Jump to content

User talk:Cassiopeia/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

RfA

I am so glad to see your RfA. Good luck. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray Given the disputes your currently in at ANI and recent disputes between us leaving this message here might have not been helpful to CASSIOPEIA's chances at RfA. Two hours after you left this post I asked a couple of awkward questions at the RfA .... as it happens I claim hadn't noticed your post here at that point but I can't prove that ... but your good luck message might not have helped the candidate (albeit the chance was minor). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark, It is hard for me to make any sense of the statement above. Can you elaborate more ( with diffs preferably ). There are so many questions. What/where/why did you ask ? how is it related to the nonsense at ANI ? Did someone name me on the RfA ? How am I responsible if you appear to dislike me for whatever reasons ? Your linking of the ANI and the RfA is quite shocking to me and you owe an elaborate explanation to both myself and Cassiopeia DBigXrayᗙ 08:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray: Assume for the moment that I am finding you a pain and I determine that I will take revenge on any that are friends of yours. I might then decide to make things awkward for CASSIOPEIA. In that case leading me here would do CASSIOPEIA no favours. Now while that would be incredibly wrong of me there are some on here who might do that. I don't think I can explain it more clearly than that. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark, despite your claims, through your questions on his RfA you have made it amply clear, the reason of your stance on this RfA. Although you skirted my direct questions, I am glad that you openly admitted your hatred. Cassiopeia is as good a friend of mine as the 100,000+ other Wikipedia editors who form a part of this incredible community. So I hope you will be faithful to your words and carry on with your hate in all the future RfAs. Good luck. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray, OK. Kindly stop. All is good here. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

hi CASSIOPEIA, saddened on coming across your recent rfa, and sorry about missing out on providing support (problems with my lappie).

Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Coolabahapple Thank you and dont be as I am not sad. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, your withdrawal statement says that you are. I came here specifically to say "Please don't be sad about it", in response to that! Lots of us are in the "not quite yet" cluster and will be happy to support next time if the deletion/notability/draftifying policy material is absorbed better. I wasn't even aware of what Wugapodes brought up after my own comment, but between that and Tony B.'s concerns, I think that is your focus for passing RfA next time. The other issues seem like people just handwaving (e.g. complaints about being testy in a argument too long time ago to be relevant).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not being sad of the RfA but the qualms among the voters. Wikipedia:NPPDRAFT is a move to a safe place for the creator to add sources and not a deletion or rejection or avoiding to send the the page to AfD that is the different of my view vs Tony. If I follow the guidelines and being oppose to do so, then guidelines should not be there in the first place. If editor dont like the guidelines, then propose the guidelines to be changed. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 20:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe your interpretation of NPPDRAFT is correct, and draftifying a page so an unscrupulous trigger happy admin doesn’t delete it is a good move. I found Wugapodes’ conduct here bizarre - creating an unsourced article in mainspace and then violating 3RR to keep it there is disruptive and had I mentioned it at his RfA, he might have been in trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333, Barkeep49, and Rosguill: Thank you Rithcie333 for the confirmation of my interpretation of WP:NPPDRAFT. It is important to me to know that a new unsourced/only with dependent sources (such as official website, associate sport databases an etc) page can be moved to draft space as per WP:NPPDRAFT guidelines to adhere to WP:V, WP:PROVEIT / WP:BURDEN and WP:N policies which is not a deletion , rejection or avoiding AfD but the move to draft space is a space place for the creator to add appropriate sources. I here ping Brakeep49 and Rosguill who are also NPPSCHOOL trainers to seek their views of my interpretation and application of the above for (1) I need to know I am doing the right things and (2) Since I am one of the NPPSCHOOL trainers, I need to provide correct info and application to the NPPSCHOOL trainees. Thanks in advance. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
There are cases where draftify is the best option. That having been said, I definitely feel like I've seen people get way more up in arms about bad draftifies than bad AfDs. Quite a few editors see drafifying as the equivalent of unilaterally imposing deletion, and while I don't have statistics on hand, my impression is that most draftspace articles get deleted by G13.
That having been said, given the amount of paid editing that occurs, I'm not sure that the seemingly high G13 statistics are necessarily a bad thing. I would like to think that an editor working in good faith could figure out how to properly write an article and submit it through AfC. And when it comes to WP:REFBOMB articles, I think it's justifiable for a page reviewer to request that the editor that wrote it essentially revise and resubmit via AfC; we're backlogged as it is, it's honestly an absurd misallocation of resources as a project to demand that reviewers do WP:BEFORE diligence and read through 30+ garbage to maybe mediocre at best sources, especially when it's subjects that are rife with paid editing like businesses and BLPs. signed, Rosguill talk 08:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I am the first to winge about lack of dilligence on full WP:BEFORE on long standing articles. But on newly created article for an NPP acting in an NPP role it is pragmatically unreasonable to expect a NPP to go through full BEFORE. One problem is that this is not policy and secondly there is no indicator whether an article is curated or not curated when it is brought to AfD. In a nutshell there's no point draftifying a long standing article unless there's a willing steward, but this isn't the case where someone has just moved/created it in mainspace and it wasn't ready for it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Thank you for your input. However my question was for unsourced/only dependent sources new page, a reviewer is allowed to move to draft as per WP:DRAFT guidelines to adhere to WP:V / WP:BURDEN and WP:N. I hope you could comment on this. The view of editor who think moving to draft is a form of deletion at the end of the way is a "view" but not base guidelines. My point is that editor should not oppose RfA based on personal view when I follow a guidelines. If they dont like the guidelines then propose to have it changed and dont shoot the messenger (the RfA candidates) especially, half of the opposers just followed what the Tony's decision as we have seen many times in other talk pages. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Well I will say I think you got a bum rap. But setting that aside, I think DRAFTIFY for topics that are notable but failing in some significant way V, especially if it is a BLP, can be highly appropriate. As an NPP trainer I definitely cover draftiying but also attempt to discourage the trainees from using it. I believe for an inepereinced reviewer it can be too easy of a crutch when really some form of deletion (normally AfD) would be more appropriate. Hope that helps. If it's not the feedback you were looking for, let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 Thank you for your respond, comment and support. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Barkeep's analysis wholeheartedly. signed, Rosguill talk 03:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Since I was mentioned: you're basically draftifying anything that has a year in the title, which makes no sense as 2020 literally just started less than 60 days ago. There isn't going to be much, but creating the frames for people to add to makes sense, especially if we aren't dealing with BLPs.
WP:IMPERFECT is policy. WP:DRAFT is an explanatory supplement to that policy and the deletion policy. If something can be improved, is notable, and is not causing harm in mainspace, it should be left there to be developed. Ideally, if you see something that needs sourcing you would source it. NPP is not perfection patrol. It's meant to catch major errors and bring to community attention things needing attention. If something is imperfect but can be fixed through normal editing, policy says we let it be fixed through normal editing. Moving it to draft isn't normal editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • TonyBallioni First of all g'day and thank you for your message above. As to respond to you "Ideally, if you see something that needs sourcing you would source it." I dare say with the total of 1.3 to 1.4K or NPP and AfC reverse combined I am one of the small minority to would add sources to a notable subject (such as an elected politician, members of legislative bodies) or the subject I am familiar so they would pass WP:N where I would go the the length to search for articles to support the content claimed in the articles in their local goggle sites and get the article to be translated for I truly believe in WP:V which you can see from all the articles I have created or any content I have added (not for minor edits) and tag the cats, input short description, WikiProject, subsort or any necessary minor corrections when I review an article. You are more then welcome to check all my work to verify what I have said above.
  • I understand there is two school of thoughts in Wikipedia, the Inclusionism vs. exclusionism ; one group opposes WP:AfC and the other support it as it was regarded as a pace where newbie can create an article and seek help also as per paid editor guidelines, new page created by WP:PAID editors can be moved to draft space so an additional review can be taken placed before the article is placed in mainspace as we all know WP:PAID is particular a big problem in Wikipedia recently as reviewers in NPP was caught working with PAID.
  • WP:NPPDRAFT is not based on year in a title but it "was created to provide a 'safe harbour' from deletion for pages under construction. Drafts allow new articles to be developed before being moved to Wikipedia's mainspace. A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but be far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication. Such pages can be moved to the draft namespace manually". So if any reviewer moves the an unsourced/only primary sourced new page to draft space, it is within the WP:NPPDRAFT guidelines which is part of the of WP:V, WP:PROVEIT/WP:BURDEN and WP:N, not only a guidelines, but they are the core policies of Wikipedia irregardless how WP:IMPERFECT guidelines is. Without the policy of WP:V, Wikipedia could not be considered a encyclopedia but just a blog. If that so, then Why are we here? For such I done nothing wrong but follow the guidelines and policies and dont see your justification on opposing my RfA on Feb 12, 2020 for it is not just because it is Wikipedia:I just don't like it of the AfC and NPPDRAFT project on your part. You have since proposed WP:VPP#Rethinking draft space on Feb. 15, 2020 then my RfA should based on the current guidelines until such time and if WP:VPP#Rethinking draft space proposal is agreed upon and not before. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
NPPDRAFT isn’t a policy or a guideline, it’s a the equivalent of an info page that’s meant to provide a broad overview. The policies you are citing other than N also aren’t reasons for deletion, much less speedy deletion. They are policies that are implemented through normal editing in mainspace.
The purpose of draft space is to give people time to prove that their articles meet our inclusion criteria, and even per the text you cited above, the reason we move them there is to give people time to develop them to show this if they would otherwise be deleted and/or notability is possible but in the current state it is likely to be deleted. The only reasons many of these articles are at risk for deletion is because you moved them to draft as no administrator would have deleted them via CSD and an AfD would have resulted in keeping them. You seem to be implying I’m an inclusionist who doesn’t really care about V, which is the opposite criticism I normally get.
I’m not going to litigate the RfA again, as that’s not fair to you, especially on your own talk page, but I disagree with your characterization of my comments there, and stand by my opposition. I’m sorry it was a rough time for you, but if you were wondering why I opposed everything I just said can be summed up with: I don’t think you understand the difference between content that can be fixed via editing and content that is unsuitable for the public, and how policy would have us deal with each. That’s the last I’ll say on the matter, but wanted to clarify since you seemed confused as to why I would oppose and if there was anything you could change. All the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • TonyBallioni Please note I am not here to request or suggest you to change your vote. I did meant NPPDRAFT is a policy but WP:V is and I do understand the between content that can be fixed via editing and content that is unsuitable for the public, but I still stand by that if an editor follows a guidelines, as again NPPDRAFT is not a deletion but a safe place for creator to add sources, then it should not be punished as the system as we know is Wikipedia system in certain areas are imperfect. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Observing related conversation at WP:VPP#Rethinking draft space.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, with all due respect I think saying to someone who has been here 2.75 years with 150k edits "not quite yet" is a tad insulting. I know the bulk of your message was really a "don't be discouraged try again" (a sentiment I whole-heartedly agree with) but that phrasing just rubbed me the wrong way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for trying at the RFA! Thanks for trying to step up! Most importantly thanks for the work you do! Keep trying! You will make it. Best The4lines (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Was going to drop one of these myself. Having first hand experience with a rough RfA I know that oppose votes can be painful. But I don't think most of them were hard opposes. Wait a year and work on your resume and if so inclined give it another shot. In any event thanks for all of your hard work on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem thank you for you kind words. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 20:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Really sorry

I'm really sorry about what happened in the request for adminship. I had supported, but then the opposers had a valid point, so I switched to "neutral"... please don't take it personally. King of Scorpions (my talk) 21:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions Hey no worries and thank you for your message above. Everyone is entitled to change their mind as they see fit. Thank you for taking the time and effort in the process. Appreciate it. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I am sorry it didnt go through. I hope you are not discouraged. I hope you run for RfA again in the future someday. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
usernamekiran thank you for the message above .I accepted that I made a mistake on accepting one page, out thousands that I have successfully reviewed, which I should not out of carelessness, and I was thrown under the bus and didnt know I should address the mma talk page incident years ago as in certain way they expected me to; but for sending no sources new page to draft as per WP:NPPDRAFT guidelines to adhere to WP:V, WP:PROVEIT and WP:N which is not a deletion , rejection or avoiding AfD persay is something gripped me. I need to seek if my understanding of NPPDRAFT application is correct for I believe so and also need to be a little bit long winded in my communication, (more details in my explanations) to new editors as compared to my usual short, brief business like communication style. Once again, thank you for reaching out to me. Appreciate it. Have a good day. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, that was a difficult experience for you, and I hope that it was not too hurtful. Please remember that RfA is not a judgment about whether people like or trust you (or want you to continue) as an editor. It's only about whether to take the risk of giving you the key to a rather powerful set of additional tools. The discussion closed early, but already a lot of people had signed up to say they do like what you are doing. So, please stay with us, learn what's worth learning from the experience, and keep up the good work! – Fayenatic London 09:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • As someone who supported your application, can I say how disappointed I am at what happened? It was a good example of what's wrong with the RfA process at the moment. Out of your many, many thousands of edits, people found one where you accepted something which they'd have rejected, one where you draftified something they wouldn't have and one instance of a talk page drama from years ago. On the basis of those, they decided you're unsuitable to be an admin. It's really frustrating that if you don't fit into everyone's personal view of a perfect editor, you get rejected. Wikipedia has a problem with a steadily-reducing supply of both admin candidates and active admins, and yet this kind of thing happens when people are put forward. It's why many editors, including myself, would never consider trying to become an admin. I hope you're not driven away from the encyclopaedia by this, you're too valuable an editor to lose! Best wishes, Neiltonks (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

hELP

I like request some of your edits on this UFC 244 page in road making great again to road of GA. Regice2020 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 G'day. Sure, glad to help to make the article to a GA class. Give me some time to find info and sources. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy

Hii, G'day I would like to learn from you and am willing to assist. I tried revert few edit which were vandal. For those vandal edit which I can't revert due to lack of user right, I tried to ask for assistance from user or my fellow administrator or Requested for page protection, which may seem to be unnecessary for a while. So if you teach me that I'll will be great. Thanks you ¶@N$¥¶IT@t@lk 12:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This editor is now blocked for sock puppetry. Ignore this request. Interstellarity (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Interstellar As always, thank you for informing. Appreciate it. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Counter vandalism

Can I be ur students to counter vandalism Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11 Hello, welcome to my talk page and thank you for interested in CUVA program. Upon checking your contrbution log and your talk page, you eventhought you have join Wikipedia for sometime now but you have not been an active editor since you main space edits as per total today is 69 - see HERE. To participate in CVUA program, the requirement is the editor need to meet the requirement of min 200 mainspce edits. Do come back once you read the number if you are still interest and at the meantime, please complete WP:ADVENTURE program to familiar yourself with all the Wikipedia guidelines and policies for it will help you in editing and participating in CVUA program later. Let me know if anything else could help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

UFC 244

Are you fine with the massive changes on the UFC 244 as done unilaterally by Regice2020? I ask because, in my opinion, the format is completely unnecessary for such an event. Udar55 (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Udar55 G'day. Sorry for the late reply as I was out the whole day, at a sport bar yesterday, taking a day off from editing Wikipedia, watching NBA All-Star Game and UFC Fight Night: Anderson vs. Błachowicz 2 and having a dinner with some friends. Of seeing your conversation with Regice2020 at WikiProject MMA talk page and was hoped that you have not lunched a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and could settle the issues on Talk:UFC 244; however I just noticed you have already raised the issue there. First of all, we the editors, at this case the MMA editors, should work together in collaborating to improve/add content/create mma related pages and help each other in any any should a editor is new like Regice2020 as they might not know certain Wikipedia/Project MMA guidelines, Wikipedia guidelines or general editing. Secondly, the event talk page Talk:UFC 244 should be the page to discuss the issue and not WT:MMA as the WP:MMA and its related pages are concerned with the MMA project as a whole on any issues/suggestions/collaboration/notability/guidelines and etc. Lastly, a MMA event/or any article do not always has to stay within the normal format and it could be expanded further if it can meet a WP:GA criteria. Regice2020 had requested me to help up to make the UFC 244 a GA class two days ago and I have agreed to assist but yet have the opportunity to do so. A GA article needs to meet as below in a nutshell - see Wikipedia:Good article criteria
  1. Well written (content/ce/layout/etc)
  2. Accurate and verifiable - content are cited ; no original research, copyright violations, or plagiarism are present;
  3. Broad: it covers the main aspects of the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Images: it is illustrated, if possible and relevant, by images with acceptable copyright status and fair use rationales where necessary.
What REgice2020 was trying to do is to expand the article to meet "Broad". Although the article has yet meet GA status and there are some areas of the content need to be rewritten to meet the above 6 criteria, I dont see a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is needed to be raised in MHO. Let me know if anything else need to be clarified or anything else I could help. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Udar55 and Regice2020: Hi Udar55, I saw your message in WP talk:MMA-UFC244 and also at Dispute resolution noticeboard- UFC 244 and happy to know that you understood my message. As mentioned I am happy to help to get the article to a GA status. Since the discussions of this issue has been mentioned in few different talk pages. I will respond further at WP talk:MMA-UFC244. Once again it is good to see editors able to settle the issue in civility and I applaud your willing to work together. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #403

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • Looking for one of the 7000+ Wikidata properties? Try Propbrowse to search and browse all properties.
  • Development
    • Wikidata Bridge: more work on unsupported edit cases (unsupported datatypes phab:T235753, ambiguous statements phab:T240212, deprecated statements phab:T238660, unknown value or no value statements phab:T242747)
    • Including the property label in the title of the Data Bridge dialog (phab:T233295)
    • Making the edit based on the user's fixed/updated choice (phab:T238662)
    • Style fixes and font size adjustments (phab:T239421, phab:T243192)
    • Create Grafana boards to track the results of the tainted references feature
    • Increase factor for query service that is taken into account for maxlag (later reverted) (phab:T244722)
    • Fix edit summaries not displayed on client wikis (phab:T244129)
    • Fixed some issues causes by the wb_terms migration

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Tech News: 2020-08

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 February. It will be on all wikis from 20 February (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Quick question

Should I also put the NAIA Wrestling Championship and NJCAA Wrestling Championships medals in the infobox of fighters? It also is a major accomplishment in the sport of Collegiate wrestling so it makes sense, what do you think? Mmagrappling (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Mmagrappling Greetings. I am not a wrestler and I am not very familiar with all the classes/categories of collegiate wrestling in United States. However, if a subject has won medals in NCAA Division 1 or anything higher than that such as PAN America and Olympic then the achievement could be listed in the infobox (Medal record) as well at the "Championships and accomplishment" section. If not then it would mention it on the "Background section" and also it could make an entry at the infobox section under wrestling (pls provide source) - see examples Daniel Cormier , Curtis Blaydes, Stipe Miocic, Chris Weidman, Yoel Romero and Devin Clark (fighter). Hope this help. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Hey, yeah but Collegiate wrestling is a different sport than Freestyle wrestling so the NCAA Division I Championships aren’t categorized the same than the Olympics or the Pan Ams. That being said, I think the D1, D2 and D3 Championships and the Big Ten/Big 12 conference should definitely be included, I think the NJCAA and NAIA is too much even though being a NJCAA/NAIA champion is no joke in the sport of folkstyle wrestling. Thank you. Mmagrappling (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Article seems ready

Hello. You moved Draft:We Fight to Be Free quite awhile ago and the author has worked on it and added some good sources. Wondered if you could mainspace it. The topic is especially relevant now because of the Washington miniseries being broadcast. I also asked its reviewer to take another look but haven't heard from them. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Randy Kryn Greetings. Reviewed. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. It seemed fine for mainspacing as the author put some time in to find added references, thanks for giving it another look. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Randy Kryn Welcome. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

UFC 244 Good Article & Donald Trump

Does Donald Trump belong UFC 244. I mean the information about Donald trump was well focused more than other UFC 244 content. I mean UFC event had many celebrity show up but we rarely mentioned them in wiki UFC events?Regice2020 (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 Donald Trump content does belong in UFC 244 since this is the first time he attended in the event and I believe was the first time a US President attended UFC event history; however, the focus of the of bulk of the content should be about UFC 244. There are a lot more to add before what is in the article besides adding more details to the current content. I am doing some research on background/pre and post fight content. Give me a little time to do that, we dont need to rush for GA but make sure what is needed and compliance of GA criteria should be addressed. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: I do not really want put any effort on editing PRO TRUMP information into UFC 244. I mean it used be on UFC 244. The TRUMP (or PRO TRUMP) content was well written at the very best over UFC 244 content. That what GA Reviewer Called. (PRO TRUMP SECTION). It like the person supported Donald Trump Wall or something.Regice2020 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Regice2020 Just put POUS attended the event. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The UFC 244 Good Article reviewer 1 stated
  • The lead is rather short, only a single paragraph. There is no mention of any of the actual fights that took place, it seems more concerned with Trump.
  • (Reviewer final comments) This page seems more focused on Trump attending rather than covering the actual event itself. With a prose section covering the events of the actual bouts and the issues above being addressed, this will be in much better shape for a renomination. The reviewer pretty much indicated the issue was mostly from "Donald Trump conten" All we need to know is that "first president Donald Trump made his appearance at a UFC event" Regice2020 (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Regice2020 I agreed. You can reply to Udar55 on UFC 244 talk page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
How was UFC 244 promoted again? Did only promote it through Youtube/Google Ads? Regice2020 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Regice2020 it was promoted in many different media. I have yet to research on that part yet. Currently I am working on the fight card section . I will work on the background (promotion would be one of the sub section ).. If you find any source can be used in any of the section, pls place it on the top section (1&2) above. Use the talk page for discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Shayan TV

A nameless user has put an incorrect information to my article from very far areas and I cannot recover my article. Could you help me, please? Фәрһад (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(temporary) @Фәрһад: I've sorted your issue. Done if it happens again you may be able to it yourself, see WP:REVERT.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark and Фәрһад: Good day. Djm, Thank you for helping. Фәрһад, I am happy to know that you have created some articles related to Tatarstan, where such subjects are not in abundance in Wikipedia. Thank you. I have added three independent, reliable sources as your previous sources are not independent since they are from the subject (Shayan TV) itself and the article failed the notability requirements. I had some limitation to find further sources as I dont understand Russian or Tatar languages as I used google translate (Thanks for providing the subject name in local language) to locate the sources to support the contain claimed. To pass the notability guidelines, the content need to be supported by [[WP:ISGCOV|singificant coverage of independent, Reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not merely passing mentioned. Sources can be in any languages. Generally speaking, books, reliable sites such as newspapers are considered both independent and reliable. Office web site, utube, twitter, facebook, home page, interview, sites/sources that associated/affiliated with the subject and etc are considered not independent (since they are associate with the subject) and not reliable (since the info is obtained from the subject). Pls search for independent, reliable and substitute the official source in the article in the "services" and "awards" section. Kindly read WP:42 for notability requirements and let me know if anything else I could help. Thank you for your contribution. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Фәрһад (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Фәрһад: You are welcome. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, good day! I had the same problem. User with coordinates 2.147.55.10 had another time polluted my page Shayan TV. Have You an ability to block him? Фәрһад (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

NPP student

I saw that you posted a message on JaneciaTaylor's training page. I think you might have missed this, but she put a retired banner on her user page stating she does not intend to edit here anymore. It's very sad to see editors leave Wikipedia. Each has their own reasons for leaving, but things happen. Interstellarity (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, Hai.... it is unfortunate indeed. Thank you for informing as always. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Baddest Motherfucker Belt

I was able successfully fight for copyright to get picture of UFC Baddest Motherfucker Belt on UFC 244 wiki page is that good? 🤣 Regice2020 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 Thank you!. Good to know the image is allowed. If possible try to get Masvidal image as well and other fighters images as well. MMANTT utube is a good site as they allow their work to be copied - but pls check each video if the work is allowed to be copied. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, the image was placed in discussion to resolve a issue, but another copyright issue has come up. The picture maybe deleted if i cant resolve. Copyright issue after another. Regice2020 (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Regice2020 I see. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously as it entails legal implication. Let's see if it can resolve. Either way, we should and always adhere to Wikipedia copyright guidelines. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #404

404 - newsletter not found
  • Development
    • Provide better redirect for statement nodes (phab:T203397)
    • Wikidata Bridge: style fixes and font size adjustments (phab:T239421, phab:T243192)
    • making the edit based on the user's fixed/updated choice (phab:T238662)
    • research how to do reference rendering (phab:T244987)
    • showing the loading bar while saving (phab:T237433)
    • More work on wb_terms table and fixing various issues
    • Removing all of pre-entity source based federation code
    • Fixing various issues causing errors in production
    • Investigate on an issue with pasting exact Commons file title (phab:T196165)
    • Update the APIs to specify an errorformat and a uselang parameter (phab:T242769)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


Quick check

Hey my man. I know it doesn’t have anything to do with MMA and this isn’t of your interest, but could you please check my draft of the American Wrestler Bo Nickal and tell me if it’s ok? Thank you. Mmagrappling (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Mmagrappling Hi, will look at it tomorrow. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Mmagrappling Hi, (1) Please enable WP:VisualEditor to cite source. All you have to do is copy and paste the URL and the rest of the necessary files will be automatically filled. (2) Pls provide source in the Awards and honors section and move Awards and honors before the match results. (3) It is not I am not interest in wrestling, but do not know enough give advice in detail. Kindly pop back here when it is done and I will review the article for you. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: Hey, (1) I’ll try to do that but I don’t know if I’ll be able to as I use only my phone but I’ll try, (2) Okay bud, will do it rn and then I’ll keep writing the NCAA Record (Like 120 matches, that sucks). (3) Oh alright I thought you just didn’t like it, I’m a complete casual in both freestyle and collegiate as I’m very new but as I was creating the draft I understood most of the basics things that I didn’t know, it’s a very, very complicated sport to follow tho and the FloWrestling app (Basically the hole College wrestling things and part of freestyle) is very expensive so I can’t afford it, but I’m learning. (4) Okay man I thought it was done when I wrote to you but then I realized it wasn’t. Thank you very very much for kindly reviewing the article without even having to, so thank u again.Mmagrappling (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Mmagrappling Hi, (1) You dont need to cite all the matches but the major achievements on "Awards and honors" section. (2) When the same source is used more than one time in the same article then you can make a "repeat citation" - see 4.1.5 Repeated citations. (3) I follow MMA so, I just know wrestling portion in MMA just like in BJJ, many techniques are not used in MMA. (4) Nickal dosnt look like a wrestler and only 24 and yet he looks like he has been through some battles.:). Let me when you have done and pop back here if you need further assistance. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: Hey, (1) I think I’ll do it with every award haha, (2) Thank u, I needed to know that, (3) Yeah same here but I started to get interested a lot in wrestling (And a little bit of nogi sub grappling) not so long ago and yeah that’s why you don’t have to be a 4x NCAA Champ to be a good MMA Wrestler, Frankie Edgar was never even All-American yet he’s a beast and Ed Ruth (3x NCAA Champ, 4x NCAA Finalist) is struggling big time. (4) Yes Nickal is a beast and the matches he has lost are against very, very high level guys, it’s just the lack of experience imo but he will do great in the future. Again, thank you, I’ll write to u when I finish. No need to reply. Mmagrappling (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: Hey, I think it’s done, I moved the Awards and honors section back to under the matches as every freestyle wrestler I checked had it like that (Such as Jordan Burroughs and Kyle Dake), tell me when you are done and I’ll upload it, thanks. Mmagrappling (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Mmagrappling I have reviewed Nikcall page and thank you very much for your contribution. Appreciate it!. By the way, when you write a message on the intended user talk page (such as you write a message on "my talk page" then you dont need to add the reply to but just start your greeting and message. However, if you send a message to a user on "ANY" talk pages besides their talk page then you need to WP:PING them. Also you need to add "additional" colon ":" (one space to the right) from the previous message thread before you start writing as this is the Wikipedia communication protocol - see Help:Wikitext for more wiki markup. Burrough huh, that is nothing this man can not achieve in wrestling world and hope to see he will make the move to MMA after 2020 Olympics games. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA Hey, nice, I think I did a pretty good job comparing to other wrestlers’ pages like Spencer Lee and it’s pretty complete. Thank YOU for helping me in this one, I appreciate it. Idk if I’m replying well, I hope I am. And yeah I agree, I think he can accomplish good things and can definitely do well in the Summer Olympics if he puts in the big heart he possesses. I’m so excited to see what he can accomplish in MMA, even though Penn State wrestlers (Ed Ruth, Patrick Cummins (fighter), Phil Davis well Davis did nice) don’t do as well as other wrestlers, I think Bo can accomplish big things in MMA, let’s hope we see him in the octagon soon! Thanks, cheers. Mmagrappling (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Mmagrappling when I said add an extra colon I meant if the previous message is 4 colons then you message should be 5 colons :). All elite wrestlers do will in mma as long as they train hard in their standing game as they are well conditioned and trained for many years in highly competitive fields - See DC, soldier of God, Bone, Gatheij and etc. Thank you for contribution for creating some new pages. Pop back here if you need any assistance next time. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-09

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 February. It will be on all wikis from 27 February (calendar).

Future changes

  • There will be a reply button after each post on a talk page if you want one. This will soon be a beta feature on the Arabic, French, Dutch and Hungarian Wikipedias. You will have to turn it on if you want to use it. It will come to more wikis later. You can test the reply button. It was briefly shown earlier than planned by mistake on the four first wikis last week.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Club de Rugby Santander

Hi there,

Would you consider moving this back to mainspace? What you moved to draft was basically a translation from Spanish, and I didn't realise that the adding of sources needed to be so prompt. I have since added sources, and it's a slight pain to improve the article from draft - I just had a bot remove a photo because non-free photos are not allowed in draftspace, etc. LeverageSerious (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

LeverageSerious Good day. Reviewed and the page is on the mainspace now - see Club de Rugby Santander. Every sister Wikipedia site (different languagues) has its own policies and gudilines. For English Wikipedia article needs to meet notability guidelines and the content needs to be supported by significant coverage of independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept. Thank you for your contribution. Let me know if anything else I could help. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassiopeia/Archive_40&oldid=947022841"