User talk:Toa Nidhiki05

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

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.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

[Cindy Hyde-Smith

Rather than edit-warring at Cindy Hyde-Smith, please explain yourself in a discussion on the talk page. I will place similar notices on other involved editors talk pages. Jacona (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jacona: Toa Nidhiki05 is entirely correct here. Is Hyde-Smith a white supremacist? 100% (in my opinion, an opinion which does not necessarily reflect that of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or anyone besides myself affiliated thereto). However, lines like: "It is unclear whether Hyde-Smith was demonstrating allegiance to the Confederate States of America. She also has not disclosed her position on treason or crimes against the United States," are unequivocally inappropriate in the prose of an article in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, the onus is on the editor(s) including new material to discuss it on the talk page should their edit be reverted, not vice versa. Toa does not need to "explain themself in a discussion on the talk page." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bionicle (video game)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bionicle (video game) 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 TheTechnician27 -- TheTechnician27 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Video Game Barnstar
		For your elevation of Bionicle, Bionicle: Matoran Adventures, Lego Bionicle: Quest for the Toa, Lego Bionicle: The Legend of Mata Nui, and Bionicle Heroes to Good Article status. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I was looking for a WikiProject Lego barnstar right as I saw your notification on my talk page. Someone really ought to make one of those. Either way, you deserved one a loooong time ago, given you seem to have had a hand in literally every Bionicle GA promotion, or at least the video games. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ProtoDrake got the one for Mask of Light, but the others are all mine as far as I know and there's only one off from having a complete "good article" set for the video games! Toa Nidhiki05 21:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bionicle (video game)

The article Bionicle (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bionicle (video game) 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 TheTechnician27 -- TheTechnician27 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

• News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more

• In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money

• Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release

• Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report

• Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way

• News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia

• Humour: Wikipedia's best articles on the world's strangest things

• WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview

• Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?

• Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed

• Obituary: SarahSV

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter

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) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

2022 North Carolina Senate Race

I am asking you to please stop undoing my edits when I corrected my initial mistake. You even took out somebody elses edit.

If you see something that does not look right go over it and fix what is wrong. Do not reverse entire edits.

-Michael usfg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael usfg (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mata Nui Online Game

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mata Nui Online Game 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 Npthura -- Npthura (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

2022 United States Senate election in North Carolina

Can you please post an explanation of why you've been repeatedly reverting what appears to be sourced material for endorsements of a declared candidate? Am I missing something? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mata Nui Online Game

The article Mata Nui Online Game you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mata Nui Online Game 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 Npthura -- Npthura (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

• News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories

• Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong

• In the media: Larry is at it again

• Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates

• Recent research: Gender bias and statistical fallacies, disinformation and mutual intelligibility

• Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki

• News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department

• Humour: A little verse

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fiber Optic Sensing Association has been accepted

Fiber Optic Sensing Association, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

—Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

• News and notes: Enough time left to vote! IP ban

• In the media: Vive la différence!

• Wikimedians of the year: Seven Wikimedians of the year

• Gallery: Our community in 20 graphs

• News from Wiki Education: Changing the face of Wikipedia

• Recent research: IP editors, inclusiveness and empathy, cyclones, and world heritage

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Days of the Year Interview

• Traffic report: Olympics, movies, and Afghanistan

• Community view: Making Olympic history on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter

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 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. 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) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Easier to Read and explain

I must say, you and Acroterion are not following wikipedia guidelines. A bit heavyhanded. He's deleting new talk page edit requests among other things, and you're closing discussions of valid edits based on bogus reasoning.

Let's try this again, shall we? Try reading the proposed edits:

A brief for the lead:

The seismic wave data recorded on 11 September 2001 at Columbia University's Palisades station became a descrepancy within the 9/11 Commission Report, after the seismic data timestamps were replaced with FAA ground radar timestamps. The decision separated recorded seismic signal times from later plane impacts and building collapses, by 15 seconds for the first impact, during which seismic data received before the plane's impact signifies another source of the seismic waves than the plane's impact. The timing differences between seismic signals and the impacts and collapses continue to be a major descrepancy within the 9/11 Commission report. Several authors, professional engineers and scientists reexamned the seismic data during 2006 to 2009. Columbia University's seismic wave data, incorporated in FEMA and NIST reports, and in the 9/11 Commission Report, was then specifically analysied by 2010 and again by 2012 by French geophysicist Dr André Rousseau, a respected and published specialist in acoustic wave signals with CNRS in Paris. Rousseau conclusively found the seismic wave events to be sourced from controlled explosions, and not plane impacts and building collapses, which confirms eyewitness accounts of explosive noises, flashes, and specific instances of seismic ground waves compiled by the New York Fire Department and by other witnesses.

Seismic signals section in the body:

A sentence which briefly mentions the word seismic is incorrect and misses the point of the role of the seismic data in the "conspiracy theory". Here's a proposed reworking, appropriate to the subject:

Seismic signals

Seismic signals on 11 September 2001 were collected from the Columbia University's Palisades station, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO), whose data and report was used by FEMA and NIST in their reports. The 9/11 Commission Report also used LDEOs report, but replaced LDEOs seismic event timestamps with timestamps from National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ground radars tracking the planes that impacted WTC1 and WTC2, but not WTC7.

The LDEO station is 34 km from WTC, and additional seismic signals were registered in neighboring states. By 2006, Craig Furlong, Ross Gordon and J. Hoffman were reexamining the seismic event information, as did Graeme MacQueen in 2006 and again in 2009.

In 2010, French geologist and geophysicist Dr André Rousseau of the National Center of Scientific Research (Centre national des recherches scientifiques, CNRS), whose speciality is acoustic wave signals, reanalysed the raw seismic data from LDEO. He found major descrepancies in the timing of the seismic signals, as compared to the timing of the impacts of the planes; in the different magnitudes of signals for the identical twin towers; and in the wave frequencies of the signals, which do not correspond to plane impacts nor to falling debris from buildings.

Rousseau's seismic analysis, which states LDEOs claims as to the causes of the seismic events are "geophysically impossible", was republished in 2012 and entitled, "Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?'"'. His conclusions in the seismic signal events also correspond to four testimonials compiled by the New York Fire Department, which are eyewitness accounts of apparent controlled demolitions, and which Rousseau states are confirmed:

Finally, controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses, is thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves emitted near the time of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses.

It's reported that Rousseau's seismic signal analyses from 2010 and 2012 have not been refuted in academic journals as of 11 September 2021. Additionally notable, eyewitness accounts of apparent explosions above the lower floors would not register as seismic events, and thus were not a focus of Rousseau's report.

Among Rousseau's major discoveries is the 9/11 Commission's decision to change LDEOs timestamps from the moments of recorded seismic events, and to replace those records with the FAAs radar-generated moments of plane impacts. The Commission's decision creates a timing disconnection between the seismic event records from WTC, and the plane impact and collapse events.

The first major seismic signal arrived at LEDO at 8.46.25+/-1 (8:46am and 25 seconds; 08h46m25s) per Rousseau's analyses, 1 second earlier than LDEOs time of 8.46.26+/-1. Both timestamps of seismic events are earlier than the FAAs ground radar timestamp of 8.46.40, used by the 9/11 Commission's report. The difference is 15 seconds - between the recorded major seismic events, and the impact of the first plane into WTC1. During and after these 15 seconds, subterranean and subaerial (slightly above ground) seismic events occurred. Along with these events are several frequency 'pics', or bursts, which occur before and after plane impacts. More low frequency waves accompanying the seismic events are recorded, but are not caused by the plane impacts that produce higher frequency waves that are not recordable at a distance of 34km nor recordable by LDEOs equipment.

Rousseau's seismic analysis compares these low frequency waves to those emmited from underground blasts for mining operations, to those recorded during the demolition phase of the reconstruction of a federal building in Oklahoma City, and to those recorded during a controlled demolition of a sports arena in Seattle. He further equates the magnitudes and frequencies of LDEOs seismic wave data from WTC to the sampled seismic data, and again concludes that LDEOs data is from explosive origins.

With Rousseau's report, the theory of controlled demolitions of all three WTC buildings is confirmed. The report also negates the 'conspiracy theory' negative characterization, and replaces it with a geophysically thorough, scientifically accurate and logical explaination of the events which occured on the morning of 11 September 2001 at the World Trade Center. 93.23.196.5 (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)