User talk:Damien Linnane/Archive 6
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. Mdefsdh (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- As the disclaimer at the top of this page indicates I'm currently quite busy. I don't have the time to take on any new projects. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 September newsletter[edit]
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. 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 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: August 2019[edit]
| ||||||
AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October![edit]
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
- Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
- Diversity winner
- Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2019[edit]
| ||||||
WikiCup 2019 November newsletter[edit]
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is 
Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:
Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points
All those who reached the final will win awards. 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. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
- Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.- Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.
We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. 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 2020 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2019[edit]
| ||||||
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
| Congrats. Jill Valentine is now a Featured Article! It ended up being an amazingly easy process, once a certain user finally ceased their campaign of multi-page harassment and badgering in an obvious attempt at trying to frustrate me into abandoning the article, like a certain other user did to you during the last peer review. But enough about those trolls. Forever! ;) Hopefully this brings as much closure to you as it did to me... in that neither of us have any excuse to interact with those alleged people for the rest of our editing lives. =) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
- Oh wow. That was very un-expected! I didn't even realise it had been nominated again. Thanks so much. You really put much more effort into that than I ever expected anyone else would. Congratulations to you for managing to get it promoted! :) Damien Linnane (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane: I've been out of the loop for quite awhile, but congrats on the FA. You worked your butt off on that thing for so long and it's great to see the effort rewarded. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 07:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Beemer69. It's nice to hear from you. Yes it was a very nice surprise to see the FA considering I'd given up on the matter. Especially since I put more effort into that than any of the 13 FA's I managed to get promoted, but thankfully someone else built on top of all my groundwork. :) Hope you've been well. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane: I've been out of the loop for quite awhile, but congrats on the FA. You worked your butt off on that thing for so long and it's great to see the effort rewarded. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 07:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
Impressive![edit]
This Month in GLAM: November 2019[edit]
| ||||||
Precious anniversary[edit]
 | |
| Five years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, "about the biopic of Bruce Lee. Commercially successfully and critically acclaimed, Dragon was, however, somewhat dramatized, with the director openly saying he wanted the film to have "humor and spectacle" of one of Bruce Lee's actual films, where there was a "larger sense of fun and danger" and "reality is not exactly adhered to"."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerda Arendt. I did really enjoy writing this one. It had been on my 'to-do' list for a few years before I got to it during lock-down. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Sarah Kerrigan[edit]
@Damien Linnane:Hi, a reason for removing my entry is "source used for this is dead", but all sources all alive. Also wikipedia is not 100% "about the character's storyline". Abilities are barely mentioned, without any technical details, and information that Kerrigan appears as one of the six Blizzard characters in games' cinematic trailer is small but nice for people who like to explore more about her, beyond character storyline. Is there any other reason why is that entry removed? EchoBlu (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- @EchoBlu: Hello. There are several reasons I removed your edit.
- Firstly, the source you used to support most of your additions is this one: [1]. When I click on that link, it takes me to a '404 - Page Not Found' page.
- The fact that the source used links to a 404 error, however, is neither here nor there. I would have deleted your addition anyway. The main issue with your edits is they are not consistent with all the existing information in that section. Every other paragraph in the 'Appearances' section describes the story-line of the games. Your edits describe Kerrigan's in-game abilities. The addition essentially ruins the flow of the section by being completely different. If information on her abilities were added to the article, they would need to be put in a new section focusing on abilities. The problem with that, however, is I don't believe it's customary to add that kind of information to articles on video-game characters.
- There are accepted standards for how to write articles on every imaginable topic on Wikipedia. For a good idea of what an article should or should not contain, it's a good idea to look at articles that have been accepted to as featured within that topic. There are only three articles on Wikipedia about video-game characters that have been peer-reviewed to that level and accepted as featured: Jill Valentine, Lightning (Final Fantasy) and Tidus. All of these articles contain information on the character's storyline. None of them contain detailed information on a characters abilities, traits damage output etc etc. I don't think that kind of information should be added. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games would, however, be the appropriate place to ask questions on whether such information is appropriate to add.
- As a side point, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not fans of the series. You should explain edits so that someone who has not played the game will understand them. For example, you say Kerrigan roams around looking for "ganks", but you don't explain what a gank is. That is not helpful to any reader who hasn't already played Heroes of the Storm, and will serve only to confuse them.
- Hope this information answers your question. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane: So you want to tell me that there is no any way to expand that section because there is no storyline in HotS? If I remove "problematic" parts and write something like:
- Kerrigan appears as a playable character in Blizzard's non-canon crossover video game Heroes of the Storm. In the game, she is a melee assassin hero who utilizes a devastating combo of her abilities to stun and damage groups of enemies. Sarah Kerrigan is one of the six Blizzard characters who appears in the Heroes of the Storm cinematic trailer.
- @EchoBlu: Maybe it might be a good idea to mention somehow that Heroes of the Storm has no story line as such and is rather some kind of an online tournament arena, in which Kerrigan is a melee assassin ... (I haven't played it so I didn't know anything about it). I'd probably lose the word 'devastating' from your description though. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays[edit]
Thank you for all of your help over these last few years. I took what I learned from you and used it to improve the articles I've been working on immensely. You've really been a great help. I hope you and all your loved ones stay safe through the horrible bushfire season you've been having down there. If I could magic some of the abundant rain we've been getting here lately down to your neighbourhood, you know I would. ;) Wishing you and everyone you know the best. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks so much Homeostasis07, and thanks again for being more persistent with that FA than I was! :) Hope you are having a great time these holidays as well. I'm not up to anything too exciting, just trying to relax a bit and catch up on a few things I've been meaning to do before work goes back late next week. Luckily I live in a quite urban area so I'm not in direct danger of the fires here, but thanks for thinking of me. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bobby Bostic[edit]
The article Bobby Bostic you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Bobby Bostic 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 Homeostasis07 -- Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Pieces of April[edit]
The article Pieces of April you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pieces of April 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 Homeostasis07 -- Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Pieces of April[edit]
Hello! Your submission of Pieces of April 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi evrik. I've replied to you at the nomination page. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup![edit]
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. 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 move on 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) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2019[edit]
| ||||||
Hi again[edit]
Hi again Freikorp Damien. I was wondering if you could help me out. My DYK has been successfully reviewed, but the reviewer personally didn't like my hook, so all it needs is a new reviewer to like my hook and pass it. Would you take a look? Cognissonance (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Cognissonance. Normally I'd be happy to help out, but in this instance I happen to agree with the other reviewer. I don't think it's surprising or interesting that an artist was in a creative mindset when they created their work. I'd be happy to take a look an a completely new hook though. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree only because, even for a creative person, being "in the zone" is the rarest thing ever. Having said that, I created an alternative hook. Cognissonance (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Created another alternative hook. Cognissonance (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again Cognissonance. Sorry for the late reply. Things appeared to be busy last time I looked at your nomination though I note things have stagnated there now. Again I'm tending to agree with the statement regarding ALT1, that 'best' and 'favourite' are not necessarily interchangeable, but let's ignore that for now and focus on ALT2. My knowledge of German is actually rather poor, despite what my previous username may have suggested. Can you please point out the exact passages of the German article that you think back up ALT2? If you do that I'll weigh in at the nomination itself. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- The second paragraph translates into "According to an estimate by the World Health Organization, 350 million people worldwide suffer from depression. Solberg was one of them. Depression and nervous episodes dominated his life for a year and a half. Fortunately, he is feeling better now and he used the newly found energy to write an entire album about his experience in dealing with the disease." Cognissonance (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again Cognissonance. Sorry for the late reply. Things appeared to be busy last time I looked at your nomination though I note things have stagnated there now. Again I'm tending to agree with the statement regarding ALT1, that 'best' and 'favourite' are not necessarily interchangeable, but let's ignore that for now and focus on ALT2. My knowledge of German is actually rather poor, despite what my previous username may have suggested. Can you please point out the exact passages of the German article that you think back up ALT2? If you do that I'll weigh in at the nomination itself. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Created another alternative hook. Cognissonance (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree only because, even for a creative person, being "in the zone" is the rarest thing ever. Having said that, I created an alternative hook. Cognissonance (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Pieces of April[edit]
On 22 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pieces of April, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Peter Hedges was paid $10 to write the screenplay for Pieces of April, and another $10 to direct the film? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pieces of April. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pieces of April), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Greetings[edit]
Hi Freikorp! I hope you are doing well. I had no idea that you stopped using a pseudonym on Wikipedia --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Guerillero. It's nice to hear from you. I am doing very well thanks. Life is busy but good. Yeah I figured since I was trying to build myself a name as a writer (my first novel was published in later November last year; I'm working on a second book atm) it was probably a good idea to add my real name to my Wikipedia account, since it effectively showcases other things I've written. Between writing books and university and a new day job I've had a lot less time for Wikipedia lately, but I did write my first GA in some time only a month or so ago, plus I'm still checking my watch-list daily. I'll probably be more active on here in the second half of this year. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2020[edit]
| ||||||
Nomination of Sheldan Nidle for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheldan Nidle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —PaleoNeonate – 10:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. To be honest I don't feel strongly about the article one way or the other though; I created it seven years ago and haven't really looked at it much since. I'll wait and see what other editors think first. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
"Drake Would Love" FAC[edit]
Hello again. I hope you are doing well. Apologies for the random message, but I recently put up the "Drake Would Love Me" article up for a FAC. I just thought it would be a fun, little project to do, and I have always wanted to put a non-single song through the FAC process after reading the "Missing My Baby" article. Since you helped out with the GAN review, I was curious if you could help with the FAC.
I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest, but I thought that I should reach out to you due to your past help. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. It has been pretty overcast and rainy in my neck of the woods, and I am probably the only oddball who feels very relaxed and inspired in that type of weather. As long as I do not have to drive in it lol. Aoba47 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to look at this. Between work and study life has been very bust and I haven't done very much editing over the last month. I'm very pleased to see the article got promoted though. Congratulations. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 March newsletter[edit]
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.- Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.- The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D,
Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and 
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup newsletter correction[edit]
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 
L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: February 2020[edit]
| ||||||
DYK nomination of Jamal Farhan[edit]
Hello! Your submission of Jamal Farhan 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: March 2020[edit]
| ||||||
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| Thank you very much for processing Triple Crown nominations since April 2015! (yep, I checked – April 9, 2015 to be exact) It may feel mundane and thankless at times, but know that your efforts there do not go unnoticed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
- Thanks so much that's very appreciated. Wow I'm surprised it's been that long, cheers for pointing that out. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Jamal Farhan[edit]
On 26 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jamal Farhan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that footballer Jamal Farhan, who was banned for life by FIFA after punching a referee in the head, later expressed remorse and advised fans not to imitate him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jamal Farhan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jamal Farhan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
WikiCup 2020 May newsletter[edit]
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
- Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
- Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews- Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
- Lee Vilenski with 869 points,
Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, 
SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 
MX with 515.
The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. 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. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: April 2020[edit]
| ||||||
Your GA nomination of Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story[edit]
The article Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story 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 Rusted AutoParts -- Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: May 2020[edit]
| ||||||
MAUD Commitee[edit]
Hi! I'm searching for someone to contribute a review to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MAUD Committee/archive1. Someone who is not one of the usual suspects. If you could have a look, that would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I was planning on getting to this, I just opened up the link again now but I see it has already been promoted. Congratulations. Nice to hear from you btw. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Damien, hope all is well! Sorry for dropping randomly. I was wondering if you have the luxury of time to provide your input at FAC for the Regine Velasquez article. I understand you have a wealth of experience with BLPs. Not too sure if you are still active/involved these days as you might be busy IRL, but would greatly appreciate any input if your time allows. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Pseud 14. No worries, I'll be happy to take a look at this when I finish work today. I've just actually nominated an article for peer review myself, I'm not sure if you have a lot of experience with film articles but it doesn't matter either way, any feedback at all there in return would be appreciated. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story[edit]
In the film, he says that Lee's series was called Kung Fu, but the name of the project is The Warrior, which was also about a Chinese in the Wild West, in the articles Kung Fu and Warrior mention this fact, Warrior is based on that project.Hyju (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Hyju: Yes I understand all of that. The issue is this article isn't about Bruce Lee, it's about a film about him. I don't think it's appropriate to link to an article about a series that was eventually adapted from Bruce Lee's idea, but that he wasn't actually involved in. I think it would require some clarification to the reader, such as 'In 2019, Bruce Lee's idea was later adapted into 'Warrior', but then I think we're going off topic. Also I intend to nominate this article for featured status. I've gone through this many times, and I know you can't use a book as a reference without specifying what page numbers the cited information is on (it's always much more preferable to include page numbers but it won't be allowed at all during the featured nomination if you don't have them). So you can't use the Tom Bleecker book unless you provide page numbers in any case. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story[edit]
On 21 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that production of Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story was delayed by a monsoon and the director having a heart attack, then sped up following an extortion attempt by the Chinese mafia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
WikiCup 2020 July newsletter[edit]
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
- The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
- Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.
Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 
MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: June 2020[edit]
| ||||||
Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story[edit]
 | Hello, Damien Linnane. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC) |
Thanks so much, I appreciate it. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- No worries; I've noticed the use of both American and British English spellings in the article; AmEng in the Plot section and BrEng in the lead. Normally an American film article would use American English but because Bruce Lee came from Hong Kong, where BrEng is commonly used, I'm unsure of which variant should be used. I've chosen to use the latter, which is the fist variant I came across but I'm happy to use American English if that's your preference. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Baffle gab1978. I'm not sure how that happened, but in any case I'm completely happy to stick with BrEng. Thanks again. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Damien; BrEng it is then. I'll continue the c/e in a few hours. We have {{Use Hong Kong English}} so I'll add that to the article to remind other editors and bots. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Baffle gab1978. I'm not sure how that happened, but in any case I'm completely happy to stick with BrEng. Thanks again. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
(←) Hi again; just a note to tell you I found an uncited quotation "great movie moment" in the final paragraph. I assume this comes from the DVD commentary but I cannot check so I've marked it with {{Citation needed}}. Good luck with your planned FA nomination; it's an interesting article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your help. And yes, that quote was from the commentary, but thanks for checking in about it. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Removing the dross[edit]
|
The Crucible |
| You put the heat on me! But now the article and my thinking is so much better. I seriously think you're a class act. And you've made me think about ways I could be more open. The Little Platoon (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
- Thanks The Little Platoon, I appreciate it. Glad things worked out well over at COIN too. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Damien Linnane. Perhaps you can help clarify the source of this image being discussed at WT:NFCC#WP:NFCC#4 question? All non-free images are required to be published per WP:NFCC#4, but it's not clear at least from the file's description that this one satisfies that particular non-free content use criterion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Your input[edit]
I have an RfC going on at Talk:Gwar#RfC_about_GwarBar_vs_GWARbar regarding using all caps in an article and would appreciate the input of some long-standing Wikipedia editors who may be familiar with the policy, or at least be able to interpret the existing policy with some clarity. Thanks for your time! NJZombie (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for reaching out. I have been a bit overwhelmed lately so I haven't been participating in discussions, but feel free to contact me in the future. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Suffix effect[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Suffix effect requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Suffix+Effect and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022537180905125. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Just for the record I didn't actually create that article, I created a redirect, and then someone else fleshed that redirect out with the copyrighted information. For some strange reason, rather than just revert that edit, the entire article was deleted. I've recreated the redirect, as I believe it is helpful. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: July 2020[edit]
| ||||||
"Amamayong" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Amamayong. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 19#Amamayong until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've left a comment there. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter[edit]
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;- HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
- Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. 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. 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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm back[edit]
Out of courtesy, thank you for your kind words on my talk page, and I'm back few months ago, translation for Resident Evil: Apocalypse was done a month ago, plan to do Dark Angel (American TV series), R. V. C. Bodley & Death of Ms Dhu within a month.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know Jarodalien, and welcome back! It's good to see you here. Awesome work as usual on the articles. I'll try and check in about them from time to time though if you can let me know once any of them are promoted. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jarodalien. I was just going through my talk page and decided to check in on these articles. Glad to see Resident Evil: Apocalypse was promoted after your translation. Thanks again for your hard work. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words, I just finished translating Death of Ms Dhu. Chinese Wikipedia were still very immature, always believe "the longer the better", so R. V. C. Bodley is too short to promoted to FA, so I have no plan to nominate recently.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know Jarodalien, and thanks again for your great work translating. That's a shame about the R. V. C. Bodley article, hopefully they change their attitudes eventually about it. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- zh:李小龍傳 (1993年美國電影) have been promoted couple days ago.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Awesome work Jarodalien, thanks so much. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- zh:李小龍傳 (1993年美國電影) have been promoted couple days ago.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know Jarodalien, and thanks again for your great work translating. That's a shame about the R. V. C. Bodley article, hopefully they change their attitudes eventually about it. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words, I just finished translating Death of Ms Dhu. Chinese Wikipedia were still very immature, always believe "the longer the better", so R. V. C. Bodley is too short to promoted to FA, so I have no plan to nominate recently.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: August 2020[edit]
| ||||||
What would you do?[edit]
hi @Damien Linnane:,
I greatly enjoyed our interaction earlier this year. And I like the way you get things done.
Would you mind giving me some advice?
Now, no one owns any article, but there's one article I've worked on a bit, it's for a West Australian MP, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Hastie_(politician)
However, today, an editor deleted about 100,000 bytes of information from the article. There was no discussion on the talk page beforehand.
As I say, I like the way you handle the wiki process. What would you recommend to me?
The Little Platoon
- Hi The Little Platoon. Thanks for reaching out; I appreciate that you value my advice. I think you need to read Wikipedia:Article size. Before this person removed content the article was 164,000 bytes. That's, quite frankly, getting extreme to say the least. In fact I don't think I've ever seen a biographical article on Wikipedia that long in over 12 years of editing. I've written two biographical articles that have been peer reviewed and accepted as featured content. The first one was 26,000 bytes; the second one was 56,000. I'm not trying to brag, my point is you should be able to summarize a person's life in well under 100,000 bytes. So even before I look at the article's content, I can tell you that it either needed to heavily cut or split, and I don't think splitting would have been a good option in this case. Just because you have enough content, for example, to write an article just about his military career, doesn't mean you necessarily should. With both 'my' articles listed above I had more than enough content to make them twice the size if I wanted to, but I don't think that would have been an improvement. In my opinion the article in question is still verging on too long at its current size of 75,000 bytes.
- Typically though, I should refer you to the concept of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, referred to as WP:BRD. Basically any editor is allowed to make a bold edit, such as removing large amounts of data, without talk page discussion. If you're unhappy with such a move, one approved step to take would be reverting the edit and then discussing the matter on the talk page until a consensus is reached, which may of course involve reaching out to third parties. In this particular case though, I don't think third parties would agree that the article shouldn't have been reduced, the only thing that would probably be up for debate are which parts should have been shortened.
- I've had a bit of a look at the article. To be honest, the lead was an eyesore beforehand. One massive paragraph with too many quotes for starters, but let's move along. Something I want to mention about your editing in general is you really need to think about what you want to accomplish. I don't want to start a debate on your motivation, but let's say you were trying to promote Andrew Hastie (Just for the record I don't think he's paying you). Now regardless of what Wikipedia's guidelines are, the fact of the matter is people have very short attention spans. The longer you make the article, the less likely anyone is to read it. When I saw what the article looked like beforehand it felt like reading it would have been a serious effort. By making the article longer and longer you're probably reducing the chance that anyone will actually learn anything about him. I'd also like to mention the amount of photos that were at this article, since I noticed a similar problem at Angus Taylor. Firstly there were far too may images, but beside that point, adding that many photos of this nature may be counter-productive. Let me explain. I'm an experienced editor. I know how hard it is to try and source free images of pretty much anything, especially notable people, and especially posed professional looking ones. You might have noticed a lot of photographs on Wikipedia look like they were taken by amateur photographers in a crowd, because they pretty much were; people unfortunately generally don't release professional photographs into the public domain. I'm looking at the old version of the article. There's a family photo Andrew from 1983, there's way to many photos of him on military deployment, there's stacks of posed promotion; there's even one of him playing with his daughter in his office. Even before I looked at who took these photos, I instantly know that whoever worked on this article has an extremely close connection with the subject in order to be able to get access to this many images of this nature. Accordingly, my initial gut feeling is that the article isn't neutral and cannot be trusted, and that's before I even start reading. That response is probably not typical, since most people reading Wikipedia aren't experienced editors, but it's my honest reaction after looking at it. I hadn't even heard of Andrew Hastie before today. Anyway I hope you find some of that information helpful. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that is good advice. I think generally shortening of articles is a good idea. Good for the ego this stuff isn't it! 2001:8004:C41:B7A7:597E:17A7:5277:461 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Question - what are two or three BLP articles you personally rate? 2001:8004:C41:B7A7:597E:17A7:5277:461 (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just curious, are you The Little Platoon? Not sure if you're just not logged in on your phone or I'm talking to someone else. :) In any case, I should mention I haven't written about a politician before so I'm not a subject matter expert on how to write such a biography, but when I want to write an article about a topic I haven't written about much before, I start searching through Wikipedia's list of articles that have been peer reviewed and accepted as featured to see what the gold standard is. You can find the complete list of featured articles on politicians here: Wikipedia:Featured articles#Politics and government biographies. I'm currently looking at the article for Thomas White (Australian politician) and it looks really outstanding to me; he has a military background too which is relevant.
Don Dunstan looks good too.I'm surprised at how long the article on Gough Whitlam is, but it looks great overall (and he was the Prime Minister, so arguably there's a lot more information to add and the length is more justifiable, same issue with Stanley Bruce). Don't make the mistake of assuming that because an article is 'featured' it is perfect though. Especially if it was promoted a long time ago. Thomas White was promoted last year and should be considered a good example; Thomas Playford IV is a featured article, but was promoted back in 2007. It may or may not meet the current standards for such articles (I haven't taken the time to read it so I don't know). Hope that helps. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane: Yes, it's me. Sorry wasn't logged in. Those are great suggestions. I have read the Whitlam one before, but will check out the others.The Little Platoon (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The Little Platoon: no worries. Glad I could help. Actually on taking a second look Don Dunstan looks a bit bloated. Especially the lead. The article was actually promoted back in 2006. I definitely think Thomas White is the best example for an Australian politician, though feel free to draw inspiration from other countries. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane: Mind if I think aloud? I agree that the article on Thomas White is superb. Nuggety. Every sentence packed with rich information. But I, as a user of wiki and as an editor, I feel I have different needs when it comes to a politician who is still currently operating. Take Penny_Wong for example. Serious leader. Important. Six months ago I went to her page and there was a bunch of stuff about her childhood, her elections, and then a whole lot of material on her view of marriage. All that is fine. But there was nothing about her views. She's the foreign affairs spokesperson and there was nothing about how she views China or the United States. So I looked around at things she said and put that in in the article, I set it out into clear sections, and I started to set out some of her pertinent views (which are strongly in support of the alliance, surprisingly enough, given that she is from the Left faction). Anyway, I think that stuff is important. I think we should know what our elected officials believe. And not just the stuff that the set out on their campaign sites. That only has the stuff they want you to hear now. What have they said in the past? What have they changed their minds about? To me, wikipedia is the place that can live, where we can all see it. The media is such utter rubbish in this regard. The only thing that will be reported about Senator Wong this year will be times she has criticised the PM - and that reveals hardly anything about the twenty other things that matter, that we should probably know about, or, at least, can find easily if we want to. Anyway mate, that's where I'm coming from, and that's my interest in the whole project.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The Little Platoon: no worries. Glad I could help. Actually on taking a second look Don Dunstan looks a bit bloated. Especially the lead. The article was actually promoted back in 2006. I definitely think Thomas White is the best example for an Australian politician, though feel free to draw inspiration from other countries. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The Little Platoon: Oh I definitely agree an article on an active politician needs to take additional things into consideration. I went through every featured politician article hoping to find one on an active Australian and unfortunately they don't have a single one. You could drop it back a level and look through the good articles instead. There's 225 on politicians, if you look through maybe you can find something relevant, though keep in mind the age of the nomination, and also that it's a lower level pf peer review. But I'm sure you can draw inspiration from good and featured articles on active politicians from other countries though. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane: That feels like the gauntlet has been laid down doesn't it?! Surely we should choose a good article on an active Australian politician of note - then see if we can take it to Featured status. Julia Gillard perhaps?
- I checked out the featured articles on active political figures. Hillary Clinton has a good one. A large section on political views, then on religious views, then on cultural and political image. Not sure about that last section. 37 images. Massive article - 317kb (nearly twice the size of Gillard's, though Clinton was never head of government). I enjoyed the article on Wesley_Clark though he never served in office, it has a good way of bringing out his views on what I would call liberal internationalism. Nearly 100k. 8 images. Must say, I felt like I didn't really understand what he was about, so I wouldn't rank it for FA myself. Same goes for Norodom Ranariddh which is a blow by blow narrative, but, again, nothing much about what that person believes about, say, socialism or democracy or the Khmer Rouge or nationalism.The Little Platoon (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The Little Platoon: I like the idea, someone does really need to do it. Filling gaps in the literature is something I'm interested in in general, though unfortunately I don't have the time to take on any projects on Wikipedia at all at the moment.
- Keep in mind that reference lists blow out article sizes. One of the things I'm most proud of on Wikipedia is the List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. It has about 5000 words, but it is 348kb in size because it has 690 references. By comparison, Gillard's article has more than twice as many words though only 321 references, so her article is half the size of that one in terms of bytes. Clinton's article has 609 references, plus a large notes section which increases the size significantly. Also Clinton in particular is a household name worldwide and even if she wasn't the head of state, she was secretary of state and narrowly missed out on becoming president. In addition to being much more famous, Clinton and Gillard have also both been active for significantly longer than Andrew Hastie. My point being while these articles can be used as an idea of how to structure things, his article should not match these in size. Also in regards to the number of images - the number alone isn't the only issue, two of the main issues with how the Hastie article looked before it was trimmed was the repetitiveness of images and also the irrelevant ones. A single image of Andrew while he was deployed overseas is great. You might be able to justify a second one. But you definitely don't need a picture of the hills near where he worked, a picture of a type of vehicle he may have used (complete with irrelevant information on its hull and information on military casualties), the logo of his army unit and a picture of soldiers who are members of a group that had something to do with him all in the one section. Maybe you could have one of those at best, but personally I wouldn't use any of them as they're only peripherally linked to the subject. The only image at Gillard's article that doesn't feature her is an artwork of her likeness. The ones at Clinton's article that don't feature her are significantly linked to her, such as her personal mementos on display at the presidential library. No pictures of nameless individuals who are members of a group she was a member of. Anyway that's all the time I have for this tonight. :). Damien Linnane (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane:Okay, I am getting a bit of a rebalance from this, thank you. Am starting to think - and perhaps this is an age of the Instagram thing - that Wiki, to be encyclopedic, should be more visual than it is. I think you pick up a lot about a person when you see who they are with or what they are doing. It puzzles me that we generally prefer the "studio" style photos of leaders. I'd rather see what they do, who they talk to, who they work with. I realise I am a grain of sand on the wiki beach, but that's what I want for it. Might see you on the talk page of Julia Gillard soon.The Little Platoon (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane:Decided to start lifting the article on Kim Beazley for now - could be so much better!The Little Platoon (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Awesome, best of luck with it. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane:Decided to start lifting the article on Kim Beazley for now - could be so much better!The Little Platoon (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane:Okay, I am getting a bit of a rebalance from this, thank you. Am starting to think - and perhaps this is an age of the Instagram thing - that Wiki, to be encyclopedic, should be more visual than it is. I think you pick up a lot about a person when you see who they are with or what they are doing. It puzzles me that we generally prefer the "studio" style photos of leaders. I'd rather see what they do, who they talk to, who they work with. I realise I am a grain of sand on the wiki beach, but that's what I want for it. Might see you on the talk page of Julia Gillard soon.The Little Platoon (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest![edit]
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
- Overall winner
- 1st - $500
- 2nd - $200
- 3rd - $100
- Diversity winner - $100
- Gender-gap fillers - $100
- Language Winners - up to $100*
We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
Removing all impurity[edit]
|
Skull Crucible |
| I often feel burnt by your feedback. But I know it's making the content all the more pure. The Little Platoon (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
- Thanks The Little Platoon. I actually felt a bit bad when I got home from my plans tonight as I'd already started thinking my feedback was too blunt, but I stand by the general points raised, and yes, the article will be better in the end. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2020[edit]
| ||||||
Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story scheduled for TFA[edit]
This is to let you know that Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 27 November 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 27, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 November newsletter[edit]
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is 
Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. 
The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with 
Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were 
Hog Farm (submissions), 
HaEr48 (submissions), 
Harrias (submissions) and 
Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN 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.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
- Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
- MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
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 2021 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November![edit]
Greetings,
Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.
It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.
Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
- Overall winner
- 1st - $500
- 2nd - $200
- 3rd - $100
- Diversity winner - $100
- Gender-gap filler - $100
- Language Winners - up to $100*
We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!
Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
This Month in GLAM: October 2020[edit]
| ||||||
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
I had no idea Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story was a featured article[edit]
Hi Damien,
I pasted info from another article a while back which you reverted. I totally missed the star above the poster. Of course, the info pasted is good since you retained part of Brandon Lee's reasoning from turning down the role. However, there are bits missing which I intend to return with new prose.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Filmman3000. I appreciate you're trying to help, but I don't think some of your edits to this article are improvements. Yes, the sources you pasted into the article did contain some new information that I was able to salvage, though I much would have preferred you posting the source on the talk page, rather than dragging in a stack of text that didn't integrate at all with the peer reviewed text that was already written.
- At this edit [2] you're Wikilinking Brandon's name, even though he has already been wikilinked in the cast section. As per Wikipedia's guidelines, you should only link to an article once in the body of the text. You also later wikilinked Jason Scott Lee even though he is already linked earlier as well. I had to remove all the duplicate links in order to get this passed through the featured review process, so I'd really appreciate it if you didn't add them back and drag this article back to beneath featured standards. I also deliberately don't mention Brandon and Jason in the same sentence as people who were under consideration, even though it is indeed in the source, as I believe the paragraph flows better if the information is separated. Most of getting an article through the intense scrutiny of a featured review process is making sure it reads well. It also reads poorly (and is completely redundant) to mention Brandon is Bruce's son in the casting section, when it's already been done twice (in both the lead and the plot section). You shouldn't make any article repeat itself, but especially not a featured one.
- In the future, not only is it a bad idea to copy and paste text into a featured article, but I personally think it's a bad idea to start introducing new information into an article when it's Today's featured article. Articles have go through a couple stages of intense scrutiny to be accepted as article of the day, so modifying them with non-peer reviewed edits while they're currently an example of Wikipedia's best content is not ideal, especially when the information you've added has already been contested in the past. I'd been trying to get Dragon as the article of the day for months, and it wasn't until I finally got it there that you decided to add back this information. I think it would have been better if a consensus could have been reached regarding your edits earlier, or if you had of waited one day until it wasn't in the spotlight anymore.
- The information you added about why Brandon didn't want to play his father was good though. I'm happy for that to stay. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- (watching:) I go further and say all information once contested should be discussed before re-adding. The article will be on the Main page for three more days, and I'm always surprised how many readers get interested those days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again thanks for retaining Brandon's further reflection on why he turned down the role. While I do have notes on the article that I will post below, I am just happy that info that I installed on the go made it to a featured article.
- While I do think it is important to say both Brandon and Jason were both in Universal Pictures' list of contenders to play Bruce, in April 1991, and that Jason is not related to the Lee's. For the second maybe a (no relation) the first time their names come up together.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's mentioned that there's no relation between Bruce and Jason in the caption of Jason's image, which appears prior to the cast section. I think that's sufficient for the reader. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Polynesian Panther Party[edit]
I have rewritten the final sentence in the Panthers' intro sentence after your revision. Does this better reflect the intended message? Fly.Social (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I'm not sure where you're getting this information from. I think it's very unlikely the PPP didn't do any form of protesting or activism in the two years the trial regarding the 1981 protest raged, that was just the last major project they worked on. I'll give it a go myself. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fly.Social: Regarding the photo you've uploaded, just wanted to check if you got permission from the copyright holder to release their work into the public domain? You can't take a photo of a copyrighted 2D image, like a page from a book, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Even though it's your photo, you don't own the copyright to it as the photo is entirely of somebody else's work. Assuming you did get permission, is there any chance you can scan it? It looks like a photo of a photo, which while certainly better than nothing, isn't particularly professional looking. If you don't own a scanner there's a good chance you can scan it at a public library or a place like Office Works. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Permission was previously granted online via public domain for this version. This photo was not taken/scanned by me Fly.Social (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail[edit]
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.BunbunYU (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2020[edit]
| ||||||
Precious anniversary[edit]
| |
| Six years! |
|---|
Thank you today for Prison education, introduced: "This article is about education within the prison system. I first nominated this article back in 2018, and have address the issues raised at that FAC, notably the lack of coverage in the History section towards Africa and South America. However, as I noted at the first FAC, gaps remain in that section, as the history of prison education in countries is rarely written about. For example, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia; in it the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. Coverage in developing nations in particular is often non-existent. What's in that section is a summary of all the sources myself and other editors could find."! --
Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup![edit]
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. 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 move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Brandon Lee article[edit]
Hi Damien,
Happy new year! I am the guy who added info that you retained on the Bruce Lee biopic about the possible casting of his son.
I recently nominated Brandon Lee for a good article. Wondering if you could peak at it, I honestly think I said everything that could be said.Filmman3000 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Filmman3000. Thanks for your message. I can't make any promises but if I find the time I'll check it out. One thing I can tell you right away though is that your reference section needs work, in the sense that it's not consistent. One source says "Retrieved 26 January 2017", and the source directly beneath that say "Retrieved 2019-12-27". You need to pick one date format (the first option - month written in letters, is preferred) and then consistently apply that to each source. You also need to name your sources consistently. For example, one source is attributed to "Animation Magazine", the name of the website, but the source underneath is attributed to "catalog.afi.com", the website's URL. Again be consistent (naming the website is preferred). Hope that helps in the meantime. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Filmman3000. Unfortunately I'm not going have the time to take on any Wikipedia projects for the next couple months at least. I just had another look at the article and I noticed the things I suggested haven't been worked on yet. I'd really recommend doing that now, if for no other reason to make the article more likely to be picked up for a review. In my experience, the more work an article looks like it's going to be, the less likely a reviewer is going to take it on. Anyway best of luck with the article in any case. I hope it gets picked up for a review soon. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks buddy, I had to deal with a million other unexpected things in my non-virtual life, but thank you for bringing me back to Wiki-life. Oh, I worked on two other bios of martial arts legends. It's been a while, though. I am the one who restructured Bruce Lee's bio so that it is in chronological order and milked Weng Weng's biography. I will slowly get back to them. If I do not have the time be my guest on these pages when you do have the time and if you want to take the time. Best wishes stay strong and healthy.Filmman3000 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Damien, finally got around to fix what you recommended thanks for the input. If you have any more please let me know. Thank you for the time you have given already. It is very kind.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2020[edit]
| ||||||
This Month in GLAM: January 2021[edit]
| ||||||
DYK for Change the Subject[edit]
On 21 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Change the Subject, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the documentary Change the Subject is about lobbying efforts to replace the term "illegal aliens" with "undocumented immigrants" in the Library of Congress Subject Headings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Change the Subject. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Change the Subject), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
WikiCup 2021 March newsletter[edit]
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
- Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.- The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.- Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
- Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.
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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or something 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: February 2021[edit]
| ||||||
Tank Girl FA in need of review[edit]
Hello. Just want to let you know I've started a discussion on the talk page of an article you nominated and expanded to FA, Tank Girl (film). In my opinion, it is need of review. Click here to join the discussion. Thanks :) HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Tank Girl open casting.jpg[edit]
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for you![edit]
you deserve it
Gerdolfo (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerdolfo: Well thank you. That's unexpected, and I'm not sure what I did that came to your attention, but I appreciate the good vibes all the same. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: March 2021[edit]
| ||||||
WikiCup 2021 May newsletter[edit]
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in Round 2 were:
- The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
- Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
- Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
- Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
- Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
- Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.- Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.
Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: April 2021[edit]
| ||||||
Archiving[edit]
Hi. Please archive my latest entry (John Fautenberry) to list of people executed by lethal injection. Also can you archive the source for Marco Allen Chapman in the same list, I added it a few days ago. Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Inexpiable. Thanks for letting me know, and for all your work on the article. I've archived both the references you mentioned. I'm happy to keep doing it (normally I notice when you add a new reference but feel free to point it out when I miss one), but if you want instructions on how to archive a website yourself I'd be happy to show you. It's easy once you know how. Have a nice day. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I do know how to do it I just do it a different way to you. For formatting consistency within the article is why I decided to let you do it. Have you any plans to make anymore articles like this? Such as one for people executed by the electric chair? Inexpiable (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh that's an interesting idea. I never thought about doing that, but maybe I will one day now. I don't have any plans to make similar articles at present though. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I do know how to do it I just do it a different way to you. For formatting consistency within the article is why I decided to let you do it. Have you any plans to make anymore articles like this? Such as one for people executed by the electric chair? Inexpiable (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Josh Phillips (murderer)[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Josh Phillips (murderer) 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 Light&highbeautyforever -- Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Finished and submitted to a mentor for look-over. Nice article; fascinating and tragic. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Josh Phillips (murderer)[edit]
The article Josh Phillips (murderer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Josh Phillips (murderer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Light&highbeautyforever -- Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: May 2021[edit]
| ||||||
WikiCup 2021 July newsletter[edit]
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:
- The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
- Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
- Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
- Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
- Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.
In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; 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 (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Josh Phillips (murderer)[edit]
On 10 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Josh Phillips (murderer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Josh Phillips, who was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murdering his eight-year-old friend when he was fourteen, is eligible for resentencing in 2023? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Josh Phillips (murderer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Josh Phillips (murderer)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
- Hi Damien, Congrats on the fine job you've done with this GA. I could not ascertain your standpoint after reading it, which is a credit to you and your writing skills! I was just writing this note to ask whether ball was thrown or hit... and voila! you'd simplified it already! Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words JennyOz, I appreciate it. I noticed after reading over your changes that I'd gotten the pronoun wrong for Phillips in the sentence in question, which would have caused confusion, but then I figured there was a simpler way to write what happened anyway. It's also good to know the article comes across as neutral; I tried my best to not put any bias into it. I guess my personal opinion on the matter is the same as Sheriff Glover's 2008 comments in the quotebox. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: June 2021[edit]
| ||||||
In appreciation[edit]
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the ceaseless and tireless work you do to keep the Triple Crown running. It is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC) |
- Thanks so much. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: July 2021[edit]
| ||||||
WikiCup 2021 September newsletter[edit]
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being 
Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, 
BennyOnTheLoose, 
Amakuru and 
Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.
Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. .jpg){kind=small}
Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, 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 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: August 2021[edit]
| ||||||
September 2021[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk
- @AssumeGoodWraith: Please do your homework before leaving messages like this in the future. I'm reverting a block evasion from the banned user Nate Speed. If you check the article's edit history, you'll see this contested edit has been added to the article dozens of times in the last couple months alone, and reverted by five separate users, including myself. Two other users reverted this vandalism today as well ([3][4]) though I note you haven't threatened either of them. These specific attacks on the article have led to it being protected several times. Even though this person clearly knows their edit is contested by an overwhleming consensus, I patiently explained why I was reverting his edit: [5]. He responded, in typical style, by hurling insults at me: [6]. In the last two weeks alone, seven of his hateful and insulting edit summaries have had to be deleted. Please explain how I'm supposed to reach a consensus with an editor who is banned, is evading a block, has had their same edit reverted by several established editors, and frequently has to have their edit summaries deleted for abuse and threats? I expect you to respond. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly looked like an edit war in the page history. Guess I haven't looked into it enough. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- @AssumeGoodWraith: I'm not sure if you meant to delete your last comment when you stuck the warning. In any case, I can appreciate it may have looked like I was edit warring on the surface. As per WP:3RRNO, reverting the edits of a banned user is not edit warring. While the IP editor in question is clearly uncivil, I understand it isn't obvious from the article history alone that the user is banned. I'd suggest in the future that if an editor is established and appears to have a good editing history, asking them about behaviour that seems out of character may be a better approach than leaving a generic template warning. In the future I'll try and mention in the edit summary if a user is block evading, so that others can get a better understanding of what is going on. Thanks for striking the comment. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly looked like an edit war in the page history. Guess I haven't looked into it enough. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Invisible Barnstar | |
| For your valued work in the July 2021 GAN Backlog Drive, which, in a single month, helped to reduce the backlog by nearly 50%. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC) |
Editing question[edit]
Hey pal. What was up with this edit of yours?: [7] How come you deleted that entry? He died via lethal injection, and I move Dennis up the list above DeYoung per the alphabetical order? Inexpiable (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Inexpiable: I'm not really sure how that happened. All I tried to do was archive the Pistol Pete reference. I think I might have accidentally hit 'undo' instead of 'edit' somewhere. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest![edit]
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!
Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.
The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:
- Overall winner
- 1st - $500
- 2nd - $200
- 3rd - $100
- Diversity winner - $100
- Gender-gap fillers - $100
- Language Winners - up to $100*
Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
This Month in GLAM: September 2021[edit]
| ||||||
'Murica[edit]
Do you hate America? I know you were acting in good faith, but removing this wonderfully written and patriotic addition is completely unacceptable. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to grill hot dogs. Panini!🥪 12:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Abortion doping[edit]
Thank you for your additional edits to "abortion doping". It was interesting for me to fact-check the original article and find additional information about it (in particular I tried really hard to track down relevant stuff the Finnish doctor), but all late-night sessions must eventually come to an end. :-) If I have time in future, I'll address some of your specific concerns. --leuce (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- W.r.t. this edit:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_doping&type=revision&diff=1050965654&oldid=1050955648
- The purpose of Snopes articles is to give the appearance of neutrality by making "on the other hand" kind of statements next to statements that are not incontrovertably true. This is such a kind of statement. The comment that "it is not clear" whether Dr. Erkkola knew this or that, is the Snopes article's author's own opinion. Also, I saw a number of reports from shortly after Dr. Erkkola's statement that quoted him without further question, and the only reports that I saw that did question it (as the Snopes author claims) were from much later, e.g. 2007. --leuce (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Leuce. It's nice to see someone else take an interest in this article. I believe you're the first editor to make serious changes to it since I created it back in 2009. Thanks for finding the academic source to. I haven't had time to read it yet (so that's the only part of your edits I haven't addressed yet), though I intend to as time permits. I'm certainly aware of the limitations of late-night editing sessions; I was up all last night working on a different article. Anyway I did like some of your clarifications, and I get what you're saying about Snopes above, though I think giving the direct quote is more neutral and allows the reader to make their own assessment. If you prefer you're welcome to discuss changes with me here or on the article's talk page if you like, though of course you're also welcome to be bold. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Promotion of Prison education[edit]
- I also wanted to say congratulations on this promotion. It is great to see such an important topic represented in the FA space. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Aoba47, and thanks again for looking at it. It was definitely my most ambitions and hardest FAC yet. I'm not sure if I'll attempt anything like it again haha, but I'm definitely glad I did it. The article was in terrible shape before I started working on it. Hopefully it changes some attitudes toward the subject. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The film was premiered on television before getting a limited release in theaters. TV films aren't categorized under directorial debut films, unless you want to revoke Loverboy as Kevin Bacon's film directing debut, which was released in theaters. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- QuasyBoy The sources says it was his directorial debut. I've never heard of TV films not being considered "directorial debuts". Can you please point out which Wikipedia policy covers that? Even if that term "directorial debut" is prohibited, I'd still at least want to reword Losing Chase to say something like it was "the first film he directed", since that's clearly the case. Also please explain things in the edit summary next time; it saves time for both of us. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is no direct Wikipedia policy, just basing of the criteria on List of directorial debuts. My apologies for not leaving an edit summary, I didn't think it would be a big deal since the article doesn't get a lot of edit activity. QuasyBoy (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @QuasyBoy: I understand. Look if you want to reword it to what I suggested or something similar I really don't mind, I just think we should definitely mention to the reader that it was the first film he directed, especially since its sourced. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to reword it yourself. Also, clarify how to categorize Loverboy, since a director can't have two full-length directorial debut films. QuasyBoy (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in rewording it as I don't consider the current wording to be a problem, I was just saying I wasn't going to oppose you doing so if it addressed your concern. As I've not seen an issue like this before I've started a conversation about it over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. I'll go with whatever the consensus is there. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- As per the feedback there, the reference that Losing Chase was his debut "takes precedence over editorial opinion". Accordingly, I'm removing the debut category from Loverboy. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to reword it yourself. Also, clarify how to categorize Loverboy, since a director can't have two full-length directorial debut films. QuasyBoy (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @QuasyBoy: I understand. Look if you want to reword it to what I suggested or something similar I really don't mind, I just think we should definitely mention to the reader that it was the first film he directed, especially since its sourced. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is no direct Wikipedia policy, just basing of the criteria on List of directorial debuts. My apologies for not leaving an edit summary, I didn't think it would be a big deal since the article doesn't get a lot of edit activity. QuasyBoy (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Page name changes[edit]
This was a pretty bold move my friend, changing the word "offender" to "person" for all of those pages. I do agree with you though that these pages should be titled as "people", I have thought about taking them to article renaming discussions for years. What put me off is all the work that would be required. A lot of pages still link to the word "offender" in the title. Also, in the tables themselves it has the wording "Age of offender" so should this perhaps be renamed to "Age of person"? It's a big job and I'm happy to help with it, but ideally we should try and change all the pages that still have links to the offender redirect pages. Inexpiable (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is the kind of edit that should ideally be on every one of those pages: [8] Inexpiable (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Inexpiable: I'm glad you agree with me. I'm happy to continue fixing all the links and updating the language. I was planning on tackling that a fair bit tomorrow. Thanks for the work you've put in so far though, I really appreciate it. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I will have it all done by the end of the day. I am recovering from a bug at the moment anyway so it gives me something to do while resting haha. A barnstar or something would be appreciated though as it's quite a long task :-) haha, but I am glad it has finally been tackled. Inexpiable (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Inexpiable: I'm glad you agree with me. I'm happy to continue fixing all the links and updating the language. I was planning on tackling that a fair bit tomorrow. Thanks for the work you've put in so far though, I really appreciate it. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
It's all done. Would you be able to speedy delete nominate these two pages you created by accident? Thanks: List of offenders people in the United States in 2011 and List of people in the United States in 2011. Clearing up everything. Inexpiable (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wow thanks so much, that's saved me a lot of time. And I've nominated those two articles for speedy deletion. I guess it's easy to make mistakes when you're renaming a couple dozen articles at once haha. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)