User talk:Willbb234/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Additional eyes for AfD on MetaMask
I saw you've added your name to WP:ASSIST. I wonder if you might be willing to provide an additional set of eyes on the AfD nomination of the article MetaMask. The deletion discussion page is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MetaMask. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @N2e:. Thanks, I'll take a look. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding your eyes and thoughts to the AfD discussion. And thanks especially for bringing to my attention the limitation that you did on my Talk page. I have responded to that by successfully removing my request from the four editor's pages who had not responded, thus hopefully limiting the downside of my oversight. N2e (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter
  Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020. Current and upcoming events
Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports
September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news
Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Willbb234,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hi Willbb234. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
- Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
- If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
- Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Tal
I scanned the Oxford Companion article about Tal. It is copyrighted so I can't upload it. Here is a Dropbox link. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Bubba73:, that is very kind, thank you. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Muqarrab
Hello Willbb234.
Thank for your good remark about the article Muqarrab. KalimounTalk 13:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Kalimoun: hello. Thank your for replying. The article that you created will most likely need more background or introductory information in order for the common reader to understand what is being said. Also, the article has grammatical problems that will need to be sorted. Please see WP:MOS. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
| File:Christmas tree in field.jpg | Merry Christmas Willbb234 |
|
Hi Willbb234, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
- @Onel5969: Thank you for these greetings and I wish you a very Merry Christmas. Thanks for the continued hard work at NPP. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Revised an article and would like to publish it: "Shankar Kapri"
@Willbb234:
Hi Willbb234,
You may remember an article titled "Shankar Kapri" that I had tried to publish in early December but was deleted. Thank you for your feedback on it. I wrote the article again with significant consideration to avoid the previous concerns such as unambiguous advertising or promotion (which was not intentional at all). I removed the sentences which sounded subjective, checked & revised the remaining parts for objectivity, and added more citations from news articles. I plan to follow up with the article and support it with more references about Shankar as they are available over the months and years to come. I believe the article qualifies to be published now. Could you please read and check it for me? I appreciate your time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mehmetcaputcu/Shankar_Kapri
Thanks. Mehmetcaputcu (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Mehmetcaputcu: hello and thank you for your message. Please take a look at WP:RS; I see in the references section of your draft article that there are many references to social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. We do not consider these reliable. Additionally, having read the article, it still seems very promotional. For example, "He promotes the idea that individuals must dare to pursue realizing their dreams". This sentence is unencyclopedic and doesn't have a neutral point of view. If you still disagree with me, let me know and I'll get in contact with another editor and see if they agree with me or not. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hans Berr GAN
Hello,
Thank you for your GAN review of the above. It is regrettable that you could not afford the time for me to make responsive edits, but of course a courtesy hold before failure is elective. Nevertheless, I'll make such corrections as I can to improve the article.
I hope you are doing well in school.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
My revisions are complete for now. If curiosity drives you, you might take a look.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Georgejdorner thank you for your message. I failed the GA because the problems in the article were quite significant and I was simply following the instructions at WP:GAN/I#FAIL. You can put the article up for another review if you think I have made a mistake or done a bad job. I try to do my best. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't protesting the failure; it was well-deserved. Rereading this nomination, my reaction is, "What in the world was I thinking when I nominated this?" I do not intend to renominate it. I did want you to know that your review efforts were not in vain.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Archiving Magnus Carlsen talk page
Why did you do this by hand? There is a template for getting the talk page to archive automatically, and it is used in Talk:Bobby Fischer. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Bruce leverett: firstly, does this really matter? I'm sorry if it matters to you. I did it to make sure that none of the conversations were still ongoing. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter to me! I just thought it was rather strange. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Jan 2021
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Requested article
Hi. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask you a favour. Since you are an experienced Wikipedia user and a former member of WikiProject Requested articles, I decided to message you. Could you create a Wikipedia article on my behalf, please? I was planning to do it by myself, and actually I even wrote an informal draft version of it, but unfortunately have given up so far. Firstly, I am a layman (i.e., just an amateur) and secondly, my knowledge of English is at an intermediate level. Regardless, I really feel it might be an interesting article. If you find some time, I will greatly appreciate your help and support. Thank you. --Pinoczet (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pinoczet hi there and thanks for reaching out to me. If you could give me a link to the article in question, I'll see what I can do, but I can't make any promises. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. (deleted) Either way, thanks a lot for your willingness to help. --Pinoczet (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pinoczet thanks for this, but please can you give me a link to where this content actually is? Is it in draftspace, your sandbox, or elsewhere? Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- When I was planning to create the article, I wrote this as an informal draft for my personal purposes; therefore, it is saved in a file on my computer. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pinoczet right. I don't know much at all on biology, so I'm going to find it hard to help out here. Why don't your write the article in your sandbox? Here's how:
- Click on User:Pinoczet/sandbox
- Click on 'Start the User:Pinoczet/sandbox page.' (this option may not appear, in which case you should skip)
- Paste the content here and click save.
- After that, you can continue to work on the article and make any edits you like. I am happy to copyedit, proofread or help with formatting your article, but I'm afraid I won't be able to write it. I hope that helps, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pinoczet right. I don't know much at all on biology, so I'm going to find it hard to help out here. Why don't your write the article in your sandbox? Here's how:
- When I was planning to create the article, I wrote this as an informal draft for my personal purposes; therefore, it is saved in a file on my computer. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pinoczet thanks for this, but please can you give me a link to where this content actually is? Is it in draftspace, your sandbox, or elsewhere? Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. (deleted) Either way, thanks a lot for your willingness to help. --Pinoczet (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Revision of 'Birthday' on 6 February 2021
Hi there, Willbb234 - I need to have a little more information about why you removed my entry in the 'Birth'-list on February 6, 2021? I added the artist, Fallulah, to the list, using a reference that is currently NOT deemed invalid by Wikipedia. Do you need more references and if so, what is normally deemed a valid source with Wikipedia?
There's currently numerous sources confirming the date, including the Danish Broadcast Corporation (the Danish equivalent of the BBC) - - Maria Christina Apetri, facts
Please, advise! - Cheers, Kmilling (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Kmilling: hello there. Please take a look at WP:RS for details on what sources you can use. the Danish Broadcast Corporation should be reliable. The source you added (buzzlearn.com) wouldn't be considered reliable because websites like that copy from Wikipedia, which makes them not reliable. You can re-add the entry back in with a reliable source if you'd like. I also have to ask you if you have a Conflict of Interest with the artist? Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Willbb234: Hi there Willbb234. I'll change the reference and re-post the Birthday of the artist Fallulah then. Thanks for the clarification. And no, I have no relation or vested interest in the artist. I am a journalist often writing about art and artists though. I don't know if that disqualifies me on Wikipedia :)
- Cheers, Kmilling (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Repeat COI violation after your warning
Dear Willbb234 - I hope this finds you well.
I wanted to bring this page to your attention: Carl Lygo. A COI user whom you have have already warned with respect to that page has continued to make disruptive edits.
There is a lot of poorly-cited material on that page and I think the page, particularly the infobox, warrants a sweep.
Just wanted to flag this to you so you are aware.
Thanks, HEwonk (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Hewonk: thanks for this. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 London Marathon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 London Marathon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Joseph2302 -- Joseph2302 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 London Marathon
The article 2019 London Marathon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2019 London Marathon for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Joseph2302 -- Joseph2302 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you read that, you are (in effect) accusing me of stalking because I reverted your edits on two pages (one see a month ago). I undid your edit because I did not agree with it, I have no idea who you are, nor do I care. Stop with the assumptions of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This is now your last warning, if you continue to claim I am stalking you and you do not withdraw the accusations I will report you, this is my last comment to you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to Willbb234 for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE February 2021 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of 2019 London Marathon
The article 2019 London Marathon you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:2019 London Marathon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Joseph2302 -- Joseph2302 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
CNN
It looks like an editor was trying to clean up these additions Special:Contributions/Cstiker05 and wiped instead of reverting. Slywriter (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Slywriter: alright, thanks for letting me know. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
1988 Czechoslovak - New Zealand Mount Everest Southwest Face Expedition
Hi, moving this article back to draft space when I had clearly opposed such a move was highly aggressive including ignoring the talkpage discussion. As a reviewer you should be aware of WP:Drafts in that any disputed draftications should be taken to AFD and not edit warred: " To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should: notify the author (this is facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js), be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability (even if you are not an administrator) Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD." If you move the article again in the face of clear opposition it will be a matter of edit warring . AFD is the correct location if you dispute the notability of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Atlantic306: you didn't object to the move. I attempted to start a conversation with you, but you clearly wanted no part of it and gave short and useless answers. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I clearly objected to the move on 12 February on the talk page: " Hi, disagree, it can be improved and has enough sources to be in mainspace though more would be welcome. moving it to draftspace would be unnecesary and I would oppose it. Have you tried translating sections of the main source?,regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC " Whether my answers were useless is a matter of opinion but the opposition to a move back to draftspace is clear, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Tour de Ski 2016-2017 reversion
Hello Willbb234. Few months ago you reverted my edit of article "2016-2017 Tour de Ski". You asked how I know that Maurice Manificat was the winner of Stage 7 and you changed it into Sergey Ustiugov - overall tour winner. Please don't revert it again, Manificat is correct. That's link to the results: http://medias4.fis-ski.com/pdf/2017/CC/3033/2017CC3033PRL.pdf . Stage winner is the fastest man of the day, not the first on top of the climb. Ustiugov was first on top only because he started first, far ahead of pursuing skiers. If they all started at once, Manificat probably would be fastest.
Regards, ptkbdgjchw
Your GA nomination of 2019 New York City Marathon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 New York City Marathon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 New York City Marathon
The article 2019 New York City Marathon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2019 New York City Marathon for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2013 Boston Marathon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2013 Boston Marathon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2013 Boston Marathon
The article 2013 Boston Marathon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2013 Boston Marathon for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 New York City Marathon
The article 2019 New York City Marathon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2019 New York City Marathon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2013 Boston Marathon
The article 2013 Boston Marathon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2013 Boston Marathon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.
You may wish to pay heed to that edit notice, revert your own edit, and make your case before an admin comes by, who may impose sanctions upon you. The edit in question is this one. ValarianB (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ValarianB: thank you. Per WP:3RRNO, Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy is exempt from such restrictions. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
DYK for 2019 London Marathon
On 14 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2019 London Marathon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the 2019 London Marathon, the total raised for charities surpassed £1 billion since the first race in 1981? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2019 London Marathon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2019 London Marathon), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
| Thank you for helping out at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated! Keep up the great work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
- @MrLinkinPark333: thanks very much. Glad I am able to help. Still learning the ropes so I may makes mistakes from time to time. Thanks for your effort too. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Willbb234: No worries! Also, any sources that you see that were added in the edits should be examined as well, just in case there's any copyvio from them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 Boston Marathon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 Boston Marathon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. As a side note, the bot that updates GA nominations and the like is currently down, so I'll do my best to keep you in the loop manually. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 Chicago Marathon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 Chicago Marathon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Valeria Altobelli for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeria Altobelli 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.
~ GB fan 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Breaking down DOY articles by era
I see you're adding subsections to DOY articles to break them down by era. You're probably not aware, but the DOY project decided on a specific breakout of time periods for the articles so they would be symmetric. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Template and the discussion on the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Toddst1: I'm not sure if you're saying there's something wrong? To me, the subsections I've added appear to follow the consensus on the talk page. I've already seen the discussion, see [1]. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Changes to Eric Rosen
Hi,
I've seen you have made substantial deletions to my work on Eric Rosen's page. I have a few issues with what you've done. 1) The first section about learning chess was sourced from two pages, not just from Eric's own website. Deleting this was incorrect. 2) WP:SELFSOURCE says "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" 3) Your deletion of the section on the Philly Open I don't understand. Was I not correct? And deleting it has made the whole section not make sense.
I feel everything I wrote was appropriate and well sourced. Could I pleaser revert your changes?
Many thanks, DansterTheManster (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DansterTheManster: WP:RSPRIMARY states that Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. You would have to gather consensus on the talk page for whether to use his website as a source. There are secondary sources that provide enough information on his life meaning we shouldn't feel the need to use his website as a source. Per the source [2], he did not finish joint first. Also, who are we to decide what tournaments and rating points that he gains are notable to be included in the article? We should let secondary sources do this for us. Regarding your first comment The first section about learning chess was sourced from two pages, not just from Eric's own website. Deleting this was incorrect. I looked at the Chicago Tribune source and all it said was He said he discovered he had a natural ability for the cerebral game when on vacation and he wanted to take a respite from the scorching sun in the Bahamas. He began playing as a child with his father, Brad, but surpassed him in little time after he attended a four-day chess camp in 2002 a lot of which I already included in the lede section of the article. The rest is trivial relating to the fact that he learnt it in the Bahamas. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please also consider the fact that the FIDE website is simply a database of results and ratings and so we should try to avoid it except for citing numbers and statistics. If we were to rely on the FIDE website anymore than that, we would be making inappropriate conclusions about the notability of tournament results, ratings and so forth. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, that is fair enough. I can find proper sources for the few things solely sourced from his website. I have also found a better source on his IM norms. I shall add these in by reverting your undos and changing my sources. It is just a little frustrating when you are new on wikipedia, are updating a terrible stub article, and are just met with deletions, without any attempt to actually improve it. Feels a little counterproductive. But thanks for the heads up, I will correct those issues.
- Thanks, DansterTheManster (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DansterTheManster: you might like to take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Rosen is only known due to his Twitch and YouTube presence. The notability of people and their achievements is not judged by how many followers or subscribers they have or how many people watch their streams. If readers want to find out about their favourite streamer, then they're best to look at SocialBlade or Twitter as Wikipedia is not the place. Please bear this in mind when editing; usually you'll find more to write about when considering professionals such as the top grandmasters or those who have contributed significantly to the game such as Capablanca rather than modern day chess entertainers. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, and I was going to write a section on his Twitch and Youtube. I thought it was worthwile having a bit on his chess too (since he has some achievements there). I thought since the article aleady existed, it was worth making good. See also Nemo Zhou and Anna Rudolf, chess streamers with GA artiles. Thanks for the notes though - its helpful to be corrected when starting out. :) DansterTheManster (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 Chicago Marathon
The article 2019 Chicago Marathon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2019 Chicago Marathon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 Berlin Marathon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 Berlin Marathon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
March 2021 GAN Backlog drive
|
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
| Thank you for completing 15 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of 2019 Berlin Marathon
The article 2019 Berlin Marathon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2019 Berlin Marathon for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 Berlin Marathon
The article 2019 Berlin Marathon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2019 Berlin Marathon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)