Archives | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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:
Courcelles (submissions)
Kosack (submissions)
Kees08 (submissions)
SounderBruce (submissions)
Cas Liber (submissions)
Nova Crystallis (submissions)
Iazyges (submissions)
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).
Democratic Socialists of America
The Signpost: 27 March 2022
- From the Signpost team: How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- News and notes: Of safety and anonymity
- Eyewitness Wikimedian – Kharkiv, Ukraine: Countering Russian aggression with a camera
- Eyewitness Wikimedian – Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
- Eyewitness Wikimedian – Western Ukraine: Working with Wikipedia helps
- Disinformation report: The oligarchs' socks
- In the media: Ukraine, Russia, and even some other stuff
- Wikimedian perspective: My heroes from Russia, Ukraine & beyond
- Discussion report: Athletes are less notable now
- Technology report: 2022 Wikimedia Hackathon
- Arbitration report: Skeptics given heavenly judgement, whirlwind of Discord drama begins to spin for tropical cyclone editors
- Traffic report: War, what is it good for?
- Deletion report: Ukraine, werewolves, Ukraine, YouTube pundits, and Ukraine
- From the archives: Burn, baby burn
- Essay: Yes, the sky is blue
- Tips and tricks: Become a keyboard ninja
- On the bright side: The bright side of news
Morbius
Let's discuss this instead of edit warring. The fact that Leto's and Smith's performances received some praise is determined by reliable sources rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. They are not mentioned as praiseworthy, as you said, but just as better received in relation to the overall critical response to the film, and this is reflected in the reviews included in the article. The sourced material you removed has had a consensus through editing, so please discuss on the talk page and seek a new consensus if you disagree.--Earthh (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sure would have been nice if you had done this before reporting a report, but sure. As I've mentioned, there's been no consensus for your edits - no fewer than six unique editors have reverted your wording for Leto's performance being praiseworthy. You reverted each time to force the current wording, and then claimed WP:EDITCON - that's what I object to. If you have a better wording that does not mislead readers into thinking this - or that clarifies that Leto's performance was, in fact, received negatively by many critics as well, that would be preferable. My primary concern, which I've stated many times, is that the current wording misleads readers. If you can correct that, fantastic. A secondary concern is, of course, your removal of reliable sources from the critical reception section, but that's a different story altogether. Toa Nidhiki05 03:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
[1] It's not my place to butt in, nor do I intend to, but I think you should consider asking for some guidance from administration to be sure you aren't creating a toxic environment. If you do bare even the tiniest bit of responsibility, you should not want it to get worse, or blown out of proportion. You may want to think about how many times in the last few months have you been in arbitration over similar issues. Considering you have been warned about this type of thing somewhat recently [2], and are now seemingly at ANE over something, perhaps similar, perhaps not, as I said I'm not looking to get involved. Maybe you should consider the possibility that your demeanor and conduct possibly tends to rub some editors the wrong way. Your recent interactions with me might not have been as funny or pleasant and conducive to a collaborative & constructive project environment as you may think they are [3]. Best of luck. Hope things improve. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 April 2022
- News and notes: Double trouble
- In the media: The battlegrounds outside and inside Wikipedia
- Special report: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Eyewitness Wikimedian – Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (Part 2)
- Technology report: 8-year-old attribution issues in Media Viewer
- Featured content: Wikipedia's best content from March
- Interview: On a war and a map
- Serendipity: Wikipedia loves photographs, but hates photographers
- Traffic report: Justice Jackson, the Smiths, and an invasion
- News from the WMF: How Smart is the SMART Copyright Act?
- Humour: Really huge message boxes
- From the archives: Wales resigned WMF board chair in 2006 reorganization
Republican Party
[4] I think you should take a step back, and try not to take this so personally. I have been there, and I can assure you I am trying to act in good faith. DN (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC) WP:AGF Please...DN (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've reworded that to more clear about what I meant. Apologies if it looked like I was accusing you personally of acting in bad faith - I simply disagree with what you're suggesting. Toa Nidhiki05 23:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Since you decided to remove the tag without consensus I have decided to notify Bishonen [5], and I have tagged you in my message to them. I will be taking a break and will be back tomorrow to continue the discussion. DN (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
[6] [7] These types of comments and personal criticisms seem unproductive in trying to work towards some kind of consensus. [8] I have already asked you to keep these kinds of comments out of the discussion there, and take them to my talk page. [9] I have also already asked you to AGF. There are (seemingly) many other editors there that have shown support for adding something to the info box. I wasn't even the one that raised this issue. It seems you are only focusing on me. At this point I am only focused on researching RS to see what sources say in order to find some consensus. I do not wish to engage with you in such an unproductive manner. I also prefer not to have to keep dragging admins into this because you refuse to disengage. Let's start over with a clean slate and just try to disengage for a while, so that we can both be more productive. Agreed? DN (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Last Jedi lead
Considering how many critics included Star Wars: The Last Jedi on their 'best of' lists - to the point where it was listed on Metacritic as the 22nd-most mentioned film on 'best of the decade' rankings and 25th on 'best of the year' rankings - I feel like it'd be better to change 'some critics' to 'many critics'. What do you think? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
The Signpost: 29 May 2022
- From the team: A changing of the guard
- News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections
- Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections
- In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more
- Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited
- Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis
- Featured content: Featured Content of April
- Interview: Wikipedia's pride
- Serendipity: Those thieving image farms
- Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed
- Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows
- News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced
- News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?
- From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia
- Humour: A new crossword
White House press sec
In controversies can you please add the word falsely claim? Thank you. People are white washing 47.203.28.160 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Edits at Karine Jean-Pierre
Hi Toa Nidhiki05. Just a heads up: you're right at three reverts for this 24 hour period. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
My apologies
It was inappropriate for me to bring up your behavior in an edit summary like that. My apologies. --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)