|
User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 15
WikiCup 2018 September newsletterThe fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:
During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC) The Signpost: 1 October 2018
The Signpost: 28 October 2018
ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, Toa Nidhiki05. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) The Signpost: 1 December 2018
The Signpost: 24 December 2018
Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!Hello and Happy New Year! Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC) The Signpost: 31 January 2019
The Signpost: 28 February 2019
WikiCup 2019 March newsletterAnd so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all! Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).
Trump, but rather on about 78,000 votes from only three counties in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (by comparison, Obama won in 2012 due to three counties in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). 2. Just three counties – Macomb County, MI; York County, PA and Waukesha County, WI – elected Donald Trump. If those three counties had cast zero votes, Trump would have lost all three states and the election. By the same logic, just three counties re-elected President Obama in 2012: Miami-Dade County, FL; Cuyahoga County, OH and Philadelphia, PA. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170715170550/http://cookpolitical.com/story/10201) Both pieces of information came from the same source. Is there a source explaining why they were right about Trump but not Obama? Peaceandlonglife (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019 You have been blocked from editing for a period of During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)User:CambridgeBayWeather...what is your full rationale to block this editor who has not been blocked in nearly 8 years for 60 hours yet allow others who were also clearly edit warring a free pass?--MONGO (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for warning everyone involved in the dispute, really appreciate it. Toa Nidhiki05 11:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Blue Dog CoalitionHey, sorry that I wasn't very helpful with reverting the latest disruption to that article. As I had given a WP:3O, I feel obligated to take responsibility for it. I am glad it received page protection though, so hopefully it should stabilize. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 April 2019
WikiCup 2019 May newsletterThe second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:
Other notable performances were put in by So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Thanks a lot, really appreciate it! I'm just surprised nobody noticed this sooner. Toa Nidhiki05 23:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Notice 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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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. --MrClog (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC) MercyMe sales changesI noticed that you were updating the sales figures, but the links to RIAA are broken. Could you please update them while you're making the other changes? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
MOS:NUMEROPlease read Wikipedia:Manual of Style where it states, "style and formatting should be consistent within an article. Where more than one style is acceptable under MoS, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." Some articles use No. and other use number. Both are acceptable. Changing because some other article uses a different format is not a good reason as some articles use this format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Why did you web.archive.org every single source on Tracy Lawrence? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019
Tracy againThink I've addressed everything you brought up in the GAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC) StalkingPlease stop stalking me and reverting whatever I add. In this instance[1], you removed peer-reviewed academic publications and expert assessments. You were warned about this in April 2019[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
A starJust dropping by to give you a barnstar. I understand your feelings about the my interactions with another editor - certainly there is an ugly back and forth on the ANI. I just wanted to say that I hope that someday we work together for the good of the project! My best wishes to you
Thank you. I really hope you take a few things away from this - I had issues early on myself. Try to avoid conflict areas if you can, find stuff you are interested in and improve it, and in your case be very careful about copyvio. You’ve clearly got passion, you just should find somewhere you can really use it. AN/I really just makes everyone uncomfortable. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Ichthus June 2019
The Top 6 Articles
By Stalinsunnykvj
The sad news was the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj... that the first attempt to build the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra resulted in the demolition of the nearly completed structure? Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork, Ireland Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral is a Gothic Revival three-spire cathedral in the city of Cork, Ireland. It belongs to the Church of Ireland and was completed in 1879. The cathedral is located on the south side of the River Lee, on ground that has been a place of worship since the 7th century, and is dedicated to Finbarr of Cork, patron saint of the city. It was once in the Diocese of Cork; it is now one of the three cathedrals in the Church of Ireland Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, in the ecclesiastical province of Dublin. Christian use of the site dates back to a 7th-century AD monastery, which according to legend was founded by Finbarr of Cork. The entrances contain the figures of over a dozen biblical figures, capped by a tympanum showing a Resurrection scene.
(more...) Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here Delivered: 10:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Some Advicehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers You need to read this. At core, your very first perception should be that Sharyl Atkisson is a New Editor. She doesn't know. Anything. Second, she's a Tier-1 media professional who cares about the fact that the Article has gotten fundamental facts wrong, such as her place of birth. Third, the fact of the matter is that none of the Editors in the Article have been what I would call "good role models". They have taken her efforts to improve an article and made it "personal" and she in turn has made it personal right back. And now everyone is running around like their hair was on fire because she's made it personal. Well DUH. Who created that problem? You seem to think that what the topic of the Biographical Article has to say is totally irrelevant, when in fact there is an entire page of specific parameters for dealing with "biographies of living persons". Wikipedia cares. You should care too. Sharyl could have been a resource to improve the Article. Who knows about the topic better than she does? And you had an opportunity to demonstrate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and why they exist, and how they are implemented. But instead, you seem to have preferred to jettison the possible resource, adopt an adverserial "let's get her blocked or banned" attitude and instead of taking a situation and turning it into a positive, your actions have aggravated the situation into a negative. She's a Tier-1 media professional. It's not like she's a stranger to conflict, or that she doesn't know how to turn conflict into a career advantage. Duh. How do you think she got to where she is? I suggest you rethink your whole tack, and stay away from the Article and it's conflicts until you are realigned with "the big picture". She's a NEW EDITOR. Treat her as such, and stop with the continous reporting on her every utterance on Twitter, her blog, and what your next door neighbor told you she said. It doesn't improve the Article, it doesn't resolve the conflicts, and it's not going to help you either, should this whole thing blow up and get handed over to some kind of Administrative review. I can't claim to know Wikipedia Policies and how an Administrator might implement or enforce them, but if this were a generic "workplace" situation, the first thing I would to is separate you and your involvement from the Article as you seem to be making things worse instead of better. Leadership is BY EXAMPLE, which in this case, means yours. Again, read the "don't bite the newcomers". There are several lines in there that were specifically created for you.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
T-bansSomething to note, besides the fact that use of the talk page is preferred to edit warring, is that what you said in this edit summary is disallowed per WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED. Please use arguments for gaining consensus on material rather than personal attacks, thank you. petrarchan47คุก 22:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The June 2019 Signpost is out!
WikiCup 2019 July newsletterThe third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! 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 (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 20:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Remembering You (song)Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Remembering You (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Your GA nomination of Remembering You (song)The article Remembering You (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Your GA nomination of Remembering You (song)The article Remembering You (song) you nominated as a good article has passed
numeroMOS:NUMERO says to use "number", "No." or "Nos."; do not use the symbol №. The use of "no." is not discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Ichthus July 2019
The Top 6 Articles
By Stalinsunnykvj
A suicide attack on July 11th claimed by Islamic State (IS) near a church in the Syrian city of Qamishli shows that Christians remain a major target of the terror group. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj... that The Vision of Dorotheus is one of the earliest examples of Christian hexametric poetry? Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story. When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Approach to Guy/Girl Relationships is a 1999 book by Eric and Leslie Ludy, an American married couple. After becoming a bestseller on the Christian book market, the book was republished in 2004 and then revised and expanded in 2009. It tells the story of the authors' first meeting, courtship, and marriage. The authors advise single people not to be physically or emotionally intimate with others, but to wait for the spouse that God has planned for them. The book is divided into five sections and sixteen chapters. Each chapter is written from the perspective of one of the two authors; nine are by Eric, while Leslie wrote seven, as well as the introduction. The Ludys argue that one's love life should be both guided by and subordinate to one's relationship with God. Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to formerly unchaste or sexually abused individuals.
(more...) Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here Delivered: 12:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC) The Signpost: 31 July 2019
Open HereI see that Laser brain archived the Open Here FAC despite the fact that you had indicated you were planning to leave some feedback. Which is fair enough, since the FAC didn't seem to be heading toward approval anyway, but I would have hoped it would have waited for your feedback, given that I didn't get any real direction from the other reviewers on how to improve the article for a future FAC, so I was looking forward to having you weigh in so I could improve it for the future. In any event, I do plan to eventually renominate it (I'll likely seek a peer review first) so if you did have any feedback about the article that you could share with me, it would be very much appreciate and I'll make the appropriate edits accordingly. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
|
