Jump to content

User talk:Utopes/Archive 16

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Review!

Hey, would you mind reviewing my wikipedia drafts that i currently have submitted? TheJarlXIV (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

Please review these pages

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paribal_Shallabugh

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tulmullah_Nallah

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tullamulla_Khirbhawani Saqi9541 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

This award is given in recognition to Utopes for accumulating at least 100 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

First Time Publishing - Help Needed

Hi Utopes,

thank you for your comments on my first article. I wanted to ask for your help concerning the notability of the subject: most of the articles were never digitized but are from sources that have their own Wikipedia sites (it’s a well known guitar player that is referred to as legend in many guitar or music magazines such as Relix Magazine, Guitar Player, Guitar Techniques, Guitar World, Downbeat, Premier Guitar, Guitarist, Vintage Guitar, etc., and international magazines (Japan, Thailand, etc.)). I have over 80 official magazines with articles, interviews, lessons, and such (and not only mentions) spanning almost 20 years. Could you tell me how can I include these since they’re not online, please?

Also, the subject has recorded or played live with many A-list celebrities and already has a Wiki-page in German.

Thank you immensely for your guidance. All the best. Ivhutt (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:15th-century Christian biblical scholars indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

VC-7 Squadron

Thank you for you communication about the VC-7 Squadron. I would like to make the case that the VC-7 squadron is worthy of an article separate from RVAH-7. I have read the RVAH article and the first thing I realized was that unlike VC-7, the mission of RVAH-7 was photo reconnaissance. I think that suggests a strong distinction between the squadrons. VC-7 and the other VC squadrons were created to keep the Navy relevant in the atomic age by proving that planes carrying nuclear weapons could be launched from and returned to carriers. This mission is very different from the stated role of RVAH-7. Though in Navy records the squadrons share a lineage, I believe the distinct missions of the squadrons suggest they should be distinguished from each other. Would a cross reference be appropriate? Schbrown (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. 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) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

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

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous


Review timings

I have been working on an article for months. When I first published, you looked it over and offered advice. I worked hard on the suggestions, publishing changes the next day. A different editor looked at it, stated reasons for unacceptance so I went back to work. I resubmitted a few days later and a third, new reviewer looked at it with more suggestions. I complied with all the suggestions and submitted a much corrected article. I have heard nothing since! Why would three different people look something over and then when it's all corrected, no one looks at it? I am just curious about that timing. I appreciate all you do to help new people like me. Beingherenow2 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

Hope you're well!

Haven't seen you in a bit. Your absence is felt, I hope you'll well and that it's for all the right reasons! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration


The Signpost: 14 August 2024

Request on 16:30:59, 15 August 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by RayNoor


Hi, I received feedback that the article here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Simplicissimus_(YouTube_Channel) is not notable and cites Youtube as a source, however:

the article itself already exists on Wikipedia in German, meaning it has a precedent for being notable: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicissimus_(YouTube-Kanal)

and the YouTube citation is not of any facts but rather to quote that channel's own biography. Note;

Wikipedia draft: "Simplicissimus was created on 12 April 2015 under the name Simplicissimus 2.0, after the German satirical magazine Simplicissimus which ran from 1896 to 1967"

Citation: https://www.youtube.com/@Simplicissimus

Content: "Wir machen Essays zu Fragen, die du dir noch nie, oder viel zu oft gestellt hast. Simplicissimus = Anlehnung an die Satirezeitschrift" (we make essays on questions that you've never asked yourself or have asked yourself too often. Simplicissimus = Reference to the satire magazine)

There is a precedent for this on the original German wikipedia article: citations 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are all of Youtube links for similar reasons; to provide proof of existence, etc.

Do you mind explaining what I can do to show evidence of notability, and how the citation of Youtube in this case differs with the original article?

RayNoor (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • 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) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

draft of Reanimal.

Hello. You recently rejected a draft of "reanimal" for objective reasons, since I referred to YouTube and did not leave sources in some places , which you wrote in the comments. I fixed these problems and sent a request, another person rejected the application without comments referring to the topic is not suitable for a Wikipedia article although I have referred to many sources listed as reliable. Can you please look at the draft again and comment and tell me what to improve. I am writing to you because your comment really helped me understand my mistakes. I just don’t understand what else I need to improve and whether I should create another request for an article review. Redstone catman (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of balkh 1198

i don't know what is wrong with you sir? in the topic (battle of balkh) that i have written it, has a historical aspect in other hand you said your topic doesn't have Reliable sources may i ask you (https://books.google.com/books?id=wOzeDwAAQBAJ&dq=qara%20khitai%20ghurid%20balkh&pg=PT3) so what is this source? if you don't know history so let others review or check my toipc you just wasted my effort, i had been writing this topic for almost 4 hours. طاها صایم (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I genuinely appreciate you pointing out flaws in my draft! That is the only way to learn and grow. You are among the highest class of wiki users. RadicalUranium (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. 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) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Utopes, thanks a lot for your feedback on this draft: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Belarusian_Sport_Solidarity_Foundation

You asked to "please remove external links from the body of the article". I checked all the ref links and they seem to be formatted correctly and in line with Wiki's policy, and work exactly the same as on other pages. Can you please provide more detail. Much appreciated.

Artrage (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Utopes, having read your feedback again (and again, and again), I realized you meant the actual section entitled External Links. I removed it. Please, let me know if anything else needs editing. Otherwise, I would be most grateful for approval. Thank you. Artrage (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Artrage. Thank you for the question, and apologies for the delay. I'll provide clarification here; hopefully it is sufficient.
When reading the contents of Wikipedia articles, we try to keep the encyclopedia integrated by including wikilinks to other articles within the article's body. Furthermore, any links that aren't wikilinks tend to get removed when spotted, as Wikipedia is not a primary-source portal. This discludes some extraordinary circumstances, like a "website" parameter in an infobox or etc. All articles have (or should have) references, which is the "main" location that external links will exist. An "External links" section also serves this purpose.
I didn't have any qualms with the External Links section. But Draft:Belarusian Sport Solidarity Foundation#Activities and Achievements still has three external links present. During my initial assessment I thought I saw more than just the three, but it turns out the external linkage was less egregious than I remembered. If the Masovian Football Association is notable for instance, it should be included as a red link to encourage article creation about the subject, rather than sending people to their website.
The main reason I declined the article was for reading like an advertisement. Also present in the draft, are phrases such as: "As a matter of regular practice, the BSSF actively engages in official dialogues", "The BSSF plays an integral role in global discourses and strategic consultations", "the BSSF has done everything possible to defend the athlete's rights", and many more examples. While some have citations, it's still quite peacock phrasing, and some promotional phrasings don't have citations. See: "The BSSF is involved in fundraising activities for charitable purposes." While it may indeed be true that BSSF does fundraising activities, a lot of organizations do. It should only be included in the article if the fundraising activities have been significantly and independently reported on by reliable sources, which typically might be rare, but perhaps it's true in this case.
Hopefully this sheds a bit more light on the declination at this time. The external linkage should still be removed, but it was one actionable aspect of the WP:ADV / WP:NPOV decline. Utopes (talk / cont) 11:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Ps: Oh wait, I just realized I DIDN'T actually decline it, and only left a comment. Was reading the last declination and thought that was mine. I probably would have though, had I completed a full review of the draft (and still would at this time for WP:NPOV purposes), but only left a passerby comment in order to fix it for the next person to see it. Hopefully this helps regardless. Utopes (talk / cont) 11:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
(Also, I've gone ahead and removed the external links from the body of the article, and replaced them with redlinks.) Utopes (talk / cont) 12:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Utopes!
A massive thank you for the thorough and detailed feedback, as well as all the advice and external links removal. You have been truly helpful, and I really appreciate it.
I have carried out all the edits you suggested and then some.
Stylistically, the article has become neutral, and the missing links were added where necessary.
Some parts of the article have been removed as I couldn't find the links.
Hopefully, it is good to go now.
Once again, I am really grateful to you for all the answers and advice. Artrage (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

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

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


The Signpost: 4 September 2024

KBH4

  • Potassium borohydride, 13762-51-1,currently a redirect to borohydride, 8290 citations in ChemAbs (notable!)
  • Tetrabutylammonium Borohydride, 33725-74-5, leading ref: doi: 10.1002/047084289X.rt010 (a review), you need to know some organic
  • potassium bromate, 7758-01-2, >5200 refs (notable!) doi: 10.1002/047084289X.rp197.pub2 (a review), current article does not discuss application in organic chemistry

current article does not discuss Xray structure

Those are some gaps in chemistry articles if you are looking for projects.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphan article Chase Beisel

Greetings, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding a link at List of biologists.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

About you declining my recent AfC submission, Draft:The Essential Donovan

Hi! I just wanted to talk to you about my recent AfC submission, Draft:The Essential Donovan. If possible? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. While AllMusic reviews per WP:ALLMUSIC are seen as reliable, they are not an end-all-be-all for album notability. The reviews are certainly nice to have in an article for an album, and they are correctly attributed to AllMusic in-text, but this information plus its track listing would still be insufficient for a standalone article. Per WP:NALBUM, this information could probably be talked about in a general location for the singer Donovan. "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". I'd consider the reviews of two AllMusic users, (+1 extra review), to be a "little more than a track listing" that can be discussed elsewhere, as the sourcing does not demonstrate standalone notability for the album by itself. Feel free to resubmit for a second opinion though; I see you've done so now. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Request of re-review

Greetings Utopes,

thank you again for reviewing my Draft:Logic_7,

I have made changes according to the things you have pointed out, and was wondering if you could have a peek at it once again. I am in no rush, but recently I find myself extremely busy to the point I won't be able to update the article often, if at all.


I thank you in advance, and hope to hear from you. Andreas Jordanidis (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Clarifications and Request for Further Information Regarding Feedback on the Article

Article Draft:Thierry Rayer

Dear Moderators,

I am writing to seek your assistance regarding the feedback you provided on the article in question. First, I would like to thank you for your comments and for the work you do to maintain the platform’s quality standards.

However, I am somewhat surprised by some of your remarks, particularly those indicating that certain phrases appear too promotional. Our intention is simply to faithfully transcribe information from media outlets and official sources, such as ministries or museums. I would therefore like to raise a few points to clarify the situation.

Firstly, could you please identify the specific phrases or information that you find promotional? This would help us make the necessary adjustments while remaining faithful to the sources we have carefully selected. It is crucial not to alter the content of information from official or journalistic sources, as this might compromise its accuracy.

Secondly, I would like to emphasize that all references cited in the article come from reliable, recognized, and verifiable sources. The excerpts written are directly based on these sources to ensure accuracy and compliance. It would be helpful if you could review these references in detail, as they form the foundation of the article and ensure the reliability of the presented information.

I therefore wonder how these sources are being taken into account during the evaluation process. Have you had the opportunity to review them thoroughly? By doing so, you will see that the article is solely based on factual and verified information, drawn from credible and objective publications.

Our goal is to contribute in a neutral, objective, and well-documented manner. We would be very grateful if you could guide us on the necessary adjustments to meet your expectations while maintaining the integrity of the sources.

Thank you for your attention, and I remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Sincerely, Inspiringflow (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

review

Hi @Utopes Can you review my page please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Massacre_of_Tlemcen_(1145) Diego.julius (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)