User talk:Utopes/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

A goat for you!

Thank you for the great work you do! Seriously -- super encouraging to have your check (and notes). Very much looking forward to learning more and improving as an editor (and do let me know, whenever you get a chance, if I managed to clean stuff up!). BarkBarkDotCom (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mardi (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

BedWars

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. However, I can't find any RS coverage of BedWars so I'll leave it as it is. If anyone else wants to add a "minigame" section to Hypixel or Mineplex, they can. Cheers, (I forgot the password of Biscuit3413 so I'm using this) Biscuit3413(2) (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm stupid. I forgot the password of Biscuit3413(2). I'll try to make the section. Thegiftofknowingyou (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 16:06:50, 29 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Eleduc60



Eleduc60 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article for creation Draft:Victoria-Vanuatu_Physician_Project. I am sorry but I do not understand the reasons for rejection. I don't know what you mean by "advocate for your topic". It would be helpful if you are more specific. What language is not neutral? What phrases sound like advocating versus factual description? As you can see, we have revised this many, many times to make it as neutral and concise as possible.

I disagree that the list of doctors is completely unnecessary. The doctors and their families were critical to the existence of this small organization. Without them the organization would not have been. In what way is this different from the producers, directors, and cast of Groundhog Day (film)?

What, in the list of activities, do you feel can be cut or condensed? From what basis are you judging their importance, relevance, or truth?

Thank you for your help.

Hello @Eleduc60:. The Activities section is unnecessarily long and promotional, and is written with bias in favor of the organization. While I am not denying the existence of the different activities, listing them is unencyclopedic, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. As for the doctors, Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. None of the doctors on their own are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, so organizing them all in a list does not make up for notability. The claim that "the doctors and their families were critical to the existence of the organization" might be a true statement, but it shows natural bias in favor of the subject, and is also not helpful to readers without any references to the long list of information. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on Draft:Victoria-Vanuatu_Physician_Project. I think I am beginning to see the Wiki point of view. I have revised and resubmitted. Eleduc60 —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • 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)

Request on 23:53:12, 1 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Grimbold292


Hey I made a few more small changes to the Blacklight Media page. Can you please tell me what you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blacklight_Media_Records

Thanks so much! Matt

Grimbold292 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grimbold292: The WP:POV issues with bias in favor of the subject are still present. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Andriy Khvetkevych

Hello Utopes, 

 Recently you edited the above draft submitted by my friend Andriy.  Andriy is from the Ukraine, and English is his fourth language (I believe).  He has asked me (native English speaker) to help him find out why his edit was rejected.  It has been accepted as is by Wikipedia Russia.  
 He submitted it to English Wikipedia since he lives in the US (Florida), and he is a professional freediver, and many of his followers and people in the sport are based in English-speaking countries.
 I advised him that he should change the page name of the CMAS and AIDA pages which refer to him to the their proper page name titles, rather than "Andriy's AIDA Records," even though the link is correct (it is linked to his AIDA profile page, which is created by AIDA, not by Andriy).  The proper name for that page, for instance, is:  AIDA | Athletes - Andriy Khvetkevych (Ukraine)."
 I also told him that he should provide a viable independent link for each line in the table of data that he provided (the competitions and results), even though he provides links in the body (including video links to his actual dives, published by the certifying organizations). 
 Is my advice accurate?  Is there anything else that I should advise him to do?

 I have been friends with Andriy for years, we trained at the same dive school in Thailand years ago, to the professional level.  He is a full-time professional in the industry now, and has specialized in freediving for many years.

Profbernie (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. The recent that I declined Draft:Andriy Khvetkevych is due to a lack of suitable references. The only suitable reference that is present in the article is the second one. This is the full explanation, which you can read if you would like. YouTube videos are not usually reliable sources, as anybody can upload a video to YouTube with no guarantee to accuracy, and there is the chance of copyright infringement. So while we don't have a rule against using YouTube videos in sources, we try to steer away from doing so. With this out of the way, the video in reference 4 does not significantly cover the subject, and the videos in references 1 and 3 are self-published and do not support the subject's notability. As for the other references 5-7, these are all passing mentions and do not provide significant coverage of the subject, and reference 8 is not independent. With that being said, the subject does not appear to be notable for inclusion within Wikipedia. In order to demonstrate notability, we require that subjects have been significantly covered by reliable and independent sources, which does not seem to be the case for the subject. As for your friend writing an article about himself, I would advise for him to look at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and consider whether it is necessary for him to have an article about himself. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoài Đức

Hi - a question about marking the disambiguation page as reviewed. I had initially reviewed it, but then rescinded the review when I checked the links and noticed that two are piped links to Vietnamese wikipedia... my understanding was disambiguation pages on en wikipedia should only link within en wikipedia. Is that wrong...? Is there a policy/guideline you're aware of on this? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi - ignore my question, with another editor have clarified the issue. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Speculateur

Hi Utopes, I realize that you are only following WP policy in moving the article, but in so doing you are destroying useful information that was causing no problems. If it comes up in a search, how do I know that she is a ship and not an investor or a company? How do I situate her in time? I may be looking fr something earlier or later, but you have forced me to click on the article just to find out that she is not the one I am looking for. Some ship names are unique but many are not. Yes, if I find another vessel by the same name I can then move her back and create a ship index page to list them both, but why are you making harming me by making extra work for me when it isn't necessary? Acad Ronin (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Acad Ronin:. The title with the qualifier Speculateur (1806 ship) is still a redirect to the current article, and should appear if you type a space beyond "Speculateur" in the search bar. Linking to it should not be a problem. As for your argument about perhaps the name is of an investor or a company, this is not the case, as the ship is the primary topic for the title "Speculateur", and the lack of articles with similar names should emphasize this. I do see what you mean though, because it might not be completely obvious that the article is about the ship. However, redirects are still present at the title with the qualifier, so I can't see this being a large issue if these longer titles are used. Because the parenthesis are not included in the name, and the ship is the WP:PTOPIC, then the page should be at the shorter title. The "1806" part is also unnecessarily specific, because the ship's name appears to be unique, so "(ship)" would have been a better name than the current one. For a ship such as Justinian, the ship is not the primary topic, so the qualifier is necessary. WP:ATDAB has more information than I do. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Transport News redirect

For what it's worth, I was in the middle of writing in support of deletion when you non-administratively closed the redirect RfD. I think you were right to flag it as a non-intuitive/low value redirect. It's a publication from a defunct organization that has a name shared with other magazines, notably Transport News in the U.K. The only liked instances I see are within citations. All in all, I think it should be deleted. Carter (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Carter, I closed the discussion early because I was its creator and was able to withdraw because of it. The fact of the matter is that even if there was only a sentence long mention of "Transport News" that doesn't use proper independent references, an unambiguous target technically exists. The sentence should have been removed before the discussion was started. However, I can open the discussion back up, as it still hasn't been seven days. I just closed it because I started it far too hastily, as "Transport News" was still covered at its current location (even if the mention is not adequately referenced). Utopes (talk / cont) 22:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice.

I thank you for the email acknowledging a certain edit number achievement and a laugh that's desperately been needed through this weird time. 😂 Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad to be of service :) Utopes (talk / cont) 04:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Thatrom Thookrom

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thatrom_Thookrom

Can you please throw more light why it got rejected. After it got rejected many times and after talking to someone in Teahouse, I have edited and added many verifiable references as requested. See the reference list. I have added 17 verifiable references. Can you please look in to that again. I just wanted to make sure you have reviewed the latest version. Thanks (2006pmp (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)).

After a second look, I can confirm that the sources that discuss the film are not reliable, and the reliable sources do not give significant coverage to the film. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Article on Frank Llewellyn Harrison

Hi User:Utopes, I don't know what motivated you to change the name of the article "Frank Ll. Harrison" to "Frank L. Harrison". You don't gve any real reason except saying, "Only one letter for middle initial". But why? Is that a Wikipedia rule? Is it your personal taste? Is it the way Americans abbreviate names? Whatever the reason, please take note that it is wrong. The subject of this article was known variously as "Frank Harrison", "Frank Ll. Harrison" or "Frank Llewellyn Harrison" but never as "Frank L. Harrison". You could have seen that if you had read the intro. I will now move the article to Frank Llewellyn Harrison (which has been a redirect so far), without any middle initials, in order to avoid the next conflict with you. But please be more careful with changes like that in the future. There exist names and customs in this world you don't know of. – Aklein62 (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, User:Utopes, I've just noticed I am not able to rename this article to "Frank Llewellyn Harrison" because of the redirect of that name that I myself created. And since I am not an administrator, I cannot delete the redirect, unfortunately. Are you an administrator? It seems so since you "reviewed" this article (I think). Therefore, I ask you to delete the redirect "Frank Llewellyn Harrison" and then move the actual article to this name. Please. – Aklein62 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Aklein62:, I'm sorry that you feel that way. To begin, I am not an administrator, so I cannot delete pages. However, requested that the page be moved to "Frank Llewellyn Harrison". The fact of the matter is that we do not partially abbreviate the middle name of a subject, which was the case for the former name of the article. While I'm sure there are some exceptions that I am unaware of, having two "L"s for the middle initial is not typically standard for Wikipedia titles. For a list of example, I invite you to read List of literary initials. As for my moving of the page, I decided to keep the "First MI Last" format, but with one letter for the middle initial; this title still unambiguously describes the target, as the first letter of his middle initial is indeed "L". However, because the use one-letter initial is not commonly associated with the subject, I believe that we can compromise with "Frank Llewellyn Harrison". I do not mean any ill-will, as I was trying to keep the title relatively similar to what it was previously. It appears that the title I moved it to was not the most ideal. I hope you understand, Utopes (talk / cont) 17:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. I see that the move to the full name has now been done. Thanks for mediating. – Aklein62 (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Squint (band)

Hey I saw your comment on Draft:Squint (band) that their notability is established by the music charts that they listed. Those charts are virtually non-notable and limited in scope. The only charts that denote notability are national music charts. See WP:CHART as a reference going forward. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I didn't look into the notability of the charts too much because I used a different rationale to decline the draft. Will keep this in mind though. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 16:23:41, 13 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Autocreeper


Thank you for taking the time to review the entry. In order to meet your request, I had the article reviewed and edited offline by a professor who has written a few actual encyclopedia entries and incorporated his changes into the article.

The recent rejection contradicts what you had stated previously. As you know, CMJ is a national chart, which supports your previous statements. I would love your help in understanding what needs to happen next. Thank you.

Autocreeper (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)In terms of national music charts establishing notability in the US we typically only consider Billboard for charting and RIAA for certification, this is per WP:GOODCHARTS. CMJ covered very niche charting and also had financial entanglements and COIs with multiple bands. If the subject in your article has broken one of the Billboard charts, that can be used to establish notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Utopes. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion and updated page

Hi, I wanted to follow up with you regarding your decision to deem the Draft:OnePageCRM promotional and not suited for publishing. I've left my comments in the Talk section, giving the examples of other pages in the industry that have more content or references that can be considered promotional but were published. Could you please let me know what part of the entry exactly "reads a advertisement" more than of the pages mentioned? Thank you! NadiaReckmann (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bionime

Hi Utopes! I'm creating pages for listed companies on the TWSE, and I was wondering how can I make it more notable, and has since made the draft page into a stub, if others can help me out. Also, the page also has a Wikipedia page in Mandarin,[1] please help me, thanks! -Keiichi88 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%8F%AF%E5%BB%A3%E7%94%9F%E6%8A%80
Hello. Sadly, I am unable to "make" the subject more notable. In order to have an article on Wikipedia, the subject must be significantly covered in reliable and independent sources, and this significant coverage does not appear to exist for Bionime based on the sources provided. In order to demonstrate notability, this significant coverage (in reliable and independent sources) must be referenced in the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of draft

Hi User:Utopes, any chance you can help me make the changes you requested on the Draft:BioSerenity article please? This is my first article and I sure could use some help. Cheers, Gaheris fils de lot (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Gaheris fils de lot:. You only added one reference since the previous comment about the sourcing, and the reference added does not significantly cover the subject of the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of draft: International Journal of Geometry (IJG)

Dear User:Utopes;

I added one reference but I don't think this will change the situation. Could you please tell me why the references originally provided are not adequate? I know this journal is not quite popular; but it is one of the very few European journals dedicated to Euclidean Geometry: in a certain way it could be considered the European equivalent of the american Forum Geometricorum. I think that, in this respect, it deserves a wiki page (like the Forum Geometricorum does! Because it does! But, by the way, the references provided on the Forum Geometricorum page do not seem to me much stronger than the ones I provided for the IJG). You can check that several Geometry wikipedia pages include papers from International Journal of Geometry in the references. You can also check that some of the editorial board members do have a wikipage. But of course, also these points are not determinant or relevant in my opinion for considering my draft a publishable one. In case you take view of the present note; would you please kindly consider to take a quick action in rejecting or accepting my draft, or eventually (better) help me to elevate it to a publishable wiki article? Best Regards; Count Von Aubel (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Count Von Aubel:. I see that the draft has been approved, so congratulations! While I cannot speak for the reviewer, none of the sources present at the time of my declination significantly discussed the journal itself. While I would agree that the journal was more than likely notable, the references that were present did not speak to such. For the instance of the Forum Geometricorum, I would say that the sourcing on this article was not the strongest in and of itself, even if the article had existed for quite some time. However, I'm satisfied with the improvements that were made, so I don't have any issues with the page being approved. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen

Hello,

How can the article be an autobiography when the scholar himself died long ago? LOL I just chose his name as my Wikipedia name. Pleaser review it again. Otherwise I'll have to register with another silly account and resubmit.

Thank you, Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The autobiography tag has been removed. Apologies, that was an oversight on my end. However, my decline rationale of the sources not being verifiable still holds true. You are able to edit the draft and resubmit it as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Could it be that the sources might not be verifiable because you don't speak Turkish? An easy way to verify the Turkish would be to use a translation tool such as Google Translate. Let me run over the sources and describe them again to prove that they're valid, independent sources:

  • Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen Haberleri (Turkish) Haberler. Retrieved 8 April 2020. <-- From a news site called Haberler
  • Büyük İslam İlmihali - Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen Ehl-i Sünnet Kitap. Retrieved 8 April 2020. <-- From a site that sells books, with a brief description.
  • Jump up to: a b Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen Kimdir? - Who is Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen? (Turkish) <-- I provided the English translation. It's a short autobiography
  • Rahmi Yaran, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi <--From a Turkish Encyclopedia by Diyanet.
  • Ahmet Selim Bilmen, p. 99-168 <-- From a book by his son

That's five different, reliable sources. I believe this should be enough to start an article. Others can add more citations later. What do you think?

Thank you, Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"Controversies related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Since you had some involvement with the Controversies related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPRSCHOOL training request

Hi, Utopes can you enroll me under your mentor-ship for training, as my rights were revoked because few from the community complained that I require training to properly execute the NPP work. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Amkgp: I'd be happy to help out! Let me know when you're interested in starting your mentorship. I'll begin to set the stage and make sure the logistics are taken care of; when I'm done, I'll provide you a link to your NPPSchool page. Should not take too long. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Utopes I am ready to begin. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Alright, everything should be set up! Your individual NPPSchool page is located here at User:Utopes/NPPS/Amkgp. I have also created a shortcut for you, so you can also reach the page at User:Utopes/Amkgp. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Utopes, I'm happy you've taken Amkgp on. In case you are not already aware there is background discussion at User talk:Rosguill and User talk:Primefac that would be worth reading as it can give you insight into what Amkgp might particularly benefit from. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the information Barkeep49. I had looked into the discussion at Rosguill's talk page, but I was unaware of the second discussion at Primefac's talk page. I looked into some of Amkgp's reviews, as well as the grievances that other editors have had with them, particularly with the use of the incorrect CSD criteria when tagging pages. With this in mind, I have some ideas about where I would like to focus, but I will still plan on going through with the whole curriculum. As a personal request from me to you though, this is my first student that I have had, so while I do feel comfortable with holding the lessons based on my own experience and understanding, please feel free to check in at the NPPS page to make sure that I'm covering everything that I need to, and let me know if I've made a mistake or you disagree with something that I've said. I would really appreciate an extra set of eyes for my first go at this. If that would require too much time from you, then don't worry about it. Still, the assurance would be beneficial for me. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Utopes, I am happy to check-in. Also feel free to ping me at any point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Utopes I just checked in. I think you're doing great so far. Clear feedback, good information, etc. Though as a personal preference I'd have gone cross, rather than yellow tick for putting NACADEMIC in column three. It is is by far the most common example of Column 1. I will keep checking in occasionally and I repeat my offer to weigh in if you ping me at any point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Thank you for lending a helping hand. I thought WP:PERSON more basic in nature than WP:ACADEMIC in terms of WP:N so I put NACADEMIC in column 3 instead of 1. Thanks for the assessment of my ongoing answers and my mentor's progress. Looking forward. Amkgp (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

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) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

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

Jalalpur Chattha

I'm not sure why this was approved. I just removed 3 sources from the section on caste, religion, etc as they didn't back the text or anything except geolocation. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller I accepted the article because it was a populated, legally recognized place that satisfied WP:GEOLAND and the sources that were present, even if they were weak, established its existence. I wouldn't say it was a great article by any stretch of the imagination, but I didn't expect a thinly populated village in Pakistan to receive significant coverage by news outlets, and I figured that it'd probably pass an AfD. (Granted, I would never think that coverage by a news outlet would be required for this type of stub, but am only saying this for the purpose of the argument.) I kept the references at the article for verifiability's sake. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree it seems a legitimate article. I don't deal with AfC, but wasn't it possible to approve it but move the sources that looked as though they were verifying the castes and a comment and religion, or add a cite tag, or something? Or is that never part of the process? Doug Weller talk 10:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Regulation H

Hi, can you please tell me how many more references might we need for submitting the draft? I actually found the link in the requested articles section. Given this is a government regulation, and a very important one for the banking system I think the mistake I have made is in the number of references? Or is it something else? FZR2020 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Creation

Hi Utopes, hope you are doing good. I haven't been able to follow up with that article improvement process as I have put it on hold for now. I have lost two very close friends of mine and instead of writing or editing I have just been keeping myself busy reading a few books and some stuff on Wiki as well as other platforms. During this I came across this young scientist named Muhammad Shaheer Niazi and he did a sort of a breakthrough research back in 2017. He has been covered by many major outlets and so is his research. I was hoping that you might be able to help me with it? As in if he actually meets the GNG and if I should go ahead with his page? And don't worry I will come back to the Good Article thing in a few weeks. For now, I was thinking of making a new article, maybe? NotJuggerNot (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Utopes, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Utopes/Archive_5&oldid=1113370073"