Jump to content

User talk:Utopes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New editor: Thanks so much[edit]

Hi there user Utopes. I wanted to say thank you for reviewing my draft for T-Money so quickly, it was my first wikipedia article for creation submission and you gave me some great feedback. I also got some help through Teahouse. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at the edits I made to my draft, and lend more feedback. I'd be greatly appreciative! @Utopes Taevchoi (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I took another look at the article and it's looking pretty solid so far. Looks to be neutrally-worded, the sources seem solid enough, and as a whole I think it could totally stand on its own as an article. The only current roadblock that I can foresee with this draft, is the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Money (rapper), specifically the fact that T-Money didn't quite meet the notability guidelines for musicians at the time, set out by WP:MUSICBIO. I think what you've written here is arguably much better than what used to be at the T-Money (rapper) article (which is currently a redirect, but its former contents are viewable in the history, or with this link: [1]) If you can read over that discussion and let me know how T-Money qualifies for an article per the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines, I'd be happy to approve. Thanks for the message! Utopes (talk / cont) 06:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Utopes! Thanks a lot for your help. I appreciate you taking the time to compare my edits to the previous text that was created for T-Money in 2016. Looking at the discussion in the articles for deletion, I can tell that a huge concern was the absence of reliable sources. Furthermore, user Innisfree987 was trying to get in contact with the editor to help improve the page before it was deleted, but it seems they were not able to get in contact. I'd like to quote user Innisfree987, "Certainly if editor or others come back to work on it and can provide more sources, then great. Working with Dr. Dre and MTV on hiphop in the '80s is potentially a very important piece of music history; we just need the WP account of it to meet verifiability standards." I agree that the original Wikipedia article for T-Money was poorly written by a first time Wikipedia editor. As a first time editor myself, I initially thought all the article needed was more sources. Through the feedback of my peers, such as yourself and those at Teahouse, I realized the cadence and the integrity of the sources needed work as well. I also agree that T-Money's contribution to 80s hip-hop is rather significant to hip-hop history as a whole, especially since Original Concept was an early group signed to Def Jam. And outside of his group, he made a name for himself through hosting Yo! MTV Raps. I believe that T-Money qualifies for his own article because he meets numbers 1 and 10 of the guidelines. The sources I included in my draft are much stronger and more credible than the sources that were included in the 2016 draft. I am eager to hear your thoughts, @Utopes! Thanks again! Taevchoi (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @Utopes! My intention is never to rush you as I know we are all busy with our lives offline, but I wanted to flag my reply above in case you missed it! Thanks again and looking forward to discussing with you. :) Taevchoi (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

It was not on my bucket list but regardless of the outcome, thanks for recommending me for the autopatrolled permission. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured you might like to know you're beating the bot for weekend redirect reviews, and it isn't even close. Rusalkii (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis[edit]

Hello Utopes,

I understand that you reverted my edit on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. However, what I only partially understand is that all the content from the former article is already included in the current "Multiple sclerosis diagnosis" entry, so why should it be controversial to delete the old lemma? Tobiasi0 (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star San draft fixes[edit]

Hi Utopes,

Thanks for the feedback at Draft:Star_San. I believe I have addressed the issues and would love it if you can take another look at it! Driftybiscuit (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clorinda (Once Upon a Time)[edit]

Have you see my proposed solutions?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I declined my own draft[edit]

I declined my own draft guys!!!Visnalize (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Hello, I saw you nominated many redirects I created for deletion. If the creator's desire is enough to procede, feel free to delete them all since I support that decision. Thank you and I apologize for any inconvenience. 7szz (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. for context: I'm no longer active or interested, and wish I could delete my account and change the visibility of all my edits but that's unfortunately not possible. Those redirects are not useful. 7szz (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo this AFC[edit]

You created a whole ton of redirects following the request here even though there is no confusion. These all violate WP:R3. Please delete them all.

A tag has been placed on [[:SpaceX Transporter / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter / Falcon 9 Transporter / Transporter (SpaceX) / Transporter (Falcon 9) / Transporter (SpaceX Falcon 9) // SpaceX Transporter mission / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter mission / Falcon 9 Transporter mission // SpaceX Transporter missions / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter missions / Falcon 9 Transporter missions // SpaceX Transporters / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporters / Falcon 9 Transporters]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by [[:SpaceX Transporter / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter / Falcon 9 Transporter / Transporter (SpaceX) / Transporter (Falcon 9) / Transporter (SpaceX Falcon 9) // SpaceX Transporter mission / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter mission / Falcon 9 Transporter mission // SpaceX Transporter missions / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter missions / Falcon 9 Transporter missions // SpaceX Transporters / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporters / Falcon 9 Transporters|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ergzay (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list these redirects target includes multiple SpaceX transporters. I don't understand why these would be implausible typos or misnomers if they're actively discussed in depth at the page in question. I'm currently eating dinner so I'm open to discussing this more later, but if your only statement is: "there is no confusion, these violate R3" when the missions are indeed called "Transporters", then I'm not quite sure why these are tagged, as you haven't (seemingly) explained what & how they violate R3. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these titles have all existed for nearly 4 months now. Plausibility out of the way, these can't even be considered recently created by R3's definition due to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#cite note-recent-14. I'd recommend you undo your speedy tagging, and/or bring these to WP:RFD if you feel there's a more suitable outcome for these titles. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they still count as recent given that it's unlikely anyone has seen them until now and nothing was linking to them. Ergzay (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not "no links" as you've pointed at the AfC page that created them. A redirect-requesting service, which received thousands of pageviews across the weekspan that the SpaceX titles were listed front and center. At the bare minimum, there was one person to request, one person to accept, and one person to archive, and likely 30 other editors that saw this and let it be. R3 points to "leniency for areas that don't get a lot of attention" (so maybe 3-4 weeks instead of ~2-3). The only page on Wikipedia dedicated to creating new redirects would be the opposite of this. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread what I wrote. I didn't reverse my point anywhere that nothing links to them. I still maintain that. Ergzay (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is linked in the AfC archives and shows up on the "what links here" page. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a discussion on WP:RFD, in a non standard method because of the page quantity. Ergzay (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to be 14 redirects. That's definitely doable for one discussion. Participating in an RfD without being able to see the redirects at the getgo is a major hassle. It would be preferred to just link them all, following the instructions set at WP:RFDHOWTO. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They all link to the same thing and they're visible in the AFC link title. Ergzay (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to do it, but someone who watches RfD definitely is (going to list all of the pages individually), and that's if they don't just close the discussion outright for being broken. According to WP:RFDHOWTO, you are required to put an RfD notice on the pages of all redirects involved (which you haven't done), as well as notify the talk page of the target article that the discussion is taking place (not done). The Twinkle gadget makes this process incredibly easy, and I'd highly recommend you do this before it inconveniences an uninvolved RfD patroller. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "Twinkle gadget"? Ergzay (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you sent me this CSD notification, usually that gets semi-automated through Twinkle, but you're able to configure it at WP:TWINKLE. After doing so, there's a button that shows up at the top of the article (next to the edit button) that lets you nominate that page for deletion without having to manually paste templates. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote the template into the post, as most people do AFAIK. Never even heard anyone mention this Twinkle thing before nor have I seen it in any guide or tutorial. Ergzay (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you found it! If I had to estimate I'd say that 95% of all tagging done in 2024 is through Twinkle, and basically 99% of all XfD discussions now. Twinkle also does user-talk tags too with the same level of ease. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not called "Transporters" in any source I have seen nor in any of the articles. Perhaps the only one that seems like maybe I can undo it on is the SpaceX Transporter missions page. Anything with "Transporters" in the name is definitely out. Ergzay (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at the DAB as Transporters-1 through Transporter-15, and linked accordingly. Decided to test the hypothesis by splitting the middle and searched externally for "Transporter-8"; all Google search results were for the SpaceX mission. "Transporter" is mentioned at the target 40+ times, and never in context of transporting a vehicle, but the context was instead the name of this mission series. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly any ending in "Transporter" are wrong for the same reason as for example "Falcon 9 Transporter" implies a vehicle that carries Falcon 9. Ergzay (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If "Transporter" is featured at the target in a manner that doesn't involve carrying a vehicle (which still seems to be the case), then this isn't a problem. I don't believe there's any encyclopedic content about a "Falcon 9 carrier vehicle" on Wikipedia, so in absence of this, the Transporter series remains as the primary topic for this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just complete retroactive self-justification... The links are actively confusing in their titles. As you mention, the name is never used in reference transportation of Falcon 9, which means keeping redirects around that imply exactly that is a bad idea. As you mention in your previous comment "Transporter" is always linked to "mission". I have never seen the word Transporter used without the word "mission" attached to it or some word meaning a rough equivalent. Ergzay (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that "Transporter" is the name of the series, never said that it's always linked to mission, that just happens to be the context its in and therefore doesn't conflict with a hypothetical carrier vehicle. I'd rather save this part for the RfD once it gets up and running. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Transporter missions" would be the series. Ergzay (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The series seems to be Transporter-1, Transporter-2, etc. The series of missions could apparently be called the "Transporter" series. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

... for successfully nominating me for autoprotrolled rights. That sparked my interest in actively editing again. — Knightoftheswords 18:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024[edit]

Hello Utopes,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfD Question[edit]

Hello Utopes,

I noticed you were adding RfDs for pages redirecting to "Never Gonna Give You Up". It made me think: What about We live, We love, We lie? Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes What I am trying to say is that it may also be an RfD. It has low view traffic (the highest one might have been from me to see where it leads to). However, it is a popular meme across the Internet. What do you think? Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Myrealnamm:, super sorry for the delay in responding. Thanks for bringing up We live, We love, We lie. It looks to me that this lyric is indeed mentioned at The Spectre (song)#Resurface in the Resurface section? As it gets talked about, it adds possibly enough context to identify the lyric. As long as the lyric is mentioned in the article, it seems like it might be able to be a valid search term. But that's a good point, so I'll go ahead and tag it as an Template:R from lyric, which will track it with the rest of the lyrics. Does that answer your question? Utopes (talk / cont) 08:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. Thanks for confirming. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 11:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter[edit]

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 College Football Playoff National Championship[edit]

2025 College Football Playoff National Championship has been deleted G6. You may proceed with the AFC article acceptance. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what brought you to that page? At the time I edited it, there was no mention of the character in the target article; someone else added it since. According to the page information (for Madame Sosostris), we're the only 2 visitors in the last 30 days. ZFT (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZFT: Was looking at pages tagged in CAT:RAW. Generally speaking, "redirects targeting pages where they aren't discussed" is not a long term solution, so if it stays there for too long I've been sending them to RfD. I'm fully sure that it was indeed mentionless at the time the tag was added in 2019. The undo was a bit of a "Hey just letting you know I'm removing this tag as it's no longer necessary, feel free to review if you disagree". (Sometimes, I replace the tag with something more appropriate, so there's more room for feedback, or maybe the mention that I spot isn't satisfactory to someone else, etc). Hopefully that makes sense, you may or may not see other similar notifications in the future. No criticism towards the initial tag placements; as you noted here these redirects are pretty hard to spot and most people aren't hawking the source pages to see when mentions get added. 😂 Utopes (talk / cont) 08:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page of the article. It is not Pd(IV). The IV means its oxidation state, and it does not have two different oxidation states. Christian75 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't see the talk page discussion. Apologies for the revert. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :-). Christian75 (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palladium[edit]

I would love to improve the page for Palladium to restore it back to GA status, but I don't have much experience with lengthier articles, as I normally stick to small articles. I fixed all the citation needed tags, and will be adding more citations for the Jewelry section, is there anything else I should focus on? NomzEditingWikis (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, if I had a nickel for every Palladium related discussion I'd have here on my talkpage in the last 24 hours... I'd surprisingly have two! (Alternatively, I could go up a period have an abundance of nickels there.) (When I started writing the nickel metaphor, it had yet to dawn on me that Palladium and Nickel were separated by a layer, which the present irony also has several of, even more ironically) (But if I wanted EVEN MORE irony, I'd just have to go two elements left of nickel. The same number of nickels I have from cosmic chance of two Palladium discussions within 24 hours. This also didn't dawn on me until I wrote the word irony. I promise this is all unintentional 😂)
...Well then. Sorry for however I can describe the above. The Good Article Reassessment I did for Palladium back in 2020 was for an article in a much different state as it's in now. When dealing with lengthy articles that cover an element used in a massive variety of contexts, you'll probably want to follow the guidance set out in WP:BROAD#Approaches for broad-concept articles. You've correctly identified that the Jewelry section is a problem. as the end of it is full of trivial, citationless claims that will need attribution to a reliable source. If you've dealt with the citation-needed tags already, which I remember there being plentiful of in 2020, that's a great start. Looking over it now, the Palladium#Palladium as investment section is exceptionally weak. A citation at the end of every paragraph is a bare minimum, and this section has basically 50% of text without a citation at the end, and is also poorly organized. Furthermore, I would also recommend eliciting help from WikiProject Elements, as in doing so you'll be able to get a wide spectrum of responses to things that people might expect to see in a Palladium article. Hopefully this is a useful starting place; best of luck in your endeavors! Utopes (talk / cont) 03:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFC[edit]

Thank you for accepting Elnaz Mohammadi. May you please Kindly and check my another articles?

Claggy (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Megan Tremethick[edit]

Hi Utopes,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to review my draft. I understand your points that Tremethick was mentioned in the articles but was not the central focus of them, however I’d like to clarify that the actress plays a leading role in nearly every single film referenced in the article, including a leading role in the upcoming resurrection of the well known and beloved classic British Horror label - Amicus productions and she features in the promotional images of several articles listed, including the poster of the new Amicus Film. GuineaPickle (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I don't doubt that what you've said is the case, and I'm sure that she'll be able to have an article eventually as she does play a leading role in the films listed from what I've seen. However, those facts are not present in the article right now. There is only one line of prose in the article, which is insufficient and doesn't establish why she is notable (even if we both agree that she's been a leading actress in multiple films). More sourced content is required, preferably from sources that talk about Tremethick specifically, and in the ways that she's notable (such as coverage about her in one of the films, and not just a passing mention that she was in it.)
Out of the films that are listed, only two have articles on Wikipedia, and one of the films is unreleased, meaning that sources are likely to be few on principle for involvement in that one. But what I'd recommend is finding topics that are similar to Tremethick and getting an idea of the structure from those. It looks like Tremethick was in The Lockdown Hauntings with Sarah-Jane Potts, which if you click on her article you can see a well developed article lead, as well as personal life (optional) and filmography section. But the most important section is the lead paragraphs, that explain why she's notable. That much has not yet been done for Tremethick. Hopefully that helps guide you with your draft! Let me know if you have any follow up questions. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Utopes! I'm so sorry for reverting three of your edits on the Murphy v County Wexford VEC article talk page. I feel like such an idiot but I'll admit it, I've been going through your recent contributions. There was this button called "vandalism" and being an inexperienced user, I clicked it. It then directed me to the Murphy v County Wexford VEC talk page and showed me that I reverted three of your edits. I feel so bad and I hope you understand. Once again, I'm sorry for reverting your edits. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Don't worry, totally an accident, and that's exactly what I thought happened there. I saw that Twinkle was recently recommended to you a couple days ago, and knowing that Twinkle doesn't give a warning pop-up before a rollback, I figured that you were still testing what it can and can't do. We've all been there, I think I did the same thing myself a few years back! 😆 Absolutely all good, and thanks for the apology. ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 20:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2024[edit]

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter[edit]

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). 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 Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review![edit]

Hey, would you mind reviewing my wikipedia drafts that i currently have submitted? TheJarlXIV (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024[edit]

Please review these pages[edit]

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Paribal_Shallabugh

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Tulmullah_Nallah

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Tullamulla_Khirbhawani Saqi9541 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award[edit]

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

This award is given in recognition to Utopes for accumulating at least 100 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 June 2024[edit]