This user may have left Wikipedia. Willsome429 has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Hi, I'm Clovermoss. Thank you for reviewing two of my redirects. I thought I should let you know that I'm on the redirect whitelist, so if you see my redirects, it isn't really nessecary to review them. My redirects all get automatically patrolled by bot and that usually happens within a few minutes of them being created. Clovermoss(talk)19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm John B123. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, European heat wave, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I am Raymond Heim. I am Corey Heim's birth father. I have been trying to correct his birthdate. There is no reference for where his original birthdate was obtained. Someone made a typo. It is a simple edit. Tell me how you want me to prove it. I want this resolved.
@Raymond Heim: Hello, and thank you for reaching out. Per Wikipedia's core policy on sourcing, all information of biographies of living people must be sourced. Corey's DoB was cited off Racing-Reference, and I think that's the easiest avenue to get it changed. This link is an email contact form for the site, there's a field for "Data error" that I think you can go under to get Corey's DoB changed on the site. If you have any more questions just leave a reply here! Regards, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Richmond (ARCA driver) article deletion update
Hello again,
Just wanted to let you know that I found another article about Tim Richmond (racing driver, born 1998). Although it is from the ARCA website again, it's not a press release. (Actually, none of the articles that are working are press releases.) The problem is just that we can't find any sources from places other than the ARCA website. I did a lot of googling and couldn't find anything unfortunately. I don't know what your thoughts are, but I know that in past comments you've made about my edits, that we try to find sources from multiple websites besides just the ARCA site to keep an article up. However, given that these are actual articles about his 2019 season rather than press releases, what are your thoughts? They do give a lot of the info that's in his article now.
Also, stay tuned for a message on my user page coming soon about my future editing plans. What I'll be focusing on editing soon will be different than previously. I won't be creating as many more new ARCA driver articles since some of them were nominated for deletion and look incomplete/don't have enough sources. I think you've taught me a lot so I know I need to change what and how I'm editing. Cavanaughs (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]
@Willsome429: Love to work with you. I respect what this Congressman is all about, especially his principles of freedom, though I'm looking at him all the way from Sydney Australia. I'm also serious about keeping stuff balanced, finding good independent sources, including the criticisms and the failures. I'm particularly interested in finding the themes in his thinking.
Having a redirect in place currently does not mean that he is not notable, but merely that there is no article on him right now. Plenty of notable topics start as redirects. Take, for example, albums, which often start as redirects to the artist, or individual songs, which may start out as redirects to the album or artist before somebody does a full effort on it. I’d encourage you to continue developing your draft on him, as an accepted AFC creation will override a redirect. As the team principal and a notable former driver for the team, however, the best way for Wikipedia to currently include him is to redirect that specific title to the team. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
First off, my apologies for mislinking on Fairfield. Secondly, I believe Scott passes GNG through "signifcant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Is the page mostly based on local sources? Yes. But, The Athletic goes into a deep-dive on him here, an NFL.com full webpage on him was sourced in the article, and USA Today has sigcov on him as well, although that one wasn't in the original version. I'd understand draftifying if the NFL Draft was months away, but it occurs in less than two weeks, and I'll put the other refs in the article. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Cox and Mark Meunier article deletion questions
Hi again, Willsome. I saw two more articles that were nominated for deletion and wanted to ask you questions about each.
Ron Cox: This article should really have been deleted a while ago because it had nothing on it. However, last night, I added most of what's on there after it was nominated for deletion. I found a few interesting sources about him and as well as his background, and even one on his 2003 season with his on-track incident with the young Kyle Busch in ARCA. Only thing I didn't have time to add yet was a results table. Looks pretty good to me, and the sources aren't press releases. Do you think it should still be deleted? I do understand that he's never run a race in the top three series and has only been in ARCA, but we do have a couple sources about him, unlike some other ARCA-only drivers we have or previously had articles for.
Mark Meunier: This one reminds me of how we deleted Chuck Buchanan Jr's article. Like Buchanan, Meunier, an underdog small team driver, did attempt a top three series race but all attempts he's made have been DNQ's, so does that mean he fails the motorsport guideline or whatever it's called as well as the general notability guideline? If so, I can understand why he was nominated for deletion. And it's hard to predict when Meunier's next Xfinity (or Truck) attempt will be (or if he'll even run another race). Like what I've said on other nomination for deletion discussions, I'd prefer we make this a draft instead of completely deleting in case he does successfully qualify next time he does attempt a race in the top three series, and then we can add put the article back in mainspace. Cavanaughs (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]
UPDATE: Sorry, if I sounded like I thought you were the one who nominated Ron Cox for deletion. It was actually Nascarfan0548. It'd still be nice to hear your input on its deletion since you're the one who I usually see make them and who knows a thing or two about page deletions. Thanks, Cavanaughs (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]
Hi Sean, and thanks for reaching out. I've had issues with editors about 7,000 edits deep and not knowing policy, and to avoid that with you (seemed like there was some confusion over notability guidelines above), I'll drop them here. WP:NMOTORSPORT is specific to, obviously, motorsports. For most stock car drivers, you're looking at bullet point 1, which in America is the top three NASCAR series based on prize money, as ARCA pays dirt to their teams. WP:GNG has a lot on it, but basically the gist is that it has to have significant coverage (not just passing mentions) from multiple different sources (not just different works put out by the same source, but different organizations/companies/outlets altogether). Typically in PROD or AfD debates, local news outlets are not considered when determining notability, so just keep that in mind. As for Meunier - you can't create/keep pages hedging bets on when their next race is going to be. The next race for anybody is gonna be a long ways out there, and Meunier simply doesn't have coverage about him - all sources listed merely mention him or are straight numbers about him (stats-style sites like Racing-Reference cannot be used to establish notability either if going by GNG). I'd be against drafting it because his one RWR attempt came out of the blue and small teams as a whole are likely to contract later in the season. If you want to leave the ARCA table in case he makes more ARCA/NASCAR starts, copy/paste it to your sandbox. As for Cox - that one is trickier. Even if the page is kept, the existing prose will need a substantial rewrite/copyedit. The entire 80s/90s section is unsourced, something that is unacceptable on a BLP. The follow-up to the Busch comment needs to go, as it sounds unencyclopedic. The same goes for "surprisingly amazing", it sounds like you're Cox's personal PR guy. As for the sources presented on Cox's page - 1, 5 and 7 cannot be used to determine notability because they're local, and 5 and 7 cover content that by itself will not make him notable - not every HS football coach is notable enough for a page. 6 is a directory-style sourcing of him, 2 is a dead link, and 4 merely mentions him in passing. That leaves source 3, which has significant coverage from a reliable source. It's an okay start, but you're going to need two or three more of those types of sources to attempt to salvage the page. I searched a little bit and came up with a smattering of passing mentions but nothing significant, so I'd recommend checking out-of-the-box resources like newspapers.com if you want to save the page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No matter what happened after that last one I was going to let it sit. Honestly should’ve done it sooner with the (presumed) high volume of traffic the page is getting at the moment. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Hubhopper
I've updated the wiki page for Hubhopper with updated news items and sources.
Full disclosure: I am doing this for a friend of mine, but I also believe Hubhopper - as one of the largest podcast services in India - is noteworthy enough to have its wiki page up. It's been written about extensively in national press and is an official partner for the Indian government's podcasts. Would appreciate a fresh look at this and let me (finally) get this published.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramize84 (talk • contribs)
Hello, and thank you for reaching out and disclosing your affiliation with Hubhopper. Just a few general notes on the situation: a) this isn't really a situation of me "letting you" publish the page. It's a matter of "does this page meet the applicable notability guideline?". And in this case, there's no notability guideline that states "large podcast providers are assumed notable." Take a read at WP:NCORP and see if you think that Hubhopper meets that as presented. It doesn't matter how notable the company is if it isn't demonstrated on the page. b) I've stepped away from draft reviewing for a while, but I did give the page a look-over. There still seem to be a few unsourced statements (Problem Solver of the Year, third round of funding) and a few of the sources seem to be PR churns from the company (2 and 11 for example), which generally aren't used to establish notability. Those are my suggestions for tweaks. If you decide to change anything, or if you don't, make sure to click the blue "submit" button, as draft reviewers can't review pages if they're not submitted. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying and shedding light on the issues that still remained on the page. I have fixed them and resubmitted the draft for a fresh review. As far as notability is concerned, I can see how it doesn't check all the boxes as set out in WP:NCORP. But I still feel that Hubhopper merits a wiki page on account of its sizeable audience and extensive catalog, as well as by being the official partner of the national government. Thanks, Ramize84 (talk • contribs)
Johnny Miller (Racing Driver) Wiki Page
This is the person (race car driver) Johnny Miller the Wiki Page Johnny Miller (Racing Driver) is referring too. Your edits February 20th, removing my content were incorrectly performed as the content I uploaded was factual and neutral about me ..... the person the page is referring to! No one should edit this page but me. Please confirm you will not remove my edits about me, and my career, in the future? Also, there is incorrect information already on this Wiki page about me.
Thanks
Johnnymiller64 (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Johnny Miller[reply]
(talk page watcher) Johnnymiller64, welcome to Wikipedia. Like virtually everyone that initially comes here, you have many misconceptions. First the biography of you here does not belong to you. Second no person is ever the source of information we add. Everything comes from reliable published secondary sources, or should.
If you feel you are libeled by anything here, you should file a report at WP:BLPN. If you would simply prefer different information, that may or may not happen. You are not supposed to directly edit the article. Instead, you should request changes on your biography's talk page. You'll need to back those requests up with reliable secondary sources. You have no more right to change the article or approve the content than any other editor. Decision making is done here by consensus. Consensus is formed by making arguments based in reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you want to change something, the WP:BURDEN is on you to gain consensus for it. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. We have no way to know you are who you claim to be; same is true for everyone that edits here. That isn't a problem normally, because all content is based on reliable published sources. If you wish to assert something based on who you are, you will be required to prove you are who you claim to be. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr. Miller, and thank you for reaching out. Unfortunately, I can make no such promise that you are requesting. For starters, WP:COIvery strongly discourages subjects from editing their own Wikipedia pages. Second of all, I think that you and I have different definitions of "neutral". I was not denying that the information you added was factual, but it looked like you copied a resume and ad nauseam added it to the page. The bullet point nature and wording of the content you added talked about yourself in an extremely positive way, with many extravagant claims ($20 million in sponsorship). Third, not one source was added and per WP:V, all content, especially that on biographies of living persons, has to be reliably sourced. Fourth, the barrage of images you added hijacked the page formatting, and I have suspicions of the license settings they were uploaded to Commons with - how can you photograph yourself while simultaneously in the car that is in the photograph? All in all, the additions did not comply with Wikipedia policies and as a steward of the encyclopedia, it was my duty to remove them. As stated above, I cannot make any confirmation or deal to not edit your page. In fact, I would ask the same from you, as Wikipedia policy strongly recommends it. The best chance you have of improving your page is this: put sources that back up some of the information you added (or correct the "incorrect information" on your page already) and then I will edit the page and add them in. Other editors are also aware of the conflict of interest policy and will revert you if you try to edit your page again. If you have reliable sources that back up your information, please drop them here and I will do the rest. I do not want to see any hard feelings and am willing to work with this situation. (bump down cause I got edit conflicted) Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Willsome429! I added the text because some other editor had changed the "Cities" to "towns" earlier, so it read "towns, villages, towns, unincorporated". I think the simple distinctions are necessary, and I included as a "main" article administrative divisions of Wisconsin, so hopefully someone won't make the same mistake later. I do feel it adds to the article, if someone from outside Wisconsin (or the us for that matter) came directly to the page and didn't understand the distinctions that native Wisconsinites do. I sure didn't know the difference when I moved here 20 years ago... Timmccloud (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's mainly a scope issue for me. Merely having the link to the administrative divisions page should suffice. IPs without edit summaries are tricky - who's to say if the editor was confused or merely looking for vandalism? Having the information on both pages seems redundant, plus there are a few confusing parts in the text you added "[Villages] are governed by a city Village President" and "Unincorporated communities are exactly that", to name a couple. There are also some generalizations/blanket statements "cities generally provide the highest level of services", and while that may be true some places, it varies from city to city and village to village. Most county pages don't even have the link to the administrative divisions page, so I think that leaving the link on the page and deleting all the text would be a compromise if you really do want to keep the link on the page. Hope that explains my side more in-depth. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I totally get the scope issues, as I was trying to keep my explanations down to one sentence and failed. I come from the perspective of the when I moved to Wisconsin I hit the page and didn't really know they were different for a few years. Certainly the "city Village" is gonna get fixed. As an alternative to nothing, instead of one sentence for each section, what would you think of maybe 3 lines at the top near the "main" link differentiating them in text? I am trying to keep to the readability guidelines and make it an article/story, not just a list of data, without being redundant, and succinct, which you know is a terrible balancing act. The "exactly that" was an effort to avoid redundancy and make it more enjoyable to read vs "unincorporated divisions are unincorporated". Let me have another pass at improving it before we delete it all with your feedback in mind, ok? Timmccloud (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I love it! Much more succinct. I am going to copy edit one minor thing; The town of Madison, in many places is completely contained within the city (at least until 2022), so saying that all cities and villages are contained within the town is misleading, especially in Dane county! I'm going to change "contained within the town" to "associated with it". Minor difference by making it slightly broader in scope. Thank you for your help with my edit! Timmccloud (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and hope all is well where you are sheltering in place. I undid your draftifying of the above. Although the former status of schools as inherently notable is being questioned, that does not apply to school districts. Since public school districts in the US have many of the same features as incorporated settlements, they are still essentially inherently notable per WP:GEOFEAT. I think the SNG is correct, but know the concept is. SD's have fixed boundaries and charge taxes, so adequate local coverage to show notability is assumed, just as it is for a town or city. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Table reflects values at 7:00 PM Eastern on April 26. Monthly goal: Improve all top-importance articles to start or better. It is important to pay close attention to the articles that we as a project value the most. Please remember to add reliable sources in all contributions!
I am so sorry for my rudeness earlier today. I feel truly ashamed. I see now that my comment was disrespectful and uncalled for. What I should have done was acknowledged your words, and fixed the tables. I didn't even assume good faith. I hope you will forgive my rudeness.
Thank you. Your apology is received and appreciated. For somebody who claims to barely know anything, you at least got yourself here. I'd recommend linking your user page in your signature, as it is fairly common practice, and maybe a username change once your comfort level grows - many on here judge on first impressions, and your username doesn't give too stellar of one. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed many of your interactions with this user and agree with you on many points you have made, if not all. In short, however, sometimes one has to know when to let go. For the two of you, I believe that this is that time. As you mentioned, there are many other parts of the project that you are interested in that are in need your help. Feel free to take a well deserved break, but I would personally see it as a large loss to the Wikipedia community as a whole if we lose you as an editor. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider. You are a huge asset to Wikipedia! I have taken a week off several times after others have stressed me or I felt I was treated unjustly / unfairly. I now do very little editing in some areas that have stressful contributors. I hope you take off as long as you need to determine if you miss it or not. Please feel free to email me if you want to talk.
Adminship is a HUGE CAN OF WORMS that isn't entered without an iron stomach. I was lucky to have accepted an adminship nomination right before it got so brutal. I was lucky to have no opposition. That never happens now anymore. Many !voters expect perfection now and will turn one little edit into a snowball against you. I wouldn't have accepted a nomination if I were you either. Royalbroil14:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi Willsome429, 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!
I have a question about two edits you made on pages I worked on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Fontenette and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiina_Booth). For both you removed a block text quote of a Hall of Fame citation that had, I thought, proper attribution (a link to the USAUltimate Hall of Fame), calling them out as possible copyright violations. Could you clarify what additional information is needed (or if block quotes of length are discouraged)? Another commenter (on the Fontenette page) suggests that the attribution is correct. These are two of my first pages I've worked on, so I don't want to mess things up, but do think the citations add valuable information. And, while I understand that text, even sourced, shouldn't be copied, quotes seem to be different. Can you advise on how I should proceed?
@Svfranklin: Hi, and thanks for reaching out. I made a mistake with these two - I shouldn't have tagged them for copyright violation. It's something I'm a little hypersensitive to as a patroller of new pages, and I jumped on these without realizing the citation was proper. However, I would discourage putting the blockquotes back in ad nauseum. Hall of Fame bios are, by nature, very celebratory of the athlete's achievements and may have a less than neutral tone. Wikipedia policy states that content has to be written in a neutral point of view. In the case of Fontenette, phrases like "dominant force", "a remarkable feat", and "exemplary sportsmanship" indicate a less than neutral tone. If I would edit the pages (which I will not at the present due to pending arbitration against me), I would paraphrase some of the content of the Hall of Fame bio into workable informational sentences - maybe, for Fontenette, combining the part about her versatility as a player with some other sources about her cutter and defensive playing time to create some sort of a "Playing style" subsection of career. Many athlete pages also have "personal life" sections, and there seems to be ample material there to make a section. Thanks again for reaching out, and if you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though while I was writing a response, another editor moved Fontenette to draftspace. That is okay, because nobody will try to delete it, and Articles for Creation reviewers can give feedback on the page when it is submitted for review. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Willsome429: Thanks for the reply; this makes sense. I'm generally hesitant to paraphrase quotes for fear I don't do it well enough and it crosses the line to plagiarism, but I'll look into perhaps redacting the less objective aspects of the bio. (Although I've seen other pages with some flexibility in the neutral tone, so realize there's some gray area.) I've also noticed some pages have been flagged for insufficient citations despite having more (and more varied) citations than other, published, pages, so I'm working on navigating those seas. I'll get there eventually! Thanks again for your feedback, and if you have any other tips/suggestions please do send them on. Stay safe! Svfranklin (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)SVfranklin[reply]
I do not know which pages you looked at to determine the range of the supposed "gray area", but please note that Wikipedia, as an entity, has no gray area whatsoever on the two policies mentioned above. I cannot speak for the actions of any other editor besides myself, but there are several factors that go into decisions like tagging; what may seem like two identical scenarios that ended in different outcomes may not actually be identical. Try as best you can to stick to paraphrasing - the point of draft reviewers are to provide helpful feedback, and if one of them think that it's too close to verbatim, they will let you know. And as a general talk page tip - the four tildes automatically put your username, so you don't have to type it after that. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stratford Page Edits
Can you clarify what you meant by this: Reverted good faith edits by Cmckennajones: No. Stratford's website gives no indication that permission is given by CC. plus there are other issues like WP:NPOV violations. (TW)
You reverted the edits I made, do you mind clarifying? Thanks!
@Cmckennajones: Sure, I can clarify. "Reverted good faith edits by Cmckennajones" and "(TW)" were automatically put in the edit summary by an extension I use, Twinkle. "Stratford's website gives no indication permission is given by CC" - per the copying policy, "Wikipedia must have permission to use copyrighted works." The two main exceptions are works in the public domain, of which said webpage is definitely not, and materials licensed appropriately by Creative Commons, of which said webpage is not. Per here, "No part of this site or its contents - including, but not limited to, the school logo - may be copied, reproduced, modified, retransmitted, distributed, published, commercially exploited or otherwise transferred without written permission from Stratford." I'm going to be honest, you edit summary stating permission sounded a little tongue-in-cheek, and while you may have received written permission from Stratford to copy their webpage onto Wikipedia, how do I know that you're not just lying? "plus there are other issues like WP:NPOV violations" - even if Stratford gave you permission to copy the text verbatim, it hijacks much of the page that is already there and paints the school in an overly promotional manner, violating the neutral point of view policy. Plus, almost the entire page would be based off of a source the school published, violating the conflict of interest policy and the reliable sourcing policy. I would ask that you not try to reinsert the content; there are other editors working on the page that also recognize that this is not the best move for the encyclopedia. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NASCAR Majors
The "NASCAR major" page itself does not agree with the 2020 season page regarding what constitutes a major, so your comment on my page doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The article you reference lists four events, and the 2020 season page lists five. I do not care enough about NASCAR these days to fight this battle ("reach consensus"), but I think it's clear already that there is a lack of consensus/standardization across pages, thus elevating the (incorrect) status quo of the 2020 article page is rather nonsensical in and of itself.
Also, your comment on reverting my edit on the 2020 season page was: "Who says that there can only be four majors in a sport? gain consensus to delete the Grand Slam article and come back" Definition two of grand slam from Merriam-Webster: "the winning of all four of the most significant championships in a particular sport in the same year —used especially in tennis and golf." A grand slam is four of something; it's literally in the title of the "NASCAR majors" article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(NASCAR)
And one last quote from the "NASCAR Majors" article itself on this topic: "Currently, there is discussion among fans regarding the Brickyard 400 (known as the Big Machine Vodka 400 at the Brickyard) at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, which began in 1994, or the current Southern 500 (known as the Bojangles Southern 500), which moved to September in 2015, as a new fourth major. Despite the discussion, neither has been officially designated by NASCAR as a major." The article itself says that this is not an official designation by the sanctioning body and that there is no clear consensus (even among fans) as to which four events should be included, anyway. What are we even talking about here? Mmch9 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the situation if you care enough to leave this message here but not enough to gain consensus. The Grand Slam title was originally invoked by the four races that formed the Winston Million; however, the designation has evolved over time and as such are listed as "majors"; hence my questioning of a limit of four on "majors". I'm not disputing the fact that a Grand Slam is four of something. If you're interested in learning more about "what we are even talking about", there's plenty of reading material on it. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standard for inclusion of material on a Wikipedia page
You have left edit notes like "'noteworthy' is described as having a Wikipedia page." But, that does not reflect our standards. Much material on individual Wikipedia pages would not be sufficiently notable as a standalone page. I will probably look into restoring this content as appropriate. Sancho15:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanchom: Honestly, I am so far beyond the point of caring about anything related to ultimate frisbee that you can do whatever you want to the pages. The harassment and gaslighting that has been set upon me by members of the frisbee community on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and Wikipedia has left me thoroughly unimpressed by the whiny, "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude that the vast majority of the community seems to have. Most of the content removal that I engaged in was the removal of non-notable entries from lists of "notable people", a trait that I carried over from many pages I work with at WikiProject Schools, and per the user warning template {{uw-badlistentry}} Should I have clarified my edit summaries better? Yes. But do I also stand by what I did? Yes. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail Response
The material was oversighted due to outing concerns. The stuff on wiki was of a similar vein as to what you saw at ANI. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your Nomination For Deletion (Brownian Motion Ultimate)
Your nomination for Brownian Motion Ultimate to be deleted is utterly insane - not only is this a Division 1 athletics program, the team is the defending national champions within the division.
I have reviewed your repeated requests for deletion of this page. May I ask Why? This article has numerous valid references, it is factual, it imparts important information, sand it is consistent with other articles about college radio. Please explain your reasoning as the cited reason have changed with each deletion request.Archaementon (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware I have reported your malicious deletion of the WDSW-LP wiki page to Delta State University and they will correct you actions. They may also seek legal action over this act of vandalism.Archaementon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the page to draft space (different than deletion) because while it had sources, they did not demonstrate independence and significant coverage, which are both required for all pages. Merely because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS about college radio doesn't mean that it's up to snuff. You are welcome to work on the page in draftspace and submit it as an AfC creation. As per WP:LEGAL, personal attacks and legal threats need to stop right now, or you will be blocked. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back! Glad to see you again!
Hello again! :)
I looked at the Cup Series article edit history today and noticed you made an edit (about Kyle Larson incident being listed in the race summaries section, which BTW I agree is unnecessary and just thanked you for your edit on that). I'm happy to see that you've returned! I did hear about the disappointing situation that caused you to leave. I really wish more people would treat you with respect and understand why you do what you do. (I've tried to do that and I hope you think that I've treated you fairly.) It's great that you're going to give editing another go. Please know that you are a VALUED contributor (I think you are and I bet others think the same). You've made me a better editor and I actually appreciate every time you've reverted an edit of mine (including your one today of Andy Ponstein's infobox), posted a message on my talk page, or nominated an article of mine for deletion (some of those ARCA driver pages I created last winter) to explain a rule I didn't know of, that I needed more sources in new articles, etc. That makes me know how I should be editing pages. I would think that you've been tracking my edits and have noticed how I've shifted my focus away from creating new articles to adding results tables over the last two months or so. I've learned quite a bunch of things from you! I look forward to your future contributions in your second stint as an editor. All the best, Sean Cavanaughs (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]
Thanks man, appreciate it 🤙 You’ve grown a lot over the past year as an editor and you’ve taken feedback and improved your editing, which is all I can ask for. Cheers and happy editing, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About the height of NASCAR drivers.
Some are inaccurate. For example Jimmie is 5'11" & Chase stands as tall as him but he is listed as 5'10". The same goes for Blaney who is listed as 5'10" but is as tall as Chase. How can we fix this issue? UNDISPUTED (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Camera angles (assuming that's where you are drawing comparisons from) can often be deceiving. Driver heights and weights are not readily available in a multitude of sources, so please cite all changes with a reliable source. If you're unsure of how to cite sources, please see WP:Citing sources. Thank you! Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Parker
Thanks for your kind message. I was surprised to see him on a NFL Champion but he didn't have a page here! Hopefully it can be improved. I tried to create a good stub for him. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! A lot of pre-Internet Era figures get snubbed big time because they're not as visible or it's hard to find sources for them. Newspapers.com is normally good for that kind of thing, if you have a subscription through your local library I'd highly suggest checking there for more sources to expand the page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello Willsome429,
Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Discussions and Resources
A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
How can I find the sources? When I try to find sources for some drivers, all that comes up on Google for me is Racing-Reference, nothing reliable. That's why I nominated for deletion in good faith. NASCARfan0548↗01:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what to say. I double checked multiple search engines and they all came up pretty much the same. Maybe somebody configured your search results to restrict everything besides .info domains? This link should show results from NBC Sports and ESPN, if it doesn't, something is awry with your search settings. Instead of nominating for deletion, I would recommend placing the {{notability}} tag on pages because you are currently unable to make a complete judgement on whether there are enough sources for a page to be considered notable. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sentiment, but per WP:WITHDRAWN, "if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it." Cavanaughs also expressed support for deleting the page, and the discussion probably should've been given a shot to run a week long. While I am not going to revert your edits, I would strongly suggest reading the AfD primer found on the right side of all AfD discussions (that's where WP:WITHDRAWN is found) for a course in proper AfD etiquette. I would also be interested to know if the Google link I gave you worked and you found other results or not. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then your search settings are definitely off. I got Wikipedia, R-R, Twitter, NBC Sports, Rotoworld, Facebook, ESPN, MenStuff and LinkedIn. I'm not a tech geek but maybe there's something in settings that's off. Best of luck with getting it fixed. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2019-20 Coyotes revert
Sorry, I didn't know about the Edit Summary part. I read the WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS and thought if I went back and added what I think I missed on when I first created the page it was okay. What do I need to do to make it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchFreak89 (talk • contribs)
A while ago I attempted to make some edits on the Stratford Academy (in Macon, GA) Wiki page. You stated that using the school's website as a source wasn't allowed. I am in the process of getting the website's CC seen on the site so you know there's permission to use it as a source.
As far as using Stratford's site as a source after that issue is resolved, what's the issue with properly sourcing and using it? Below is a list of private high schools across the nation who use their own website as a source on their school's Wikipedia page. Are they doing something different than I am attempting?
It seemed a little tongue-in-cheek that you claimed to immediately have permission - Creative Commons is not something that rights are given out to all the time. Anyways, merely because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that it should. School sites are fine to source basic information such as principals or founding dates, but Wikipedia is built upon secondary sources. The pages listed above also have paraphrased content from said school websites and are not just verbatim. The verbiage you used to describe it is a little off as well; unless there's been a massive drive of undisclosed paid editing (which is against Wikipedia policy), it's not really those schools using it for "their school's page". Wikipedia is not beholden to the people or things it covers; it merely has articles on notable topics. That being said, I really do not think that it is a good idea, even if Creative Commons rights are secured and squared away with the Wikimedia Foundation, for the content to be added. A highly experienced editor gave the page a thorough copyedit/rewrite in early June to avoid many common pitfalls, like the WP:PROMO violations that would come from adding something that is designed to portray the school in a highly positive light. The page already has a hardy history section and some material on facilities and athletics as well; I think that much of the information provided by the website would simply be not notable enough to include. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, howdy....I'm not at all sure how to add cats to AfDs, so could you add the NRHP related catagory there? That's it's basis of notability, and if you follow the wikilinks in the article's lede, you'll get some needed perspective. It's gonna be deja vu all over again, to quote my favorite catcher. John from Idegon (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I installed the User:Enterprisey/delsort script. It doesn’t look as though there’s a dedicated NRHP cat, so I’ll add architecture and history. I read the historic district page and missed the link to the school on first glance, which wasn’t a great move on my part. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Hello! I would like to report vandalism, from this IP address: 47.196.45.196, since all edits he did were vandalism, he edited the 2019 Truck Series page and changed the champion to Brett Moffitt and also edited the 2008 Cup Series saying that Carl Edwards won the championship, fortunately someone already undid it.
Hi again, Just wanted to let you know this if I didn't already (I may have said this in the past but using different wording that may not have indicated this): I do try to find as many references as possible when I create pages and strive to make them the best that they can be based on the info I find on the driver or other subject of the article. Pages I create may not look very complete in their first edit(s), because I prefer to save some of my edits and then add more. Unlike other users, I don't really like to put them all in at the same time/on one edit just to make sure that I don't lose info if I work hard to write it. I don't get to save my first edit for a while if I do it in one shot. (When creating new pages, I do seem to put in the intro sentence, infobox, external links, and then just the headings for the career section and links for the results tables.) Having five or more sources is a good goal, so I appreciate you bringing that up because now I know that's when you'll consider it a solid article. I did find four about Ricky Gonzalez (I wrote his article's career section after you messaged me saying that I needed to do that) and another four about Jesse Love (before your message to me on his article). It is trickier to find that many for some drivers, especially because articles about them on the internet have disappeared over the years through website redesigns, etc, but please know that I do try my best to find as many as I can! The other message you had for me in the past few days was about the West Series results table. I did learn my lesson after trying to update the same results table after the UMC races before Racing Reference (I abbreviate as R-R in my edit summaries), and you told me to wait until they were on that site. (TBH, that day I was eager to update that table since there had been four months of no ARCA West races and R-R was kinda slow that day to update their standings. When R-R had the UMC results posted, for the first few hours they had the old standings listed and not updated yet.) For the updates I made to the same table after the Irwindale race, I waited a whole day to update the standings that time. The one thing I think you weren't OK with was me making the assumption on Joey Iest being a DNS (when he was actually a withdrawal). You let me know that and then someone on R-R posted a comment on that just today (so it was R-R that didn't have that accurately listed on there). For next time, I'll just leave something like that blank if we don't know what the correct thing to list is and will wait for confirmation first before adding anything. Also, a quick little side note: You'll probably notice this since I know you track my edits, but please go to my user page today- there's a cool special message on there that you might be interested in reading! I won't leave it on there for very long and you'll see why. Cavanaughs (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, I don't "track your edits". Don't know where you got that from, but it is patently untrue. If you insist on making pages in many steps, I would highly recommend using the Articles for Creation process (you seem to know a lot about it based on some of your edits in March) so that other editors will understand that it is still a work-in-progress. If you are creating good pages, passing the Articles for Creation process should not be an issue. And it's not just a "what I consider to be a solid article", it's a "what meets the guidelines" deal. Other editors have also reviewed your pages and placed tags on them, leading me to again recommend using the Articles for Creation process for pages that you plan to complete over the span of multiple days/edits. Happy belated birthday, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 11:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Avalos Page
Hello, you deleted my page for American Football Defensive Coordinator Andy Avalos. I just now saw your proposed edits. Is there a way for me to improve the page or has it been deleted forever and I need to re-create it from scratch? I did not log-on for a couple of weeks and just now saw your edits. If possible, I hope to be able to make the edits you flagged and improve its sources. Ybrik22 (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reaching out! Unfortunately, it’s pretty much gone for good. WP:Deletion review is the only thing I can think of and that takes a lot more time than it would to just recreate it. I would recommend using the Draft namespace and going through Articles for Creation, where a draft reviewer can give you comments on whether or not the page is ready for the mainspace. My main concern is that most of the coverage cited failed WP:IS, university profiles aren’t considered good sources for establishing notability. If you want alerts when things like this happen, you can opt in to email notifications for talk page messages in your preferences tab. Please let me know if you have any more questions or things of that sort. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jessie Mei Li page
Hello, thank you for your message. I declared COI on both my user page and the edit summary. You can see the edits I made were all from a "neutral point of view", are factual and objective with no unconscious bias or subjective opinion eg. I added her picture which I took, mentioned her heritage, the filming dates for S&B and added links to the programme Panamania and the short film Travelooper. I do not believe I have breached any rules. Thanks ArthurKaLi (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging your COI on you userpage, it is much appreciated. However, most of the content you added was not supported by a reliable source. It may not have violated WP:NPOV, but it violated WP:V. As a courtesy, it is common practice in the community to let a third-party editor remove the conflict of interest template at their own disposition, so I have restored that template in order for someone other than you or I to make a review of the page. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have now removed all my edits, but I have left my daughter's picture up. If that is still a problem, I will remove the picture as well. As I have removed my edits, I trust you wouldn't mind me removing the COI template too. Thanks ArthurKaLi (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The picture should not be an issue if it is your own work and licensed as such in the appropriate places. If you have any future edits you want to propose, feel free to use the talk page, where myself or other editors can review the proposed changes. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I saw your edits earlier. I will be tinkering withe them slightly as the high school itself is not defunct, but merely undergoing a name change and as such should have present-tense verbiage in some areas. Pinging John from Idegon to see if there is a naming standard for schools in this situation, as I have never encountered a situation like this. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Obviously subscription-based sources are tricky in BEFORE searches. Just was weird to me how no explanation and/or improvement on the page was made on the initial revert. Thanks for reaching out. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given DePauw of today, one would not think of them as a notable football program. Thank you for keeping an open mind. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was going back to add more on and source some of the stuff I added that was questioned. I didn't mean to change any of your sources. Must have changed one back by mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blough28 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aplogy accepted, although it looked very much like a standard undo with one more source added. I ask that you be more careful while editing in the future, and please respect standard styles, like using last names instead of first names most times. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Affiliation doesn’t make someone less objective. Rather it offers a glimpse into the truth. Unfortunately, this Wiki page has quite a few inaccuracies . Thank you for the helpful information as we are new to Wiki! We’ll use some of your suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOScott 34 (talk • contribs)
Table reflects values at 8:00 PM Eastern on July 30. Monthly goal: Find the backstory. All too often, pages about drivers, teams or tracks have only content about NASCAR's top three national series. To improve article quality, information about other series or events that those drivers, teams and tracks are involved in should be added, backed up by reliable sources.
Shawna Robinson (born November 30, 1964) is an American retired professional stock car racing driver. She was a competitor in all three of NASCAR's national touring series, as well as the ARCA Bondo/Mar-Hyde Series and the Charlotte/Daytona Dash Series. Robinson is one of 16 women to participate in the NASCAR Cup Series, and one of three females to race in the sports' premier event, the Daytona 500.(Read more...)
It looks like there's no articles for deletion discussion page for NXT Motorsports based on how the notice is structured, but I wanted to throw my two cents in on that. I agree with deleting the article since the team only lasted one race, but what happened to them after their one-off attempt at Daytona in 2018 was they parterned with MBM Motorsports for Timmy Hill's races at Daytona that July and the next year as well as this February (all sponsored by VSI Racing, which also sponsored their own #54 of Gaulding). Could we make the page a redirect to MBM Motorsports and give mention to the NXT team and their partnership with MBM as well as note that they fielded a team by themselves before that partnership began?
Cavanaughs (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean, I appreciate you manifesting the desire to share your thoughts. Yes, this is a proposed deletion, so there is no discussion page. I’ve had substantial issues with other editors in the past not understanding the deletion policy, so I recommend giving WP:AfD and WP:PROD a good read to know how to distinguish between the two. I am against making the page a redirect - for one, they fielded their own entry, so that in and of itself should be enough to rule out a redirect. Number two, the only sourcing I could find for the “partnering with MBM” thing is a shady Reddit thread by deleted users throwing claims out there with no proof whatsoever. In short, I just don’t think NXT Motorsports is an encyclopedic topic in any way except a mention on the 2018 season page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice
Obviously, I'm back. I wanted to let you know I reverted a malformed and pointless comment left at the top of your page. If that's not cool, please let me know. John from Idegon (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion of my editing on the Joseph A. Craig High School page
Hello,
I am responding to your note about my addition to the Joseph A. Craig High School. The first time that the addition was added you deleted it. After your deletion was cancelled, you again went and re-deleted it. You should have had the minimal courtesy of inquiring if you have a question before deleting an addition. If you check the page Israel Hanukoglu you'll see that Prof. Hanukoglu received his High-School diploma from Craig High-School.
I would like to emphasize again, that before you delete somebody else's editing you should have the minimal courtesy: First, the check the page linked. Second, please send an inquiry if you have any questions about editing-BEFORE you delete it. Your second deletion is especially problematic, because, the Wikipedian who edited it was identified.
I was being bold, which requires no questionnaires. If something is not reliably sourced, I can delete it without checking with anybody. "The Wikipedian who edited it was identified"? Do you mean because you have an account, I should give you a longer leash than anonymous IP addresses? I'm an equal opportunity editor. Not happening. The reference to Craig on Hanukoglu's page is also unsourced; while it may potentially true, I do not know for certain. Saying "please" was a nice gesture, but I still cannot budge. If you want Hanukoglo to be added back on the list, add a reliable source that backs it up. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you missed looking at Prof. Hanukoglu's curriculum vitae that is referenced on the page. Upon your request, I duplicated the reference adding it at the end of the paragraph. Most of the people included in the list do not have a reference cited for their studies at Craig. I wonder, why you are insistent in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genewiki1 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did not miss anything. At that time, you added a chunk of information on Hanukoglu's page with no citation. See WP:Inline citations if you're confused on why I'm not on the hook for looking through *literally every source on the page* to verify. I am insistent in this case, because, well, I can. There's nothing stopping me. In the end, you provided a source, so I am happy. Wishing you good health as well. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not as experienced as you. So, I'd like to ask: Wouldn't the link to the person's Wikipedia page be considered as a source? In addition to the link to the page, is there a necessity for a reference to the CV? I'll do whatever you recommend. Best, Genewiki1 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:WINRS, you can't really just say "well, it exists somewhere else on here!" and call it good. It could be unsourced and/or fake. It's best to third-party source. What I'd recommend is using the same source cited for attendance on Hanukoglu's page for attendance on the Craig page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Table reflects values at 7:00 PM Eastern on August 31. Monthly goal: Focus on the sources. In the thick of Silly Season, it is easy for random people to make a website, perpetuate a rumor, and have that be picked up here. Two sites that have proven to be big on rumors before, and sometimes eating it in a big way, are Beyond the Flag and TobyChristie.com. Please use other sources, such as NASCAR.com, Jayski.com, or team/driver releases as citations in articles. Additionally, there has been a decline in the quality of the new work being generated by the project. New content, related to silly season or not, should always be reliably sourced so we can avoid the ugly {{refimprove}} tags at the top of articles.
Table reflects values at 7:00 PM Eastern on August 31. Monthly goal: Focus on the sources. In the thick of Silly Season, it is easy for random people to make a website, perpetuate a rumor, and have that be picked up here. Two sites that have proven to be big on rumors before, and sometimes eating it in a big way, are Beyond the Flag and TobyChristie.com. Please use other sources, such as NASCAR.com, Jayski.com, or team/driver releases as citations in articles. Additionally, there has been a decline in the quality of the new work being generated by the project. New content, related to silly season or not, should always be reliably sourced so we can avoid the ugly {{refimprove}} tags at the top of articles.
Table reflects values at 7:00 PM Eastern on August 31. Monthly goal: Focus on the sources. In the thick of Silly Season, it is easy for random people to make a website, perpetuate a rumor, and have that be picked up here. Two sites that have proven to be big on rumors before, and sometimes eating it in a big way, are Beyond the Flag and TobyChristie.com. Please use other sources, such as NASCAR.com, Jayski.com, or team/driver releases as citations in articles. Additionally, there has been a decline in the quality of the new work being generated by the project. New content, related to silly season or not, should always be reliably sourced so we can avoid the ugly {{refimprove}} tags at the top of articles.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Odafe Oweh, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Editor3342 (Talk)04:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
Overall winner
1st - $500
2nd - $200
3rd - $100
Diversity winner - $100
Gender-gap fillers - $100
Language Winners - up to $100*
We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
Yellawood 500
Hi, thank you for adding more to the "Finish" section on the Yellawood 500 page. I rushed putting in some basics of the story since I'm new to Wikipedia, and also I was in school so I couldn't go as thorough into it as I wanted and was required on the page. Thank you for making it more vivid, I really liked it, and it was well-written.
Table reflects values at 3:00 PM Eastern on September 30. Monthly goal: Improve our most-read content. There are 500 pages listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Popular pages. This content is our most widely-read content and should be constantly worked on to ensure that our project is producing the highest quality content possible.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "massmessage-sender" user right, allowing you to send messages to multiple users at once. A few important things to note:
Messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to be interested in the topic.
For regular mailings such as those for WikiProjects, localized events, or newsletters, users should be informed of how they can unsubscribe from future mailings.
The mass messaging tool should never be used for canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of discussions.
For more information, refer to the guidance for use. If you do not want mass message sender rights anymore, just let me or any other administrator know and we will remove it. Thank you and happy editing! ~Swarm~{sting}02:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm SBLII. I, as well as the whole Wikipedia community, appreciate your edits. I have two things to say regarding your latest reversion of my addition, on the Jimmie Johnson page:
Reverting because of a lack of sources is fair. That's my bad. I will get sources and put it back up.
On another note, details about each season are very important and make the article much better. The purpose of the article, and that section specifically (his 2006 season), is to explain what happened each year in his career. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is that info recorded. The recaps provide more info, context, and background to the season than simply a record of the end result, his first championship. It is useful info that can only help the article, as I'm sure you know.
Hello. I am aware of who you are and I am grateful that you appreciate my contributions to the encyclopedia. However, I believe you're missing the point here. There's a reason that the information is not included anywhere else on Wikipedia, and it's not that no one's gotten around to it. No, the issue is that there is little significant coverage of routine finishes and that essentially, Wikipedia becomes at that point a stats reprint, which falls under WP:NOTSTATS. Such information can hurt the encyclopedia by making texts long, dense and unappealing to the average reader, who, even if he embarks on reading the paragraph, finds out halfway through that a cursory glance at Johnson's season page at Racing-Reference would have been a quicker way to do things. Johnson has 683 Cup starts - at five words a letter and seven words a sentence, that's 44,395 letters added in prose for a sentence a start. Imagine how long that is! There is zero reason to mention every top ten, every intermediate finish, or every race when it is cited from Racing-Reference and should stay there. Johnson's 2011 section is, with a few exceptions, a reprint of his Racing-Reference page, and a prime example of something that should not be there. I would also like to note that some of your adjective usage has been getting a little peacock-ish, and I ask that you review WP:NPOV to avoid puffy phrases when writing in the future. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SBLII, any reason you made no response to my comments and then went on to re-add the content, when I laid out a case against it? I do not want to bring this to the article talk page or project talk page but your lack of response is less than promising. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn’t see your comments by the time I re-added the addition. On my talk page you told me that if I were to source the info and re-add it, that would be fine. So that is what I did. With all due respect, I am not suggesting that we write about EVERY single race, but only the important ones. As was stated in the talk page for the Jimmie Johnson article, the article should have more of a recap with highlights of the season rather than just statistics. Otherwise, people would just go to racing-reference to find that. Wikipedia should have the actual context and relatively detailed recap of each season. If one wanted to simply see race and season results, they could just scroll down to the grid at the bottom of the page. There should be SOMETHING that tells readers that Jimmie won his first championship despite falling down to 8th in the chase standings in 2006. Specifically in the section that is made for the 2006 season. I see what you mean with the adjective usage at times, it is something to work on. Always room for improvement. Thanks, SBLII (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The content you added is on shaky sourcing ground - Jimmie's "personal diary" or whatever it's called is most definitely not a reliable source. Something you had in your above comment is almost perfect - "A number of issues pushed Johnson down to eighth in the Cup standings, although he claimed a win at Martinsville and rose to the top of the Chase standings by the end of the season.citation You're not detailing minutely things of mundane interest (let's be honest, pit penalties happen a lot and so do wrecks at Talladega), and the Bowles cite covers all of the information, so you're not adding shady self-published sources or YouTube videos. It's concise and still gets the point through. Remember, the page isn't for wannabe Johnson diehards, it's for the average person who hasn't heard of him before viewing the page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I see what you mean about the "things of minute interest," I'll take that into consideration. Thanks for the advice. With Talladega, I would think it's something a bit more notable because he spun on the last lap while making a pass for the lead. I'll take another look at the edits. Regarding the "Jimmie's personal diaries," they're on the Hendrick Motorsports site and written by Jimmie Johnson himself. I'd think that's pretty reliable, no? Thanks, SBLII (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking back at it, and, while you can get rid of the fact that he DNF'd at New Hampshire, I still think that keeping the Talladega and possibly Kansas may be preferable because he actually came close to winning. It tells that he was running well but got unfortunate breaks which set him back. It's only one added sentence with those 4 races, so it's not like it's really extending the section too long. If you want to edit it, please do so. I only ask that you take into consideration the notability of those races. If it was more than one sentence, I'd be more inclined on taking out that part. SBLII (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Straight from WP:RS/SPS, “Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” Hendrick/Jimmie are more likely to hyperbolize and turn it into clickbait than actual journalistic outlets. So no, it’s actually not reliable. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't put sources on that page to prove that I'm right but that's because I don't know how to do it. I don't know how to reference shit. I'm just a new editor here. If you search how old Leafy is on Google, then I'm sure it will pop up immediately like it did to me. The only source I really have is Fandom wiki on YouTube, https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/LeafyIsHere, and I believe it's true because I'm pretty sure his hardcore fans made/edited it and knew his age and birthdate. Btw, I'm not really that much of a Leafy fan or at all, I just like perfecting things on Wikipedia so it would be more accurate. Maybe if I now know how to reference, I could edit it again the way I intended it to be but with sources.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! For information on how to cite sources, the page Referencing for beginners. For information on what constitutes a reliable source fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, please see this page. Unfortunately, Fandom sites are not considered reliable because they are user-generated, although if you find a source that fits the reliable sourcing guidelines, please feel free to add it to the page. Cheers, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of My Edits
Hi Willsome429,
I saw your edits on the Tom Nelson page and your reversion of my edits. I have no conflict of interest, I saw Tom Nelson's name in the news and did some research on him. I felt like his wikipedia did not have any information on him, so I added more information. He is an elected official so I figured it was important to have more extensive information, like all elected official wikipedia pages do. All of the information I added was meticulously researched and cited. Everything I posted was factual. I disagree that it was promotional and would ask that you challenge any specific edits you find to be "promotional" and I will happily change them.
See my "no u" response down below. You may have noticed that your edits were tagged with "possible BLP violation or vandalism", and that should've been a red flag for you. Evidently, it wasn't. Straigth reverting my edits with no explanation wasn't a spectacular move, either. Nor was claiming that "all elected official Wikipedia pages have extended information." Spoiler alert, they don't. See Talk:Tom Nelson (Wisconsin politician)#Promo for my list of promotional phrases within the page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest
I see on your talk page that you are a supporter of Mike Gallagher, the 2016 opponent of Tom Nelson. This makes me believe that you have a conflict for interest, and if you would like to continue to make edits of the Tom Nelson page, please do them on an individual basis without changing the facts of the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiscodemo (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the classic "no u" response. Your username, "Wiscodemo", gave the impression that you may be associated with a Democrat-affiliated PAC. My offering up my sandbox to be the repository for a build-out says nothing about my political affiliation. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Table reflects values at 8:00 PM Eastern on October 31. Monthly goal: Tie a bow on the year. As the three national series season end in November, there should be time dedicated to doing season-ending copyedits on season series pages, updates on driver and team pages, and updating series pages as well as List of NASCAR drivers.
I'm not sure if you understand how this works, but the mass message shell has to be an exact match of the newsletter mailing list. It's not your list of who you think is interested in NASCAR, it's not my list of who's interested in NASCAR, it's the list of users who want to receive messages relating to WikiProject NASCAR. If you would like to help with the newsletter in the future, there's a link in every newsletter that tells you where to go. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I am interested in NASCAR though. That's why I made NASCAR driver pages. User: Thrashbandicoot01
My Page: Every NASCAR Driver Ever
I was wondering how I could make my page better and how I could make it look not like any other NASCAR pages. You have reviewed my page before but I am still not satisfied with the changes I made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bace3fam (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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
Hi Zed. Thanks for dropping by. Although this site's policies remain irreconcilable with my personal convictions, I have missed the collaboration that you brought as another editor that worked on Green Bay metro-area articles. Hope all is well with you. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Willsome429:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Hi Willsome429! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed on the AFC's participants list, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months. Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to regain access to the AFCH script, you can do so at any time by visiting WT:AFCP. Thank you for your work at AFC, and if you start editing Wikipedia again we hope you will rejoin us.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Willsome429. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1999 Utah State Aggies football team, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 812 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 848 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
New Page Review queue June 2022
Hello Willsome429,
Backlog status
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15751 articles, as of 12:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(2978246194).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
