User talk:
Purplebackpack89
Archive
Archives
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked.

This barnstar is awarded to Purplebackpack89, for his dedication to comprimise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone.

Purplebackpack89, thank you for your valiant efforts in building this project. Ikip (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Socratic Barnstar
Though I doubt you're going to get anywhere in this debate due to the highly charged nature of the subject matter, your viewpoint on the issue and your line of reasoning shows you are thinker. Keep it up! And don't despair. The service of truth is the hardest service. NickCT (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for putting forward the suggestion on ANI that we block, rather than ban, User:LiteralKa. It may or may not pass, but at the end of the day, you did the right thing by suggesting it. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
For your battling abusive administrators and their sycophants. They do more destruction to Wikipedia than Joe can ever do and they know it. ...William 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For all your hard work organizing and maintaining Wikipedia:Vital articles. You are an asset to the project; keep up the great work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Merge Barnstar The Merging Barnstar
Thanks for your recent work on multiple merge & redirects re: Yoko Tsuno. Much appreciated. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activists

pbp, you're obviously more versed in American history than I am. What do you think we should cut from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists? We're 68 articles over the recently decided quota. starship.paint (RUN) 12:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) @Starship.paint: I was about to work on this today. I think American activists is severely bloated and probably 40 of the 68 should come from there. I'll ping you again when I finish my list, it's a WIP right now. pbp 13:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Here some names that could be moved or removed. The principal rationale is that they are not the leading activists in their field. Abolition, all three waves of feminism, black civil rights, LGBT rights, Native American rights, labor organization, environmentalism, and consumer rights all will be left with multiple representatives:

However, we may need to ADD Enrique Tarrio (organizer, with Trump, of January 6 capitol attack) and move Dorothea Dix from scientists to activist. FWIW, the ones that are being kept, broken down by areas, are:

Abolitionism (7)
John Brown, Frederick Douglass (VA4), William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Jacobs, Sojourner Truth (VA4), Harriet Tubman (VA4), Theodore Dwight Weld
African-American civil rights (inc. Black Panthers and BLM) (24)
Ralph Abernathy, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Ruby Bridges, Anita Bryant, Stokely Carmichael, Patrisse Cullors, Angela Davis, Medgar Evers, Fred Hampton, Hubert Harrison, Jesse Jackson, Colin Kaepernick, Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King Jr. (VA4), John Lewis, Little Rock Nine, Huey P. Newton, Rosa Parks (VA4), A. Philip Randolph, Fred Shuttlesworth, Booker T. Washington (VA4), Ida B. Wells, Walter White, Malcolm X (VA4)
Anarchism and Communism (4)
Bill Ayers, Chicago Seven, Gus Hall, Sacco and Vanzetti
Environmentalism (2)
Marjory Stoneman Douglas, John Muir (VA4)
Feminism and women’s suffrage (8)
Susan B. Anthony (VA4), Carrie Chapman Catt, Betty Friedan (VA4), Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton (VA4), Gloria Steinem, Victoria Woodhull
Labor (12)
Cesar Chavez, Eugene V. Debs, Samuel Gompers, Bill Haywood, Jimmy Hoffa, Dolores Huerta, Mother Jones, Daniel De Leon, John L. Lewis, Tony Mazzocchi, George Meany, Walter Reuther
LGBT (4)

Barbara Gittings, Marsha P. Johnson, Christine Jorgensen, Harvey Milk (VA4)

Native American rights (5)
Dennis Banks, Geronimo, Irataba, Wilma Mankiller, Sarah Winnemucca
White Nationalism (2)
Hiram Wesley Evans, George Lincoln Rockwell
Consumer rights (3); Erin Brockovich, Ralph Nader, Karen Silkwood
Other (17)
  1. Jane Addams (VA4) (settlement house/pacificism)
  2. Jessie Daniel Ames (anti-lynching)
  3. Clara Barton (American Red Cross)
  4. Helen Keller (VA4 (Disabilities rights, pacifism)
  5. Jack Kevorkian (physician-assisted suicide)
  6. Lyndon LaRouche (fringe political parties/conspiracy theories)
  7. Juliette Gordon Low (Girl Scouts)
  8. Chelsea Manning
  9. Carrie Nation (temperance/anti-saloon)
  10. Alex Pacheco (activist) (PETA)
  11. Margaret Sanger (Level 4) (abortion/eugenics)
  12. Mario Savio (Free Speech/anti-Vietnam)
  13. Phyllis Schlafly (anti-Feminism)
  14. Edward Snowden (WikiLeaks)
  15. Enrique Tarrio (January 6)
  16. Jody Williams (anti-landmines/Nobel Prize)
  17. Bill W. (Alcoholics Anonymous)


[1]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Right-wing populism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Nationalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on January 20

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page January 20, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi there, if you wouldn't mind referring to me as they/them I would greatly appreciate it. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry for not doing so earlier pbp 01:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I must ask you to please keep your comments about me within the scope of matters under discussion and to use the names we have designated for ourselves.

As we have a dispute, I have been following the instructions of WP:Dispute resolution to the best of my ability. If you have a complaint I encourage you to look at the instructions for such problems on the same page and pursue at your discretion. I suggest however that we seek WP:Mediation. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sam" and "Sammy" are reasonable nicknames for Samuel, come on, man...
And let me get this straight...you're allowed to come on to my talk page to tell me how to behave, but I'm not allowed to express concerns about your behavior anywhere? You're allowed to discuss this wherever you want and I'm not? Do you not see the inherent inequality there? You have GOT to start treating me as an equal, man...I'm not a child and I'm not one of your students (I presume you are a professor or instructor of some sort? No official confirmation but you give off that vibe).
One of the key elements of dispute resolution is disengagement. And, buddy, you're doing the exact opposite: you're trying to figure out which forum to go to to either get your way on the RWP article, or exact some punishment from me. It would be best for you to just avoid both me and RWP for the foreseeable future. Mediation is not needed if you do that and I am NOT going to initiate a mediation request. Too bureaucratic anyway. Please be aware that if you initiate it, there are a number of things that I will request that YOU be forced to start doing, such as a) treating me as an equal, b) being more thorough with verifiability checks if you're removing a lot of content, c) explaining them in greater detail when asked, d) not edit-warring when consensus has been reached, e) disengaging when consensus is against you, and failing those f) an interaction ban with me, which would forbid you from removing content I add

pbp 04:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently WP:M exists but WP:RfM no longer does (despite being linked on DRN main), so I filed a general dispute resolution request, asking for mediation. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SamuelRiv: IDK where you get the assumption that I agreed to this. Above I said mediation wasn't need pbp 12:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doniago: @Drmies: Get a load of this...Samuel is forum-shopping. Feels like he's NEVER going to drop this and is going to go ANYWHERE and do ANYTHING until he either gets a W on the populism page or against me personally. I advised him "Mediation is not needed" but he created a dispute resolution request anyway. pbp 13:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:DRN is a reasonable approach to trying to resolve your disagreement at this point. If you feel this is primarily a conduct matter rather than a content issue, then given your evident frustrations I'd generally suggest going to WP:ANI, but you're going to need to provide specific diffs demonstrating how their conduct violates policies/guidelines. While WP:CANVASS may be a concern, I haven't really seen evidence of that thus far, though maybe I'm assuming more good faith than is warranted. I'm sorry if I'm not coming across as being as supportive as you were hoping for, but filing an ANI report is pretty serious business that can reflect as badly on the filer as on the person being reported, so I'd encourage you to give DRN a try. If it doesn't work out in Samuel's favor and they continue to push the situation then you'll have pretty solid ground for an ANI filing in any case. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doniago: I have no intention of filing an ANI and you are indeed correct that ANIs have a habit of blowing up in the nominator's face. I have no intention of starting any additional discussion threads anywhere because I want this to go away and there are already existing discussions going (at article's talk page, for example).
    I suppose I have to participate in the DRN he started. A draft of my response to the DRM can be found here. It has diffs pbp 14:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, DRN is voluntary, so you don't have to participate...but I think it shows good faith if you do participate, and I think it's your best option for resolving this matter and hope that it will be the final word on it. I'm not really planning to participate myself, as I don't know that I have anything meaningful to contribute. DonIago (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you got dragged into this because you declined SamuelRiv's 3O and he tried to badger you into reopening it.
    Once again, if you have a few minutes to read this, it would be appreciated pbp 15:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, calling your opponent "Sammy" doesn't look good here. I was going to read that document, but I won't unless you rethink and rename. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: I have made the change you requested. It can now be found here pbp 16:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, @Drmies: @Doniago: an additional thing that bothers me is Samuel's dispute resolution request is rife with factual errors. He says I agreed to this dispute resolution process when I didn't. He says there were only two editors involved when there were more. &c. pbp 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRN filing would be the proper place to express those concerns. DonIago (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doniago: Have you had a chance to glance at my draft? pbp 20:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't think anyone at DRN is going to read it if you post it, because it's a WP:WALLOFTEXT that seems more focused on conduct than content. DRN is for content disputes, so I would recommend focusing on your concerns regarding the content and minimizing any discussion of behavioral concerns. If I understand things right and the base content concern is that Samuel is removing text for which WP:V has been satisfied, then it seems to me that all you really need to establish is that the text did in fact satisfy WP:V (easy enough if there's citations to reliable sources), and then it's on Samuel to verbalize why they feel V wasn't satisfied. I hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's as annoying as all get-out tbh, @Doniago:. For starters, he hasn't specifically listed the passages he's challenged or why he's challenging them ("Oh all of them" isn't specific enough to be helpful)
    The other annoying thing is that he's whining for a do-over because he didn't get his way before. Might as well just copy-and-paste the greatest hits of what I've said before because doing anything else is a waste of my time. You understand why I'm frustrated about this, right? pbp 21:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But consider WP:ROPE (more as a general principle of how to handle this than in the specifics it discusses). If Samuel keeps pushing as he seems to be doing, he will attract undesirable attention from people in a position to do something about it, though it may take time (as all bureaucratic processes do). The DRN filing will most likely either uphold his views, in which case you'll have learned something useful (hopefully), or go against him, in which case if he keeps pushing you'll have something definitive that you can present at ANI. I've been in your position, and I know it sucks to be told to sit back and wait, but attacking them will just make you look worse. The best thing you can do is make it as clear as possible that you're trying to assume good faith and follow the established processes to their intended conclusions, including the parts where you should keep quiet and let other people handle things. DonIago (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out this version of my comments.
    And TBH, I almost WANT other editors to get bored with what I say, do nothing, and leave me alone. pbp 22:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for lessons learned, if Samuel were to get his way, it'd probably just further restrict how I edit rather than doing anything useful. It's akin to why I don't try for FAs or GAs anymore: because the bureacrats and WikiLawyers make the hard-working editors like me their slaves pbp 22:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the new version is better. I'd recommend removing the scare quotes, as they amount to casting aspersions, and not using all-caps at any point, as it comes across as yelling (if you still feel emphasis is needed, consider italics instead). I'm not sure your proposal of remedies is a great idea either. DRN is for moderated discussion to reach a compromise; it's not ANI. I think you'll make a better impression if you leave it to the moderator to propose a solution rather than demanding one of two options right out of the gate. I also think you'll make a better impression if you focus on just wanting Samuel to explain their reasoning versus jumping ahead as though it's a foregone conclusion that their reasoning will be insufficient. It may seem very unlikely, but part of AGF is being open to the possibility that there may be a good reason for the other party's actions even when they seem incomprehensible to you.
    Also, not to be a pedant, but I think you used the wrong template for the collapsible box. Consider Template:Collapse instead.
    TL;DR I think if you dial back your tone and center your comments around merely wanting an explanation from Samuel at this time, before judging the rightness of their actions, it will make for a better presentation. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's difficult for me to put up some fake show of AGF about SamuelRiv when a) he started a DRV when I advised him not to, b) he made inaccurate statements in said DRV, and c) he's been hounding other editors about their closes he didn't like. If he continues to hound editors like he did to SMcCandlish, it's off to ANI for Samuel, BOOMerang be damned. pbp 01:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and I understand where you're coming from. You'd just asked for my advice, so I provided it. DonIago (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't already seen it, the DRN filing has been closed after Samuel neglected to comment further (while inexplicably making edits to other areas of the project). Thank you for giving DRN a chance, or at least humoring it. I can't say I'm pleased by how that went, as it turned into a huge waste of time, but I'd say you've now got your mandate to revert Samuel's edits if you wish to do so. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LA Meetup: February 17, 2024

Edit-a-thon and Wikipedia Day Celebration

Please join Wikimedians of Los Angeles on Saturday, February 17 from 12:00 to 4:00 pm for a Los Angeles and West Hollywood-themed edit-a-thon at the West Hollywood Library. (For the details and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/Los Angeles/February 2024.)

We'll also be celebrating Wikipedia's 23rd birthday/Wikipedia Day. (There will be cake!)

We hope to see you there! JSFarman via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Join our Facebook group here.
To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Accident

You evidently tapped a different part of your screen than you meant to tap. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something like that. I got a new phone a few weeks ago and I need to adjust the sensitivity. The timing suggests the edit happened while I was walking with my phone in my pocket pbp 00:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Right-wing populists in the United States

A tag has been placed on Category:Right-wing populists in the United States indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Custom signature

Your signature on Wikipedia stands out for its unique styling, surpassing nearly every signature I've come across. The individual links are tiny and challenging to hover over, the custom redirect for Special:Contributions hampers user highlighting scripts, and the span outside of the links keeps CSS to de-customize signatures from working (the half-disabled result is even harder to read). Would you consider adjusting your signature? At a minimum, placing the spans inside of the anchors and linking to /wiki/Special:Contributions/Purplebackpack89 would help. Larger links would be even better. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan: Since my signature became deprecated, I've now fixed it. All three letters in the signature now redirect to this page and the span is functional again. pbp 21:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely an improvement, thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. 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) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The ceiling is the roof" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The ceiling is the roof has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24 § The ceiling is the roof until a consensus is reached. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"LeOld LeBald Le4and6" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LeOld LeBald Le4and6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24 § LeOld LeBald Le4and6 until a consensus is reached. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May 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 it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews 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) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2024

WikiProject Scouting | May 2024


Notes for May:

Some important articles that need help: The Scout Association, NAYLE, Philmont Training Center, BSA Leadership Training, COPE

Other ways to participate:

--evrik (talk) May 22, 2024

June 8, 2024

The Return of the LA Wiknic
Eat, drink, and bask in the glory of Los Angeles in early June at the 9th not-annual Wiknic!

Saturday, June 8 from 11:30 to 2:30 pm
Pan Pacific Park
7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles CA 90036
Get the details and RSVP here.
(It's a potluck. There's a wish list on the meetup page.)
Get the details and join WikiLA here.
To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles proposals

A couple of my proposals from March have reached the top of people talk page. I don't think anyone is ever going to vote for them, so feel free to close them. Is it all right though if I re-propose adding Thomas A. Dorsey and Blind Willie Johnson? I think I made my discussion regarding them too complicated for people to actually vote. SailorGardevoir (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SailorGardevoir: You may want to wait on restarting that discussion until we've figured out just how many musicians of certain genres we recommend for VA5. pbp 00:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. SailorGardevoir (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

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:

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]

"Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 23 § Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FIBA's 50 Greatest Players (1991), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Center.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon August 24

August 24: Not just an edit-a-thon, an edit-a-thon in Manhattan Beach.

Please join WikiLA at an edit-a-thon to improve and create articles related to marine life and the ocean in the Los Angeles area. Inspiration courtesy of the public library in Manhattan Beach, one of SoCal's most beautiful coastal communities.
Saturday, August 24 from 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM
Manhattan Beach Public Library, 1320 Highland Ave., Manhattan Beach 90266
Get the details and RSVP here
To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups remove.your name, from this list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of United States presidential firsts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of United States presidential firsts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BrigadierG (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September 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. 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. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

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) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"JD Vance's couch" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect JD Vance's couch has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 6 § JD Vance's couch until a consensus is reached. Isla🏳️‍⚧ 21:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bobby Brainworm" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bobby Brainworm has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § Bobby Brainworm until a consensus is reached. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Biden's predecessor" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Biden's predecessor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 28 § Biden's predecessor until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events at Yankee Stadium has been nominated for deletion

Category:Events at Yankee Stadium has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"John Atoms" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect John Atoms has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10 § John Atoms until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Iist of last week tonight episodes

A tag has been placed on Iist of last week tonight episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. Regards, SONIC678 01:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Ryl" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ryl has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14 § Ryl until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Twelfth Street Rag

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Twelfth Street Rag, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Series at Yankee Stadium has been nominated for deletion

Category:World Series at Yankee Stadium has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 18:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: I disagree both with your nomination of this category for deletion, and your off-base contention that seasons (which are collections of events) don't belong in event categories pbp 18:48, 17 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, Delaware 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, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island 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.

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]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1990 Goodwill Games venues has been nominated for deletion

Category:1990 Goodwill Games venues has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 18:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Goodwill Games venues

A tag has been placed on Category:Goodwill Games venues indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Goodwill Games venues

A tag has been placed on Category:Goodwill Games venues indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 03:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kent, Kansas

Notice

The article Kent, Kansas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources or citations can be found for this article that are not reliant themselves on Wikipdia. Therefore, this article is not notable or verifiable, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The2gingerman (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardus Mercator discussion on Vital articles level 4

Hello,

I nominated Gerardus Mercator  5 to level 4 and you closed the discussion because he was "already listed as VA." I think this might have been an error. If no, could you explain? Thanks! GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Those Darn Etruscans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Those Darn Etruscans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Those Darn Etruscans until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LA Wildfire edit-a-thons January 26 and February 2

Upcoming edit-a-thons focused on the Los Angeles Wildfires

In response to the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, WikiLA has organized three edit-a-thons to create or improve articles about the historically, culturally, and/or architecturally significant structures that were destroyed or damaged during the fires, and the organizations and entities that stepped up to help. Please join us.


  • Sunday, January 26, at the Live Oak Library in Arcadia from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.)
  • Sunday, February 2, at the Hammer Museum in Westwood from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.)


To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

JSFarman (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2024 Q4–January 2025), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the V4 proposal

While I apologize for not seeing the previous proposals to remove Calhoun (which I tried to search for, but nothing came up for whatever reason), I would appreciate it if you didn't call my efforts "disruptive" when I attempted to provide a detailed rationale for my proposal. Especially compared to the previous proposals that you highlighted. Thanks. λ NegativeMP1 19:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "disruptive" was a bridge too far, but please understand how frustrating it is to have a discussion over and over and over pbp 19:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1: Let me also confess that I'm rather disappointed in GeogSage, for a) reopening the proposal, b) accusing me of incivility and ownership for closing it, and c) for not really respecting both past and present consensus on the balance between biographies and other topics. I'm also worried that, sooner or later, Geog is going to try and get me kicked out of the project. pbp 17:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely see your viewpoint and I do think some of his proposals may be a bit questionable, but I don't think it's necessarily a big deal. And I don't want to discuss another editor on wiki unless it's confrontation. Moving on from that, I want to make clear (incase it didn't come off that way before) that I fully, 100% understand what you were going for with being exhausted by repeated proposals, and I wouldn't have made that one had I saw the past attempts to remove him. Even if I still think he could be removed and voted for his removal in the reopened proposal. λ NegativeMP1 18:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing rules and regs?

Hello, and good to discuss the James Bevel removal/possible return entry with you and NegativeMP1. A question to both, is canvassing allowed at pertinent topic pages and Wikiprojects for level-decision topics such as this? For Bevel I'd add the link and request to his page and the Civil Rights Movement page as well as to the inactive Civil Rights Movement wikiproject (for those who still watchpage it). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlwev and Aurangzebra (nice username!), can you weigh in here about if notifying the James Bevel talk page, the Civil Rights Movement talk page, and the Civil Rights Movement wikiproject would be canvassing (also again pinging NegativeMP1 who may have missed the first). In deciding an individual's inclusion on this level-list I'd think the more knowledge editors can bring to the discussion the better, and that canvassing on Wikipedia means something else. Canvassing refers to seeking further comments in Requested Moves, AfD, and other discussions where policies/guidelines often decide, not by a show of hands. In the case of a topic's acceptance or rejection to Level 5, a count of commenting editors opinions decides, as a topic must reach 60% approval, and not knowledge of a topic or subject expertise. In the discussion that removed Bevel there seems to be no discussion and nothing in the way of reasoning except "he's not famous" and there are already people from the Civil Rights Movement listed (except for Dr. King, and the missing Diane Nash, Bevel's impact on the movement and achieving its goal of removing legalized segregation in America would arguably outweigh all of the others combined). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn:: Before we get any further, I need to ask you a question: if Bevel is not added, will you respect the outcome? (You've indicted in a number of ways that you do NOT respect the last discussion). You cling very tightly to the idea that Bevel is quite notable, and you can't admit that both other editors AND many writers of the historical record don't seem to see it that way. And, related: do you respect the knowledge of the people who have voted? (Ping @Aurangzebra: because of what they said in their vote).
Fame DOES play a role in vitality; there is little point in writing a good article about a topic if no one will read it. And it should be somewhat a red flag that someone who has a history degree, as I do, has barely heard of the guy.
@NegativeMP1: This somewhat reminds me of the Calhoun discussion, in that a discussion that went one way was reopened in hopes of it going the other way. And, as with the Calhoun discussion, I don't like litigating the same thing over and over and over.
As for "what is canvassing", it's generally discouraged to post in an area where the readers of that post are of a predetermined mind. pbp 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria #3, "Notability: Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field with a material impact on the course of humanity...". In the field of activism, Bevel ranks with Gandhi and King in accomplishment of nonviolent activism (which should really be the only kind) and the unquestionably importance of the Civil Rights Movement to the course of humanity. No question of that. As to respect, that's certainly the wrong word to answer yes or no to. My knowledge of James Bevel was 0 prior to being present when he gave a talk in October of 1983, and then researching him at-length, publishing my research before, during, and after engaging in discussions with living leaders of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, and informing myself. I did so because of my heartfelt interest and limited but "in the mix" participation in 1960s nonviolent activism, its events, and its music.
Because I was there too. Bevel? Who? He did what now? I had to prove it to myself, as I'd never heard of him. All I'm asking is that each of the 'oppose' editors take maybe an hour or two to study Bevel's work and what the Nashville Student Movement, the Birmingham Children's Crusade, Selma Voting Rights Movement, the Selma to Montgomery march, the Chicago Open Housing movement, and the National Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam had on their "material impact on the course of humanity". For such a Wikipedia decision such as this, after Bevel was already listed and you for whatever reason (I wish you'd think back and express exactly why you nominated him) decided he should be removed, does not lack in concern. I would hope you would conduct a full investigation of Bevel's work, and then consider changing your !vote to 'Support' (and actually, even if 100 editors gave support, your support would mean more given your steadfast opposition to what I can assure you will become the obvious once you dive in). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn:: I'm bothered by your response of "As to respect, that's certainly the wrong word to answer yes or no to", which appears to be in answer to my question of either "if Bevel is not added, will you respect the outcome?" or "do you respect the knowledge of the people who have voted?".
The only acceptable way to answer the former is, "Yes, if Bevel is not added, I will respect the consensus of the project". As for the latter, please remember that the other members of the project are NOT idiots. I know you're trying to impart us additional information about Bevel, but remember that it IS possible to read your opinion on Bevel and STILL not believe he is vital. pbp 17:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't answer that direct question because it's not clear to me what you're asking, and now you are putting it front and center before you, hopefully, get to my above response. What does "respect for the consensus of the project" mean in relationship to the discussion? The discussion will hopefully go forward, and if participating editors who work on this list eventually, having made a serious in-depth effort to study Bevel's activist work and history to ascertain if he did or did not have "material impact on the course of humanity" (that seems to me an easy answer, yes, of course he did), will make a decision. If they walk away from further discussion, as NegativeMP1 has done (comment just below) what am I to think about how the list process works or how the decision is made? There is no such thing as "respecting" or "not respecting" the result, it's just a Wikipedia result. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be an open and shut case. On the VA project, people write a proposal, include their reasoning, and then it is up to the other members of the project to decide whether or not this logic makes sense. It is clear here that people don't believe Bevel belongs at this level. If this was a close vote, I would encourage spirited debate. But this is a landslide oppose. Aurangzebra (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is that section "Discussion" for? I haven't looked, Aurangzebra, have you struck your incorrect aspersions about me which appear in your initial comment? I think I've asked you to three times, and ask again. I have never referenced an unpublished paper nor have I been blocked for a COI infraction, and continuing to keep that language without correction once asked to remove it is confusing (hopefully you have, in which case, apology). As for open-and-shut, once someone researches, analyzes, and timelines the events Bevel was responsible for there should be no question. The nom has time to run, and could easily change if others hear of the nomination (Wikipedia's major historian editor has not chimed in and probably isn't aware of the nom), and others would probably come by to at least do some needed research on the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My word on this matter has been spoken and I don't think I will be participating or discussing it any further. λ NegativeMP1 16:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, that's where I'd like to be as well, but it feels like Randy won't take that as my final answer. pbp 17:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? I can't force you to stay in a discussion. If that's really how you feel and what you really want to do I'll respect that and not ask you anything directly again. But appealing to your academic degree in history, come on, are you really saying you're not interested in making darn sure your decision to oppose a level 5 ranking for James Bevel is the right one? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to continually examine this, let me ask you to examine some things as well: Does the research you've conducted into Bevel make you impartial? Are you too invested in getting him listed as a vital article? Are you darn sure about your answers to those two questions? pbp 03:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impartial as to Bevel's fitting the requirement for such a list. As an activist he used his skill and intent to change the course of human society, and if I'm reading the criteria right about societal impact, he fits. No, I'm just arguing a case that his work and accomplishments as an activist deserve vital article level 5 inclusion. I'm pretty gung-ho about many discussions on Wikipedia, as an editor with often firm opinions, but then let almost all of them go once they are resolved. I didn't even know Bevel was removed from the list until I recalled that he may have been on it and checked. He was removed what, over a year ago?, so am obviously not overly invested in the need for a vital ranking. Just am sure of its appropriateness. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:APPNOTE, looks like some neutral alerts are fine (Bevel talk page, Wikiprojects, Civil Rights Movement talk page). I've written up and posted one, seems neutral. No new editors may appear, and if they do it may end as the same result due to Bevel's non-fame and editors not actually taking the time to make a mental map of the Civil Rights Movement and perceiving how the events initiated, directed, and organized by Bevel fit into and guided the timeline and its 1960s congressional end-of-legalized-segregation successes. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garrow

Just ran across this page where Garrow is shown to doubt some of the FBI's information on another matter. In contrast, thanks for the mention of material on Garrow's page, I just read one of the articles he wrote about the controversial claims which seems very detailed and well-written (as usual for Garrow's academic work). An interesting read knowing that Garrow knew the flack he would take and the damage to his reputation that would follow once reporting on it. The tapes, whatever they contain, will be released in 2027, which Garrow mentions near the end of his controversial paper. Thanks for putting my attention on these matters. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of First Class Scout (Boy Scouts of America) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First Class Scout (Boy Scouts of America), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Class Scout (Boy Scouts of America) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 March newsletter

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 14:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Purplebackpack89
No tags for this post.