User talk:ONUnicorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Crystal Clear app clock.svgIt is approximately 12:25 AM where this user lives.

Hello. Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message by clicking the "new section" button above. I am an administrator, and I will do my best to help you. I will respond on this page to keep the discussion in one place. I archive when I feel like it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter[edit]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly 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:

  1. Better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
  2. England Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
  3. Norfolk Island Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
  4. Wales Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
  5. Washington (state) SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
  6. Antarctica Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
  7. United States Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
  8. Indonesia 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!

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)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello ONUnicorn,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 716 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.


Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 2[edit]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 3[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).


Administrator changes

added EvergreenFirToBeFree
removed AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)



Kindly take another look at the following deleted page:

I wish to replace it with:,_Inc.

The reason for deletion was blatant advertising and lack of sources. I've tried my best to address those issues. Apologies for any unintended rule-breaking.

I hope you reconsider allowing me to recreate the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshVaidya (talkcontribs) 07:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

AshVaidya I have taken a look at InfoCepts LLC, and made a few changes. I also commented at the deletion review you opened at the previous title. The new version is not blatant spam or advertising the way the previous version was, however it still does not meet the notability requirements for companies. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 4[edit]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019[edit]

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[edit]

user: is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted the block settings accordingly. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:21, 31 December 2019 (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)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Narendra Singh Dhami[edit]

As discussed on AFD, this article has been at draft and in mainspace multiple times back and forth and the quality has been extremely poor and unsourced, often times promotional. The draft spot should be salted or ECP'ed. I would have left it alone, but it was resubmitted again as the single line, indicating that the new editor does not intend to substantially improve the article but to push it back into mainspace again. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

CSD G4 "excludes . . . content that has been . . . converted to a draft for explicit improvement". I have a tendency to decline G4s for drafts where the discussion was about an article in mainspace. If the draft itself was subject to a MFD, that's a different story. That said, there are other admins who interpret G4 differently; but I'm not going to delete that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This isn't the case here. The content was not draftified with plans to work it into a notable article. I've been watching this for months from both the draft side and the article side. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tikendra Singh Dhami/Archive AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 5[edit]

January 2020[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Piotrus and A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Batch 1 ready for review[edit]

User:Piotrus/CSD proposals, entries 1-8 this time I plan on reviewing the Norwegian company stubs (I tend to chose a random country category and review it over few days). Also @Jayron32, Barkeep49, and Ritchie333:. And btw, if the matter is resolved (I don't intend to use CSD until one of you tells me you see no more problems), can the thread at ANI be archived and closed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I've replied there. I would be in favor of closing the thread but also prefer not to do it myself in cases like this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I've also replied there. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Batch 2 has been posted for your review at your convenience @Jayron32, Barkeep49, and Ritchie333:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Piotrus, I'm going to bow out. I don't know that you need several sysops saying the same thing, or closely related thing. I certainly remain committed to helping you, however, and so if there's a particular point or discussion where I can be of help (or if you're not getting the same quantity of feedback) I would be happy to re-engage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I don't know. I think it's interesting to see where we are and aren't in agreement, even if the differences between what you and I say are subtle. But that's just my opinion, and what's interesting for me may not be helpful for Piotrus. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I concur that the parts where different reviewers disagree can be insightful not just for me but for you, the reviewers, and might be helpful in refining our understanding of CSD, but of course nobody is required to comment. I already learned a lot, thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]


  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Boyds Bears for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boyds Bears is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyds Bears 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. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kathryn Ann Taylor‎[edit]

Hello, thanks for the edit, may you can help at the creator's page, they think I'm censoring the page User talk:MDM88.Any help would be appreciated. Thanx, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello ONUnicorn,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.


New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Design Home[edit]

Hello, ONUnicorn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Design Home".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: SAM[edit]

Requesting a page to be created I hope i requested the creation properly. Thanks for your assistance!

( I requested it here:,_computing,_and_Internet#S) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigyface25 (talkcontribs) 10:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the Draft namrespace[edit]

As a user who has expressed an interest in the Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC, you are invited to join a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rethinking_draft_space. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 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:

  • New York (state) 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.
  • England 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.
  • United States 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.
  • Somerset Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  • Pirate flag 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 United States L293D, Venezuela Kingsif, Antarctica Enwebb, England Lee Vilenski and Nepal 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) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction[edit]

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; United States L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, United States 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)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi I'm KingZhaxy ,I just created an article for my music group "GalaxyGang" but it's seems you blocked me to edit it ,I'M REAL BEGIN YOU to unblock me mybe I did something wrong with mistake couse I'm new KingZhaxy (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

KingZhaxy Did you read the message I left for you when I blocked you? Do you understand why you were blocked from editing article space and what you should do differently? Do you have questions? Can I help you understand? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news



  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 6[edit]


Thanks for your contribution in Zulekha Daud article. (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
  • England 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
  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
  • Somerset 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
  • England Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Gondor Hog Farm with 801, Venezuela Kingsif with 719, Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce with 710, United States Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and Mexico 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)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).


Administrator changes

removed GnangarraKaisershatnerMalcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).


Administrator changes

added CaptainEekCreffettCwmhiraeth
removed Anna FrodesiakBuckshot06RonhjonesSQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news


  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


i got no idea how to use this thing, found this talk box by accident. it is not true that revolutionaries in ottoman did not differentiate themselves as macedoniann or bulgarian. they did. i want that bulgarian revolutionary description OUT. and i will not stop until i see my justice. also i did not remove no box whatever, dont know what youre talking about. i will never stop editing that shit. MY GRANDFATHER WAS NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 bulgarian revolutionary. period. he was macedonian. REMOVE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thank you for trying to communicate. That is the right thing to do. Please visit Talk:Yordan Piperkata, and make your case there citing sources that indicate that the Macedonian Bulgarians description is incorrect.
According to the Macedonian Bulgarians article, "most researchers agree that the bulk of the Slavic population in the region had a Bulgarian national identity until the early 1940s, . . . After the Second World War and Bulgarian withdrawal, on the base of the strong Macedonian regional identity a process of ethnogenesis started and distinct national Macedonian identity was formed." Although the article about Yordan Piperkata describes him as a Macedonian Bulgarians, it also notes that "According to the post-WWII Macedonian historiography, he was an ethnic Macedonian."
At any rate, this is the wrong place, as this talk page is for you to talk to me, personally, rather than anyone and everyone interested in the Yordan Piperkata article. I understand you don't really know how Wikipedia works, and I am happy to answer any questions you have and help guide you, but discussions about article content belong on the article's talk page. You've been trying to change this for almost two years, so you must be very frustrated. However, the first step is to calmly explain on Talk:Yordan Piperkata why that description is wrong and to bring sources to back up your assertions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello ONUnicorn,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 7[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
  • Botswana 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
  • England 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, Denmark 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) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: Dragon Boat Festival tag removals[edit]

ONUnicorn, ask yourself if that was the best AGF you could have summoned for that removal. You removed the references needed tag after others had added sources, but there were still at least two references uncited. Could you have removed the tag and instead cn-tagged those two specifically? Sure, you could have, but that would restart the clock on statements that had gone uncited for a very long time. Could you have left the Refs Needed header until everything was tagged? You could have done that, too, but someone else would have seen at least one ref, and - like you, removed it without a moment's thought.
Maybe the best way to address it would have been to remove the statements united along with the Refs Needed header. That would have been an elegant solution, and no need to suggest that I for whatever reason didn't "like" the refs.
TL;dr - you only did half the work required, and assumed bad faith on the person tagging the section. Please be better than that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought I assumed bad faith; that certainly was not what my edit summary was meant to convey. If a section cites some sources, but there are specific statements that do not cite a source and are not supported by other sources cited in the section, you can add {{cite needed}} to those specific statements to more clearly convey what needs to be sourced. If there are sources you believe are unreliable (what I meant when I said you may not "like" the refs), you can tag those sources with an {{unreliable source}} tag. Both are better than tagging the entire section with an {{unsourced section}} tag. You ask if I could have "removed the tag and instead cn-tagged those two specifically", the answer is no, because I do not know which uncited statements bothered you. You will notice I left the {{more citations needed}} tag on the top of the article. I see you have removed three statements from the end of that section, which I suppose are the specific statements you were wanting sources for, but the tag you chose to apply did nothing to tell anyone which specific statements you wanted sources for, and said that the section did "not cite any sources", which was not true. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond, ONUnicorn. If I find that more statements within a section are uncited than cited, i am going to tag the section as needing referencing overhaul; the idea behind such is that tagging each instance needing references would quickly make the section unreadable. This was pointed out to me many moons ago, and so that's what guides my tagging efforts. If it was indeed just one or two problems, I'd have tagged them individually with the generic 'cn' tag, I'm not comofrtable evaluating a statement as unreliable unless its is blatant in its unreliability (like vaccines causing autism, or some such). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).


Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded EuryalusSQL
removed JujutacularMonty845RettetastMadchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)