval anyway, but I would have hoped it would have waited for your feedback, given that I didn't get any real direction from the other reviewers on how to improve the article for a future FAC, so I was looking forward to having you weigh in so I could improve it for the future. In any event, I do plan to eventually renominate it (I'll likely seek a peer review first) so if you did have any feedback about the article that you could share with me, it would be very much appreciate and I'll make the appropriate edits accordingly. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it Hunter Kahn, I will definitely review it. Just didn’t have a ton of time the past few days to spare on it. Laser brain would likely have closed the nomination during my review regardless. If you want to start a peer review I’d be happy to look at that and give feedback later today that would go towards the FAC nomination. Toa Nidhiki05 13:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toa_Nidhiki05/Archive_15&oldid=1146361686"