user talk:theleekycauldron

This talk page is archived.
To browse the archives, press "Show" and select the month of posts you want to view.

2020 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move, so it's leeky's turn – check back later! (last mover: CopperyMarrow15)

Re: mentorship

Lets start :) 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: Great! The process starts with you picking out a DYK nom or hook (as described on your talk page) and telling me what you think. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By way of example:

Example (nom)

Example, on the Main Page right now, has a BLP problem in its hook because x, y, and z. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example2 (nom)

Here's my review of Example2, an unapproved nomination:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - Is a travel blog a reliable source?
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Too many closely paraphrased sentences, per Earwig.

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - Mm, I'm not sure why I'd click on this article.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a bit later since I'm editing Tropical Storm Pakhar (2017) and fixing it. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I'll instantly start (I'm really excited lol) 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Mały Brzostek (nom)

Here's my review of Mały Brzostek, a nomination created by a new nominator:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting: - All of the hooks don't seem interesting, all of them are normal for old towns due to a lack of documentation.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The main problem is about the interest, please fix that. I can't access the source so I'm Accepting the source in good faith. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not too shabby! Gonna need a while to get back on this, as I have a few other things on my plate, but looking forward to kicking this off in earnest. :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, just noticed another person already reviewed the article. It's okay though. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

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

Administrator changes

Crisco 1492

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of GIF

Hello! Hope you are doing well. I've recently translated your featured article Pronunciation of GIF into French and I've been told that the first sentence of the second paragraph in "Arguments" section seems to have nothing related to the rest of the paragraph since Casey Chan doesn't mention frequency analysis in his article. I think that it is true so I've moved the sentence, in the french version, to the end of the first paragraph so it can make more sense but I want to know if it is really a mistake or is there a reason I don't see. L'embellie (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a mental health break

Stepping back from projectspace/my inbox for a short bit to process what's in the news. Then I'll be back to coordinate some fixes to the new recall process, get GalliumBot back up and running, respond to messages, etc. Stay safe, everyone theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as no one notices...

... the log entry for Voorts... :-p Primefac (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trout theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa Ligocka's goose

The source for Ewa Ligocka's goose uses the same wording for the story about another mathematician winning a goose as a prize (for which we have photographs!) as for Ligocka cooking the goose. There is no reason to treat this merely as a rumor; it is labeled as an anecdote. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: there's no reason for both sources to report it as a "story" or "anecdote" unless they didn't know it was true firsthand. this is basically lighthearted hearsay. we can call it something other in a rumor, but it can't stay in wikivoice. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not reporting it as something they are not sure of. They are reporting it as something true but incidental to the life of the person they are writing about. The story of the goose prize itself is widely documented and accepted as true (again, photograph!). This is additional detail from the same story, reported as equally factual.

Additionally, elaborating on the true or false nature of the story destroys the whole intended double meaning of the hook, a play on the phrase "to cook one's goose" where the joke is that in this case the meaning is literal rather than metaphorical. If we state it in a way that makes it clearly intend the meaning to be factual but at second hand, then there is no joke any more and no point to running that hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Saying "another anecdote says" she was the one who cooked it is another way of saying "I've heard someone say this is true, but have no way of verifying it myself". Anecdotes, as I believe you've pointed out before, can't speak. It's a way of attributing to another source, and a vague one at that. And this source isn't fact-checked or editorially controlled, it's just a mass email. Would you be okay with adding "according to an anecdote" to the hook? I understand it ruins the punch a little bit, but the sourcing is already very shaky. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said above and will say again: describing the ontological status of this statement, in the hook, destroys the point of the hook. If you refuse to run a hook with a point, I think it is better not to put boring pointless hooks into DYK at all. DYK hooks are not the place for pedantic elaboration, as you should already know. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, well then, pulled. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think it "destroys the point of the hook" at all. You lose the pun, but i think cooking another mathematician's goose is still interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the remaining point left, after removing the joke, is: when a group of Polish mathematicians needed some kitchen work done, they selected a nearby young woman to do the work, without regard to her mathematics. Is that the point you wanted to make? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's a strange takeaway from the story itself. Someone with a doctorate in mathematics kills and cooks a coworker's goose, and the only takeaways from that are wordplay and gross sexism? You wouldn't be the least bit curious why a university math professor slaughtered and cooked her coworker's goose? Seems pretty interesting to me, and it was interesting to the person that sent out that email blast, too. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t read the phrasing as casting doubt on the veracity. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]