User talk:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:32, 29 May 2021

Wow, a talk page!

This is Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. If you wish to protest any of my edits, or my reverts of your edits, please do so politely - I am more than willing to discuss.

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify him!

About Manjappada logo

Hello , I fixed issue with logo licensing criterias I think. Can you cross check it. Thanks Poppified ^talk 05:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

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).

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter

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) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated :) Keep up the great work! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Mz7 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasad

Hi, I edited the Vasad page. I didn't remove any content; I reorganized it. Some facts that were in "history" belong in "geography" for example.

@Unwittingrepublic: My apologies, I did not examine your edit properly. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 15:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Meux's Brewery Company

Hello, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Meux's Brewery Company, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Drayang

Hello, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Drayang, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discontent Content Issue 3

Discontent Content Issue #3

Welcome, subscribers, to the third Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

Gambling in Nevada: An unusual move -- a redirect? But if you look at the history, you'll see why. This sweeping and expansive topic about the home of Reno and Las Vegas was recently converted to a redirect due to its almost complete lack of useful content. Nonetheless, this subject is bursting with potential and can have a full article written about it.
SpongeBob SquarePants: Original Theme Highlights: This recent AfD survivor was the first soundtrack written for the popular series. More unorthodox, for a children's animation album, it features songs by Pantera and Ween and was given a vinyl re-release in 2016 for the...ironic market? Certainly some market. There's a fair amount of coverage here to write a solid article on.
Death by misadventure: A surprisingly major topic to be a one-paragraph stub, this is a legal and colloquial term both. The article is currently sourced in whole to a single page in a single book!

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

Rope (film): Hitchcock's classic attempt to shoot an entire film in a single shot, Rope is both a significant note in cinematic history and, in recent years, conceptualized as an important piece of Hays Code-era gay cinema. It's a good watch, and the article should be just as solid. Currently it's a C-class with some unsourced content and an overreliance on block quotes.
Rachel Pollack: One of the major occult writers of the 20th and 21st centuries (a book of hers is prominently involved in my quixotic "bring the Major Arcana to FT" plan), not to mention a significant fiction and comics writer collaborating with names such as Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison, Pollack's article has quite a bit of room for improvement to quality-assessed levels. Though her article's lead is short and the work as a whole underreferenced, plenty of opportunities exist to improve it.
Narrative paradigm: Despite this article's High or Top importance across multiple wikiprojects, it's in a sorry state. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was subjected to a WikiEd course some time back. Significant potential lies within the idea that all human communication is narrative; the article must be accordingly strong.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

Jaime King: This GA on a famous model of the 1990s has been recommended for GAR. Unreferenced sections and low-quality references are a problem for this BLP.
Dartmouth College: This FA is at FARC and on the brink of delisting, but the issues mentioned -- accessibility, WP:LEADCITE compliance, and overreliance on primary sources -- are far from insurmountable, and an editor could certainly polish off this star.
Tamil language: Another FARC, this is the native language of 75 million people (including my own stepmother) and the language of one of the world's great classical traditions. It's afflicted by a lack of sourcing and particularly issues with inline citations.

Letter from the Editor

This issue's subscriber suggestion, again from BOZ, is:

Dice: This former GA was delisted in 2009. It's a big topic to a lot of different subjects, and deserves a top-quality article.

This is ridiculously late, and I apologise -- I've been writing articles :) I've also, excitingly, landed a couple 'real publishing' writing gigs, which I'll be plenty excited to talk about when they're published. Due to the current increased amount of writing I have to do on a regular basis both on- and off-wiki, I'm planning to drop this down to monthly so I can spread out my responsibilities a bit.
Vaticidalprophet 09:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this newsletter because you opted into the Discontent Content mailing list. To opt out from future newsletters, go to Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list and remove your talk page.

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Romani people RafaelJC12 (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After I edited this article, adding: "In many other languages, regarding cognates of the word, such as gitano, cigano and gitan, this perception is either very small or nonexistent." You reverted saying: "'this perception is either very small or nonexistent' - claim not corroborated by sources, one of which is a dictionary (!)"

My first objection to this is: Why is it a problem to use dictionary as a source? This page uses Merriam-Webster as its source number 4. I'm not sure why you don't think the other sources corroborate the claim. They don't explicitly restate what I said, but the manner in which the word is extensively used in those texts should imply its connotation. Similarly, I could argue that the word "negro" has very different connotations in English, Spanish and Portuguese by showing how the word is used in different texts. Not only the sources I cited but also the foreign Wikipedia pages I linked do exactly that. I'd also like to ask you whether or not you agree with the claim I made. I understand that, as far as I know, you might not speak Spanish, Portuguese or French, so perhaps you don't know from practice the connotations of these words.

@RafaelJC12: You admit that They don't explicitly restate what I said. Then, per Wikipedia policy, you can't use them to justify your claim - because what you are doing is synthesis, assuming certain things and intent that are not explicitly expressed by the sources. Whether I personally agree with your claim or not is not relevant to this discussion. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 04:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dictionaries are used to corroborate definitions. I don't contest that the French word indeed means "Romani", just that it does not state non-offensiveness the way your claim needs. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 04:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indus River

Hi. This revert shows you did not check whether I was correct. That template is also used under the hidden nav boxes. 2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:4C92:78B1:B463:8E6D (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what confused me, because I was merely patrolling Pending Changes and could not see the hidden ones. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 10:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to, could you review the edits I’ve made since then? 2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:4C92:78B1:B463:8E6D (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:41, 29 May 2021 edit Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 4,325 edits →Indus River: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:32, 29 May 2021 edit undo 2a02:c7c:1018:6e00:4c92:78b1:b463:8e6d (talk) →Indus River: reply Next edit →
Line 178:		Line 178:

	:Which is what confused me, because I was merely patrolling Pending Changes and could not see the hidden ones. [[User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI\|Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI]] <sup>[[User talk:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI\|converse]] \| [[Special:contributions/Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI\|fings wot i hav dun]]</sup> 10:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)		:Which is what confused me, because I was merely patrolling Pending Changes and could not see the hidden ones. [[User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI\|Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI]] <sup>[[User talk:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI\|converse]] \| [[Special:contributions/Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI\|fings wot i hav dun]]</sup> 10:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
			::If you are able to, could you review the edits I’ve made since then? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:4C92:78B1:B463:8E6D\|2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:4C92:78B1:B463:8E6D]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:4C92:78B1:B463:8E6D\|talk]]) 13:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)