Significa liberdade

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Significa liberdade! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:55, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

You might sign this contribution yourself

As opposed to an unsigned template. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! No idea why I didn't sign that. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Extra eyes are always helpful. Welcome aboard, by the way. BusterD (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Out of the blue, I'd like to help you with deletion processes, if you're willing to accept an extra set of eyes and occasional friendly critique. I wouldn't say anything if I didn't care. BusterD (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, for sure! I'd really appreciate that. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, BusterD! I wanted to touch base on this again. Did you have specific feedback at the moment, or were you just asking if I'd be up to receiving feedback in the future? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. You're doing fine work. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Recently I'm up to my neck in real life. The wiki-time I have spent recently has been quite specific. Would you mind if I sent you an email to start us off? BusterD (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Would you Please help neutrality RFC to be reopened? Summary: Can an RfC for improving neutrality in a major US presidential election article be reopened after it was hastily closed by a specific user? 1. There were many opinions that the biased article in the US presidential election article should be improved. 2. An RFC for improving neutrality was started, and when opinions for improving neutrality came in, it was hastily closed less than two days after the RFC was created. 3. I would appreciate it if you could help improve Wikipedia articles by reopening the relevant RfC so that the opinions of users who want to address neutrality can be posted. Link : [[1]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Goodtiming8871! I see you reached out to BD2412, JoJan, Bkonrad, Crisco 1492, and me with this request. Looking at the RFC, I also see that you are the one who started the RFC. Glancing through the discussion on the Talk page, I also see that many editors have replied to you requesting sources, given that NPOV is not the same thing as BALANCE. That said, I'm wondering if you tried posting to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and/or contacting one of the relevant WikiProjects, both of which are mentioned as prerequisites for starting an RFC (per WP:RFCBEFORE). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice about the dispute resolution Notice board. I created the page on the dispute resolution Notice board[[[[2]] ]] and the Project page - Please advise me if it's incorrect location or there any thing that I should improve. :) [[3]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

In these cases, dispute resolution should be about the original dispute--why you wanted the original RFC to begin with--given that these are steps you should take before starting an RFC. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason for initiating the RFC was that several users on the Talk Page continued to raise issues with the neutrality of the Lead part of the document, but other users demanded that it be left as a list of only one candidate's criticisms, so this was attempted to be resolved through the RfC.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Goodtiming8871: Did you bring up the issue at the appropriate WikiProject and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not realize previously that I should have attempted to resolve it through the appropriate WikiProject and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. However, I registered in both places today because you kindly informed me. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Goodtiming8871: Because you did not previously bring your issue to the appropriate places, it would be best to bring the original issue there rather than asking to re-open the RFC, considering you still haven't what is required to start an RFC. As such, it is very unlikely that your request to re-open the RFC will be granted. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, so that I will edit my request.

As project page was my very first attempt to ask inquiry, can you please advise me whether I posted at the appropriate location? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that location makes sense. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your kind response. I checked the status but both locations has not yet been updated. I assume that it takes time. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if a controversial topic was edited in a biased manner, if we try to correct this, how can we ensure fairness on Wikipedia when several editors close the discussion to prevent further discussion, defending the bias by criticizing only one of the two current presidential candidates and saying that the other candidate should not be included even if there are many credible articles criticizing the other candidate?

[[4]]

However, considering that one of the volunteers who participated in the dispute resolution noticeboard recommended additional conversations with other editors, should we assume that Wikipedia edits content according to the opinions of users who are interested in the topic? So if the content seems biased, should we go back to the discussion and post it on the dispute resolution noticeboard again based on the discussion content? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Iona Singh

Hello, thanks for your comments. However I cannot find the Edit button at the top of the Window on the DRAFT page as is directed, so am unable to place the in-text references as you suggest, at the moment. Thanks. Ernestina1844 (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Ernestina1844! The edit link should be in the same place as it was before. Have you tried refreshing the page? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've managed to edit it now. Could you tell me the procedure for placing in-text links. I seem to have made one in the text but the word REDIRECT has been inserted next to it. Ernestina1844 (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Ernestina1844! I would recommend reviewing Wikipedia's referencing guide for beginners. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Suburban Park and Big Nine

Hello:

I'm new to this whole article writing thing, and I have a few questions for you on how I can improve my submissions:

1) All of my research into conference membership has come from newspaper clippings (which even show conference standings in some instances) and high school yearbooks (which have sports schedules and make specific references to conference membership).

2) Basically, my entire focus has been on conference membership comings and goings over the years. Would additional information (i.e. sports offered, conference championships, etc.) help?

3) If what I have so far isn't article-worthy, does it at least qualify for publishing as a stub at this point? If not, what more does it need?

Thanks for your input! Moserjames79 (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Moserjames79! The important thing to show that a topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines is to provide reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the topic. High school yearbooks generally don't count toward notability because they are too closely connected with the subject; however, they can be valuable sources of information. Newspaper clippings will be a better bet, though these don't always contribute to notability either. Overall, the point is to prove not only that a thing exists (verifiable) but its that its worthy of having its own Wikipedia page (notable). I hope that helps! Let me know if you have any further questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I think that clears up my first two questions, but what about publishing as a stub? Does what I currently have qualify, or would I need more information? Moserjames79 (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Moserjames79: Concerns about notability do not change regardless of the article's length. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I just revised the two articles that you initially rejected, looking for sources that outline the history of the conferences, adding some additional information to the Membership History table, and a list of State Champions to come out of the conference. Feel free to take another look, and if there are still issues, please provide input. Thanks! Moserjames79 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

About my draft.

Hello @Significa liberdade, hope you are well.

I certainley understand why you rejected my draft, however I have tried to take onboard your advice to improve it but I simply can't. You see, I created the articles about the 3 annual television specials and needed a list to list all 3 specials like other articles about the same company. I tried my best to gather other sources but it is simply not covered in that way. All that is availible to myself are reviews or the listings of what took place. I tried my best to look for reliable sources and did add one which could work but again, couldn't find much as the articles, the seperate ones at least, speak for themseleves. I am going to resubmit the draft and I hope with this context it goes well.

Thank you. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of DQw4w9WgXcQ

I noticed that you deleted DQw4w9WgXcQ, which redirected to Rickrolling, on the grounds of Wikipedia:CSD#G4, that it had been deleted before as a result of a deletion discussion in 2019. The redirect was recreated in the course of another redirect discussion on October 25, 2024 because of its recognizability and being identified as associated with the topic ofthe target article in an academic paper. Is that grounds for un-deleting the redirect? At what point does an editor consensus in 2024 overturn one from 2019? Thanks for bearing with me, and if I'm asking in the wrong place, let me know—I've never asked before about an undeletion of this kind. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi again; just following up on this question. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Hydrangeans! Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Although this is uncommon practice, I am going to undelete the redirect and start a new discussion given the existing evidence. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I very much appreciate you doing so. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans:, to answer the question, the way that a WP:G4 deletion is overturned is if the reasons for deletion no longer apply. When this was created on October 25th 2024, the status quo from the 2019 discussion was the exact same. There was wishful thinking about possibly recreating this from the recent 9jeJbdVl2jI RfD, but in terms of context at the target article, nothing had substantially changed about the structure of Rickrolling between 2019 and 2024, and consensus from 2019 indicated that the ID had "no usage history here on Wikipedia", per Rosguill and others. It would be impossible to reinstate the redirect as long as the deletion rationale from 2019 held still, which was the case at the time this redirect was G4'd on October 25th.

Material related to the ID was added to Rickrolling on October 27th, which substantially changed the context & nullified many of the reasons for deletion in 2019, and would be able to be recreated after that point. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Also Significa liberdade, because the deletions (and multiple G4s) were originally made by way of community discussion (at RfD), per the undeletion policy, pages deleted by means of a community discussion should not be undeleted except by deletion review (DRV#3). G4 is one of the speedy rationales disallowed at WP:RFU. The old revisions should not have been restored, as the redirect should've been remade from scratch once the original reasons for deletion were addressed, which wasn't until a couple days ago. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Utopes! What should I do to address this error? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not particularly sure how as I'm not an admin. But all the revision history prior to October 30th should stay deleted as those revisions were deleted by consensus. Maybe that's an option somewhere in the toolkit; unsure. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Clovermoss: Can you help? I seem to have screwed up here. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well what I would normally do is just create the redirect at the title instead of undeleting the page, like you would at any other redlinked page, if consensus changed. I've deleted the undeleted page for now, but I'm a bit worried that this might cause issues now that you sent the recreated version to RfD? This isn't really a situation I've encountered before so it might be best to get a second opinion as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron: Help? :sad eyes: Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not entirely sure WP:UDP would cover what Utopes is talking about, but yes, it is best not to restore old revisions when undeleting a page for a reason like this. I think the best course of action here is for Clovermoss to undelete only the revisions from Fieari's creation and after, since there's an RfD in progress (and it's trending towards keep). I would do it myself, but don't really want to run into any WP:WHEEL concerns. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I give you explicit permission to fix whatever it is I did. I'm tired and need to sleep. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Theleekycauldron, the aspect of WP:UDP I was referring to was where it says In the case of pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, where it implies that undeletion should be done only for the soft-deletion rationales listed at WP:UNDELETE. For overturning material deleted from a community discussion, UDP says this practice should be made at Wikipedia:Deletion review, not by single-person request. I'm glad everything is taken care of no-harm-no-foul, and I think this was a good learning moment for everyone involved (me included!). CSD tags remaining in page histories can often a touchy subject, so unless there was a reason why the initial tag was incorrect, I hoped this edit could stay deleted. Thank you for your help! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Bhuj AC Superfast Express

Hi Significa, do you mind if you check real quick if Bandra Terminus–Bhuj AC Superfast Express is substantially identical to the version deleted at AfD two months ago? Just curious since I can't see the deleted page and I want to be cautious with my G4 nominations. Thanks, Fathoms Below (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Fathoms Below! I appreciate you reaching out and being cautious about your G4s! I checked the article, and it differs from the one deleted via discussion two months ago, though the lead is the same. The primary differences in content are the "Schedule" and "Routes and halts" sections. The references for the new article are different, but none have been published since the AfD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2024

Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323 Online events: New: Asian women | Geofocus: Islands Q-Z | Women in engineering Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Annual Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) is an online campaign designed to boost Asian content on Wikipedia each November. Unreferenced articles backlog drive. These Wikiproject clean-up lists offer a start to November's backlog drive, e.g. Women's History and Women writers Tip of the month: Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed images at search.creativecommons.org/ Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Significa liberdade! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

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

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

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!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Help

Hello! I saw you edited one of the articles I wrote. An editor has falsely accused me of a conflict of interest when I have nothing to do with any of the three companies I wrote articles for. They claim they contain promotional language. They started a discussion on one of the talk pages but not the other two so I have done so. Could you review the articles and help resolve any issues so the label can be removed? The discussions are at Talk:Alto (rideshare), Talk:Tock (company), and Talk:Peerspace. PazSeguro (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@PazSeguro (talk page watcher) Just FYI, it's best to keep discussions in one spot so everyone can keep better track of it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Josias R. King (November 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Josias R. King may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Grahaml35 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Grahaml35! Thanks for pointing this out. MNopedia is CC by SA 3.0, which to my knowledge, is OK for Wikipedia. Is that incorrect? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As an additional note, if you do find copyrighted material in an AfC draft, you should immediately remove the offending material and request an admin to complete a revision deletion for copyright. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Significa liberdade! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Grahaml35 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Heroes2024/sandbox

Not that I disagree, the draft really is on the border (the chances of it surviving AfD is probably close to 50/50, and it’s certainly prone to being nominated for AfD). However, I don’t think inline citations are required unless it’s a BLP. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that, I dream of horses! For some reason, I thought there needed to be at least some in-line citations to pass through AfC. I'll keep this in mind moving forward. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s a common misconception. I had it once. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)