User talk:Vanamonde93: Difference between revisions

This is Vanamonde93's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them the Arab–Israeli conflict Eastern Europe or the Balkans climate change pseudoscience and fringe science They should not be given alerts for those areas.

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and 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 and within 24 hours of the end of the final. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news, obituary and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Here's the data you asked for. I haven't done any validation on this other than checking one record to see if it matched reality, so you might look at a couple more before having faith in it; I have to head out for the evening shortly so was a bit short of time. I'm curious as to what you're planning to use this for?

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Primarily, as a list to search through adminship candidates. If an editor is on this list, has a clean block log, and has some maintenance experience, there's a good chance they'd make a strong candidate. It needs more vetting than that, of course, but I suspect this will be a stronger starting point than most. I specifically wanted first-timers, though, because old hands have probably already been looked at, and are either unwilling or unsuitable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,@Vanamonde93 : Submitting Salva Marjan article's deletion review request (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June) , this article should be retracted, you were the one who closed this article deletion discussion, A Dubai based female Formula 1 driver from India, she has shared many remarkable stories. This article should be brought back to main page ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

Hi Vanamonde, I know that you have little time for J.K Rowling (and probably want to have nothing to do with it) but after having it off my watchlist for a few weeks I looked in tonight to find that the criticism section has been hollowed out. I've reverted but can't spend time on the talk page (and honestly am not one of the main contribs/authors) and so am dumping this here, to be blunt. Feel free to ignore. Hope all is well, Victoria (tk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: Thanks for the note...I haven't had the time or stamina to engage with the transgender views debate. I'm not happy with these removals, though, and I'd missed them in the flurry of other edits, so thank you for bringing them to my attention (I have also made a further revert). I don't know if I can engage in extensive discussion about them, but I will attempt to stop by. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed the edit to the reception section. I hear you regarding not having time of stamina. I really only barely have energy for another article that needs work at the moment. Once I'm done there, I'll put Rowling back on watch, but don't want the distraction until later. All that said, in my view the literary criticism section is worth keeping. Be well, Victoria (tk) 21:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand. I'm hopeful the literary discussion will be constructive. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]