User talk:PrairieKid/Archive 27
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:PrairieKid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Capitalization in disambiguator
Hi, I don't want to mess with articles while you're moving them around (Eugene Goodman), but the disambiguator shouldn't be capitalized unless it's a proper noun. So businessman should be in lower-case. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: Understood, my bad! I made the change. Thank you for letting me know kindly! PrairieKid (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, You removed a work on Ekensholm Slott
Hej! Hello! You recently removed a large edit to the page on Ekensholm Castle, located in Flens Kommun, Södermandlands Län. I was wondering the reason for the undoing of the whole edit as opposed to further editing the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkjarljerspark (talk • contribs) 01:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Enkjarljerspark: I went ahead and self-reverted. However, you failed to cite any sources on your edits. WP:VERIFY will be a helpful starting point for learning how/when/where to cite. PrairieKid (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- - - - - - @PrairieKid Hej! Thank you! I was actually just about to put my sources in, I had just closed the window with all of the links. Thank you though!Enkjarljerspark (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
 |
Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
|
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants list.To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.
WikiCup 2021 March newsletter
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.
.svg){kind=small}
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
My edits
Hi, Please don't revert my edits. Did you read my edit summary? Myself and User:Lordstorm are creating a draft that has it all. Stop thinking I am a vandal just because I am an IP user; but I guess, its a common thing, because bad-faith blanking happens usually with IP vandals. 61.69.229.211 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Adopting
I want to be adopted. I've been editing for a month but I keep making mistakes. I only edit outer space related articles. There is a discussion about me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Wikipedia. When you respond, please {{mention}} me. Starship SLS (formerly IP 64.121.103.144) (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
RE:Matt Gaetz
Hello, I'm Curbon7. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Matt Gaetz, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Curbon7 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- A note, thanks for the good faith effort though. Curbon7 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Curbon7: Leaving a generic moderately-relevant-to-the-edit user warning on another experienced editor's talk page is a bit strange. I'm not sure if it's intended as passive aggressive, if you made an error, or what. In any case, it's the first user warning I've gotten in several years, and I would suggest you leave more personalized and detailed notes on experienced editors' pages.
- My edit did not remove references; it moved them from the lead into the body of the article, as it what I typically do. Regarding the changes to the lead (the actual substantive portion of the article), the original lead was poorly written, contained less-than-relevant and unnecessary content, and failed to cover several portions of the article. Further, per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead should be 2-3 paragraphs for an article this size. Both versions are 3 paragraphs, with mine being a couple of lines longer. I do not believe my edits are a subjective choice which needs consensus. It was a major copy edit/re-write to better conform to WIkipedia's standards and generally improve the prose. I am going to re-add it, and please go to the talk page before reverting again. PrairieKid (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- PrairieKid, Any BLP HAS to be fully inline sourced, especially regarding controversy. Relevant additions to the lede are always accepted. In addition to lack of sourcing, your inclusions also gave undue weight to less than relevant events which are additionally covered further in the article. A lede is the first thing people see and often time the only thing they read. It is imperative that on such a high visibility article, high standards on the quality of the lede are held.
- Additionally, the Twinkle warning was sent not passive-aggressively or in a way that challenges your integrity, but simply as an explanation of why your edit was reverted. Curbon7 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Curbon7: Well, now I am very confused. I don't know where you are getting that standard from. I've been editing BLPs for almost 10 years and don't think anyone has made that kind of declarative statement. Some 4 or 5 years ago (I edit in waves and this was 2-3 waves ago haha), it was a topic of discussion and it came down to personal preference and what each article called for. But that was not based on how controversial the material was. Look at Hillary Clinton, a featured BLP which tons of controversy. 2 sources in the lead; one because her name is discussed constantly and the other is a People.com link which could probably be moved. Joe Biden and Donald Trump both have zero sources in their leads. If you need more examples, I'll need some time but I can find you dozens I am sure. I just don't think what you're saying is a rule by any means. And it certainly is not such a strictly followed rule that it calls for reverting an edit which otherwise significantly improves the article. Further, can we take any additional discussion to the article's talk page so any interested editor can take part? PrairieKid (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- PrairieKid, Fair point with your examples (leaving BLPs unsourced seems a little problematic in my opinion, but if it's the case in featured articles then I suppose I don't have much ground to stand on there). In that case, let's focus on having the lede easily understandable. Hopefully we can get the article re-reviewed for B-class. I'll also remove the warning template. Curbon7 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in Round 2 were:
- The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
- Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
- Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
- Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
- Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
- Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.- Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.
Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding an article
Hi, I had created an article "George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign" which is currently assessed as 'B' grade article. Since you have created and contributed to articles related to presidential campaigns, could you please help in improving the article by suggesting points in its peer review, as I want to nominate it for GA. I have already requested it to be copy-edited. Thank-you!