User talk:Elli/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Elli. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Hello, Elli. Thank you for your work on 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Elli, Thank you for offering to mentor me! I am so thankful to be a part of this! The Interpol terror watchlist caught my eye when I saw 👀 the last edit date. How do I cross-reference Federal law enforcement's list with the latest Wikipedia list? I have some research completed but rather ask my mentor before I venture out into uncharted waters without over watch. --Dark Angel Home (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dark Angel Home: thanks for reaching out! I'm not sure what exactly you are asking, can you please clarify? Our article on Interpol Terrorism Watch List doesn't contain a list itself. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Have a wonderful day, I would like to make page for wiki, for my class, how can i involve in my page --Dazee cruz (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dazee cruz: Hi! For you to make a page, you need to have reliable sources for the topic you are writing about. I would suggest reading Help:Your first article and going through the Articles for creation process. If you tell me more about the topic you're wanting to write about, I can provide more guidance. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello --Zack 1k (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zack 1k: Hi! Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Theleekycauldron -- Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Elli,

When tagging a page for speedy deletion, CSD G5, using Twinkle, please put the name of the sockmaster in the field, not the name of the editor who created the article being tagged. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't done a G5 in a while so forgot about the specifics of that. Thanks for the reminder! Elli (talk | contribs) 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

How do i put a music file and image file on mobile? --AmericanLightRoad (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@AmericanLightRoad: hi! You should be able to use Wikipedia:Upload wizard from the mobile website. Make sure your file is either freely-licensed or complies with the non-free content criteria. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

how do i upload a draft? --AmericanLightRoad (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Elli- I actually want to give feedback on your fundraising messaging and efforts. But I have no idea who to give it to. Any ideas? I'm a 20+ year marketing and insights professional, would like to help. Thanks --HueyHanson (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@HueyHanson: hi! You can contact the fundraising team if you want to... though I will note that a lot of the messaging has been carefully crafted to be acceptable to the Wikipedia community, which generally has a strong disdain for ads and intrusive marketing. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Bună! Vreau să creez o pagină, dar nu pot adăga poze la paragraful cu Galerie foto. Ce aș putea face? --.A.N.T.D.M.55 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@.A.N.T.D.M.55: hello. This is the English Wikipedia; if you do not speak English, you might prefer to focus your efforts on the Romanian Wikipedia? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I want to edit an article and add a recent picture in that article which would help people to understand. How can I add a picture in an published article? --Ramsoni322 (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ramsoni322: thanks for reaching out -- if the picture is one you have taken, or otherwise is available under an appropriate license, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons and add it to the article. Otherwise, if the picture is not available under a free license, but meets some strict criteria, you could still upload it (but this is usually not allowed). Please let me know of the details here so I can better assist you! Elli (talk | contribs) 15:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

i actually do not have any credits for the picture as the picture belongs to an entity.But I'll give credits to them. The picture isn't available in Wikipedia commons. 103.217.154.95 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If the picture is not freely-licensed and you don't own the rights to it, you need to make sure it complies with WP:NFCC; simply giving credit is not enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Lord Kimball you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The article Thomas Lord Kimball you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Lord Kimball for comments about the article, and Talk:Thomas Lord Kimball/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalissima: thanks for the review! Elli (talk | contribs) 05:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Paragon Deku (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I was going to DM you about this on discord, but I've been banned. I've got evidence there's some off site campaigning going on, and I'd like to find a way to mitigate the situation as much as possible. Figure since you've participated and I remember you being fairly active you'd be best at communicating with admins about that off-wiki to make sure there's a streamlined way to deal with it. Shoot me a DM at paragondeku on discord so I can send the evidence. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Paragon Deku: I've sent you a friend request. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect 🔞 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/2023 October 16 § 🔞 until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello my name is Neyo Meyo , id love to know how can i have Neyo Meyo on wikipedia information and discography ens. --Neyo Meyo (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Neyo Meyo: Hello. It's strongly recommended to avoid editing about yourself as you have a clear conflict of interest. If you believe you meet our notability guidelines (particularly the guidelines for people), you could request an article or write a draft about yourself. However, you will need to have multiple reliable, independent sources about yourself to meet the notability guidelines.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like assistance with something. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

WELKE NEDERLANDSE BANK GEEFT HET MEESTE OPBRENGST ? --Bruwiere (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bruwiere: Hi; this is the English Wikipedia and communication here is generally expected to be in English. I also do not know the answer to your question; Wikipedia does not provide financial advice. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have taken the task of editing the "Birth dearth" wikipedia article and now I see that it is essentially talking about the book by the same name, which is not on wikipedia. I think it would be best to simply replace the article about the phrase with the book itself. I dont know if its possible to rewrite the tittle or does a new article have to be created and the old one deleted. --DukeofCarniola (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@DukeofCarniola: This is an interesting situation! I suggest posting what you plan to do on the talk page, and if no one objects for a week or so, go ahead with the changes. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Elli, as you may have figured out I am partially blocked and would like to you to be the one who reviews my edit requests, I like how you actually gave the time to really look into what needed to be edited (exhibit A) (exhibit B) instead if saying "this is incomplete" and leaving it just sitting there. You're probably the best admin on wikipedia in my opinion. Can you be my mentor? Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thomasthedarkenguine: Hi. I'll note that I'm not an admin yet, but I'm happy to help you with implementing edit requests and becoming unblocked in the future. Just let me know about any questions you have (preferably by pinging me to your talkpage, to keep the discussion centralized there). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I will, just peep at some of my edit requests if you can. Thank you. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thomasthedarkenguine: I'll take a look. In general I would suggest being a bit more clear about what exactly you want in your edit requests. For example at Talk:Men's Central Jail#Remove or replace the photo on the infobox, if you added to your request something along the lines of "As I've been unable to find a freely-licensed image of the jail, this picture should be removed until one can be taken." it would probably get implemented sooner. Does that make sense? It can take a good bit of effort to search for an image, and as it stands your request there is effectively asking other editors to do that.

I've acted on that one now by removing the image, but I hope you understand what I mean in general (I'm more willing to put effort into responding to unclear edit requests than many others are). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure that'll be fine. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, can you assist me in some of my recent requests, some people are having a hard time helping me despite the fact that everything is clear. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thomasthedarkenguine: are there some particular requests you would like me to look at? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all the ones I've requested. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thomasthedarkenguine: it looks like you only have two open requests? I don't really want to verify dozens of shows at an entertainment venue, but I've implemented your other pending request. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

that's ok. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Meant to discuss this with you before submitting a move review to verify that there was no "mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding." Thank you for your time Yoblyblob (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob: hi. You haven't told me what your problem is with my close so I can't really say whether there has been a misunderstanding between us. Do you think I have inaccurately assessed the discussion there? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I just figured it needed a wider assessment at move review Yoblyblob (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob: That is not really the point of move review. You should only take a close there if you view the close to be an incorrect reading of the discussion (in which case someone else should close the discussion in a different manner), or if there was significant additional information not addressed in the discussion at all (in which case the discussion should be reopened). It does not appear you think either of these things. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Then I'm getting conflicting messages. When I tried to re-open with only teams that had both men's and women's teams I was told to go to move review. Yoblyblob (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob: In new discussion you made, it seems like a decent number of people missed the part of my close where I said that a new discussion regarding only the countries with teams of both genders would be fine to happen immediately. However given the number of people who quickly came out against the move it seems like such a thing would be unlikely to succeed at this point. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Good day Elli, I really want to ask you if my level of experience in a field can impact the probability of my article being published. --Thecurioussammy (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thecurioussammy: There shouldn't be a direct impact, but knowing more about a topic would usually mean you could find better sources for it and write more clearly about it, both of which would make it easier for an article to pass at articles for creation. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Thunderhead (Shusterman novel) cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ho-hum. Another would-be site dictator with a delete key. Want a citation so, instead of searching for one in a collaborative manner, you just whizz in and *delete* perfectly good information with not a word of thanks. Very encouraging to further contributions - not. Won't your type ever learn? 2600:1700:2950:3CD0:552B:E026:44C5:74C2 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I know that having your additions reverted can be frustrating, and I do appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia. The issue is, if content doesn't have a source, it isn't verifiable, so our readers can't trust it. While I often try to find sources for unsourced content instead of removing it, doing so can be quite time consuming, and the responsibility for providing citations ultimately lies with those who want to include content.

Please let me know if there's some way I can help! I don't want to chase you off the site; articles on small towns especially can use a lot of work, and very few editors specialize in them. The content you added still can be easily restored, so long as you have a source for it. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! NB: Not a question. --Jantonov1980 (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jantonov1980: Thanks for your thanks! Happy to help with any questions you'd have in the future. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! I currently am not looking to become a new editor on Wikipedia, but I am trying to do a bit of research on the website. I am currently writing a paper in which I need to analyze a discourse community. If you are not too busy, I would like to ask a few questions:
1. Have you ever used the "talk" page to communicate with other editors? If so, how effective was the use of this "talk" page in relation to the "final" vision of your goal for a certain article?
2. Have you ever come across any "nefarious" activities (ie. false information being edited into pages, or maybe a disrespectful comment on a talk page) on Wikipedia? If so, how did you go about dealing with this situation, if at all?
3. It is commonly known for many students that Wikipedia is not a very "reliable source" due to the fact that it is a user-generated source, that is anyone at anytime is able to edit any article (with limitations on certain articles, of course). Thus, many are warned away from using Wikipedia as a source of research at all. What are your personal thoughts on how Wikipedia should be used as a source?
4. Lastly, I would like to hear an "insiders" opinion on authority within the group of anonymous editors using Wikipedia. It has come to my attention that, although there are over 40 million users currently registered to this platform, a 10-year study conducted by Purdue Owl suggests that most of Wikipedia's content (roughly 80%) are written by a certain 1% of its contributors. This suggests that there might be some sort of hierarchy amongst editors, where those who contribute the most may also benefit from the achievement of "shaping what the world knows". What are your personal thoughts on this particular set of information? --AllInTheNameOfResearch (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the terrible formatting. AllInTheNameOfResearch (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@AllInTheNameOfResearch: hi, thanks for reaching out. Happy to answer your questions.

1. Yes. Talk pages have multiple purposes and their effectiveness varies -- but for almost all editorial disputes, they can be resolved by talking to other editors there. Only in very rare cases do disputes go further.

2. Yes. There's plenty of vandalism that goes on, but it's pretty easy to revert. There's also sockpuppetry, where previously-banned users come back under new accounts, or when people use multiple accounts at once to gain an unfair advantage in discussions. In addition, there are sometimes long-term users who sometimes edit disruptively. These issues are harder to deal with, but there are various processes available (such as the administrators noticeboard and sockpuppet investigations.

3. Wikipedia is usually reliable on many topics. If I'm trying to gain a very basic understanding of something, Wikipedia is going to be my first place to check. Fake information is usually, but not always, spotted. It's always a good idea to check the sources if something doesn't feel right; I've found plenty of inaccuracies this way.

4. Once editors become somewhat active, I don't see there as being too much of a hierarchy within active Wikipedians. Plenty of people do contribute due to the intrinsic motivation of shaping what the world knows, though I do not see that exactly as problematic. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking with this question though.

Feel free to let me know if you have more questions or want me to expand on something! Elli (talk | contribs) 22:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, the last question was phrased a bit awkwardly. All I needed to know were your thoughts on the idea of a "hierarchy" within the Wikipedia community--specifically, if there was one between new users, long-time users and administrators on Wikipedia. That being said, thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions! AllInTheNameOfResearch (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@AllInTheNameOfResearch: I see. The main hierarchy that is somewhat present is one separating administrators and regular editors, though it's one that many people in the community consistently push back against (and generally, the community agrees it is not a good thing). So, it's not totally non-existent, but it's far less prominent than you might expect. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you and many others dislike the gap between administrators and editors? AllInTheNameOfResearch (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@AllInTheNameOfResearch: while administrators have some buttons they can press that others don't (e.g. to delete pages or to block users), that doesn't mean that their arguments are any more likely to be correct than an experienced non-administrator. Giving more weight to administrators makes the toolset feel like it matters more than it actually does. The principle of the project is that we are all equal as editors here, and that is part of what's allowed this project to be successful. The writing at WP:NOBIGDEAL in particular is rather relevant here. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. How then would you foresee users gaining "authority" on Wikipedia?

In this case, Wikipedia rewards users for their tenure and number of edits when this might not be necessarily a correct way of allowing members to gain authority. The site itself claims to not be a reliable source, stating “articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them” specifically, “their interests, biases, education, and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article”. In this case, how should the credibility of any individual editor be considered, if at all? AllInTheNameOfResearch (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@AllInTheNameOfResearch: Another interesting question. Editors do gain reputations among other editors for how they edit, and obviously an editor who has a reputation for editing better will see their edits face less scrutiny. This isn't really formalized though. There are some content review processes (e.g. good articles and featured articles), and usually, an editor who shepherds an article through one of these processes is treated with a bit more deference towards it, especially if the article is in a low-profile topic area. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like to formally thank you for your help. Your answers both helped with information-gathering and inspiration for my paper, so thank you. :)

Have a good one! AllInTheNameOfResearch (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@AllInTheNameOfResearch: glad I could help! Good luck with your paper-writing :) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Elli, I only contribute to Wikipedia very rarely, so I don't have the required 500 edits to make a change to the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank. There, one can find the statement "In 1956, the Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion stated that: "Jordan has no right to exist. The territory to the West of the Jordan should be made an autonomous region of Israel".", which is supposedly based on ·       Slater, Jerome (1994). "The Significance of Israeli Historical Revisionism". In Stone, Russell; Zenner, Walter P. (eds.). Essays on Israeli Social Issues and Scholarship. Vol. 3. SUNY Press. pp. 179–199. ISBN 978-1-438-42140-7. However, this essay can be found here (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41804673), accessed for free and contains no such quote. Could you please hand this on to somebody who is allowed to and able to correct the article? Skeptischer Beobachter (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Skeptischer Beobachter: thanks for reaching out. Generally, the correct place to post edit requests is on the article's talk page. If you click the "view source" button (where the "edit" button would be, if you could edit), there will be a button that you can click to submit an edit request for that page.

I don't have the time to review the sources on this right now, so I suggest you do that to hopefully get your edit reviewed sooner. Please let me know if you have more questions! Elli (talk | contribs) 23:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I changed the header because, to me, it is too long and the lone sentence about him being married at the end seems out of place. Can I shorten the header to personal life and make "Outing and death" bold instead?166.194.204.57 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss stuff like this is the article's talkpage, so if you want to discuss this further, I suggest we both go there. Bolding shouldn't be used in such a manner. We could have separate sections for "personal life" and "outing and death" but I feel like that is splitting up the page with too many headings. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The section as it stands doesn't deal much with his personal life outside of the recent developments. Perhaps the heading should just be Outing and death. That is probably what folks searching to read about him would be most interested in anyway. I will leave it alone though. I'm sure more experienced editors (like yourself) will sort it out eventually. I don't personally care for long headings, but if that is what wiki decides is best for the page, then so be it. I can always just not read it. Take care. 166.194.204.57 (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern here; I just don't see a way that's much better to structure the information. Honestly, biographies like this usually aren't great, and there's a good argument this should be moved to "Suicide of Bubba Copeland" as he likely wasn't notable before his death. In which case, these details would be featured more prominently. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The article Bubba Copeland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOLITICIAN

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. Derpytoucan (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

• BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
• Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
• Epicgenius with 1518 points
• MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
• BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
• AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
• Sammi Brie with 520 points
• Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
• Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
• BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
• LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
• Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shani Louk. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Elli. Forgot to write an edit summary. I've observed something about the Diclose.tv Wikipedia articles and edits that I'd like to discuss with you. In some cases, I've noticed that the content appears to have a somewhat strong ideological or loaded tone, which can potentially influence the reader's opinion, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I appreciate Wikipedia's commitment to maintaining a neutral and unbiased point of view, and my intention is to contribute to that goal. Thank you for considering my viewpoint and edits, and I'm looking forward to helping maintain Wikipedia's dedication to presenting balanced and unbiased content. Labeling as "far-right": The use of the term "far-right" to describe Disclose.tv carries a strong ideological implication. While it's essential to characterize sources accurately, labels like "far-right" can be highly subjective and may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the platform. "Fake news website": Referring to Disclose.tv as a "fake news website" is a loaded term, implying that the platform's content is intentionally deceitful or false. It's essential to provide specific examples or evidence when making such claims. "Publishing disinformation and conspiracy theories": While it's important to address the publication of disinformation and conspiracy theories, using these terms without specific examples may appear as a blanket statement that doesn't offer a nuanced assessment. "COVID-19 misinformation" and "anti-vaccine narratives": Similar to the previous point, stating that Disclose.tv is known for "COVID-19 misinformation" and "anti-vaccine narratives" can be highly subjective and may not provide a comprehensive, a nuanced assessment or understanding of the platform. 207.96.33.47 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. These claims in the article are well-sourced; while they don't describe the website in a particularly positive way, our article is in-line with the reliable sourcing that exists. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. While I acknowledge that the claims in the article are based on existing sourcing, I remain deeply concerned about their accuracy, neutrality, and objectivity. It is essential for Wikipedia to present information in a balanced and factual manner, upholding the platform's core principles of neutrality and reliability. In my view, the article currently falls short of this standard by presenting the website in a predominantly negative and opinionated manner.

I firmly request that we reevaluate both the sourcing and wording in the article to ensure it meets Wikipedia's strict requirements for neutrality and objectivity. If the intent is to propagate a certain viewpoint and tell users what to think, based on what is essentially a negative and opinionated description, that's a choice, but we can't reasonably expect such a source to be taken seriously as an unbiased and credible provider of information.

To illustrate the gravity of my concern, I'd like to pose a question: Would it be considered fair and impartial to source Fox News to make the claim that CNN is a far-left propaganda network that spreads false narratives, including COVID-19 disinformation? Maintaining a consistent and impartial standard in describing sources and platforms is of paramount importance.

If that would not be considered valid sourcing, then why should information be drawn from a DW.com hitpiece, or other biased sources? I firmly believe that a more balanced, neutral, and objective representation can and should be expected. I respectfully request your cooperation in addressing these concerns and am eager to engage in a discussion to reach a resolution that fully aligns with Wikipedia's unwavering principles of accuracy, neutrality, and objectivity 207.96.33.47 (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

While the article may contain factual information, it appears that the presentation and tone can lead readers to a particular belief or interpretation. This intentionally introduces a form of bias or spin into the content. 207.96.33.47 (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to stress that addressing these concerns is crucial not just for this specific article but also for the overall reputation of Wikipedia as a trusted source of information. Instances where factual information is presented with potential bias or spin can lead to a perception of Wikipedia as a biased propaganda machine rather than an objective and reliable resource. 207.96.33.47 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it be considered fair and impartial to source Fox News to make the claim that CNN is a far-left propaganda network that spreads false narratives, including COVID-19 disinformation? no, both because Fox News hasn't, as far as I can tell, actually said that, and because Fox News's coverage of politics is considered unreliable.

Obviously making sure Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view is important, it is after all one of our core content policies. However, I suggest you read Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. If you think our presentation of the reliable sourcing of this subject is incorrect, that's fine; but that doesn't appear to be what your complaint is. When plenty of reliable sources call a website a fake news website, we can say that as well.

Also, if you want to discuss this further, please do so at the article's talkpage, so other interested editors will see the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I will add this to the talkpage as well, but there are some issues in the current article that need addressing, including the reliability of sources.

Use of Ideological Labels: The use of the loaded term "far-right" to describe Disclose.tv in the article carries a strong biased implication. Such labels are highly subjective and may not provide a comprehensive and objective understanding of the platform. It's essential to ensure that characterizations of sources are as neutral as possible.

Loaded Terminology: Referring to Disclose.tv as a "fake news website" in the article is a loaded term that implies a highly biased and subjective perspective, suggesting that the platform's content is intentionally deceitful or false. It's crucial to provide specific examples or evidence when making such claims to maintain a balanced, fair, and factual tone.

Generalized and Loaded Claims: The article mentions that Disclose.tv is known for "publishing disinformation and conspiracy theories," "COVID-19 misinformation," and "anti-vaccine narratives." However, these claims are extremely unspecific, which can make it seem like a biased, loaded, blanket statement that lacks a nuanced assessment of the platform's content.

Reliability of Sourcing: It appears that much of the content in the article seems to be sourced from the DW.com article, which is widely regarded as a biased and loaded hit piece. I believe that relying on such sources raises serious concerns about the objectivity and reliability of the article. DW.com and many of the sources used are hitpieces.

Importance of Objectivity: It's crucial to understand that even if something is true, it doesn't necessarily represent the entirety of a subject, and it doesn't preclude a hard spin or bias in presentation. I can demonstrate with forensic evidence that similar labels and judgments can be applied to other news outlets, such as CNN, based on a particular perspective. Objectivity is key in representing such platforms.

I would like to clarify that my intention is not to advocate for the deletion of information or facts but rather to ensure that the presentation of these facts in the Wikipedia article is conveyed in a neutral, unbiased, and credible manner. 207.96.33.47 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, not everyone is American, so not everyone should be expected to know about specific American geography. So why did you delete the easier and clearer link? Please explain, thank you. 147.161.129.72 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDLINK generally discourages that type of link. Ohio remains linked in the lead as I did not revert the first link you added. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello I want Oprah Winfrey to interview me and help me write a book of my siblings and my life store. If us growing up in foster care and living with an addicted mother no father dealing with abuse and our story goes on. --Kemawood (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kemawood: hi, unfortunately I don't think I can help you with that as it is unrelated to Wikipedia. Do you have any questions about Wikipedia you would like help with? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Elli, I see that you have taken down the added comment "In Australia, there has been an adhoc golf tournament for the past 17 years started in 2006 by F. Barrie and J. Moyle in honour of Maurice. It is reported that the trophy is in rather poor condition but none the less engraved with the annual winner."

This is true, we have great respect for Maurice and have named our tournament after him. This will be our 17th year just finished last week.

We would be greatly honoured to be a part of this legend! Please let me know how to verify the above info.

PS. it seems you are from Michigan, I am too - Detroit area. 23 years ago, I moved to Australia. Cheers Benji3333 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Benji3333: I don't doubt that this tournament exists but you'd need a reliable source for it to be included in Wikipedia. Do you know of any local newspapers that might cover it for example? Or magazines about golf? Those might be good starting points.

And yeah, I'm from Michigan (particularly the Ann Arbor area). Hope you're enjoying Australia :) certainly gonna be a change of weather. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello --BrighterO (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@BrighterO hi! Do you have any questions about Wikipedia? Elli (talk | contribs) 09:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Eli. Sorry to bother you. I just wanted to ask a quick question. I'm very keen to become busier on Wikipedia as a contributor. I have contributed a few edits to pages recently, created one for a movie (a learning curve to see how that works!) and I posted an article for review yesterday - a page on the musician Tom Fleming from Wild Beasts who is now a solo artist. This was rejected on the grounds that "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics)." Essentially my question is: what qualifies as a better source than the ones I used which were credible music magazines and the artist in questions record label? Just to be very clear: I have zero association or connection with this artist and his label. It's just an area of music I know quite well and thought such an artist did warrant a page. Any info would be gratefully received so I can understand the processes going forward a little better. --LMGK (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@LMGK: hi, thanks for reaching out. The issue with that article, as I see it, is that there aren't sources providing enough significant biographical coverage of him. Another source like [1] or [2] that talks more about him would probably be good enough though. Also, would suggest you make sure that all of the article's body has citations. For example, He followed this up with an EP, Zero Vulnerability, in 2020. does not have a citation.

Please let me know if you have any more questions! Elli (talk | contribs) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Eli. That does make sense. I'll try to find sources with that info and address the citation issue you mentioned. If I can't find any biographical coverage of him, I'll file this one under 'wasn't meant to be.' Thanks again for your reply. Very helpful. LMGK (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The Cluestick is awarded to users who have demonstrated that they, in fact, have a clue. This Cluestick is awarded to Elli for noticing a significant mistake I had made and then telling me that I was wrong. AriTheHorse 02:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello --Fact707 (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fact707: hi! Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey,can Wikipedia promote rappers --Krusty LA (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Krusty LA Wikipedia does have pages on rappers, but we are not a site for promotion. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, could you please also History of transgender people in Brazil move to Transgender history in Brazil per the move discussion at Talk:Transgender history in Finland#Requested move 21 November 2023 - it was identified late during the discussion. Thanks Raladic (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Raladic: I've done so now; thanks for reminding me. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Elli! It's me again. Sorry to bother you with more questions, but I am now currently writing yet another paper on Wikipedia (this time trying to do an analysis on genre). I'll try to keep these questions brief:

1. I am aware that all writers must publish adhering to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. In your own experience, has this ever been challenging to you? If it has, how have you overcome these challenges?

2. Since Wikipedia is largely collaborative, have you ever disputed with another editor on how controversial subjects should be presented in a published article? If so, how did you resolve this conflict?

Again, sorry to bother you! If you don't have the time to answer, you may continue and ignore my questions. Thank you in advance. --AllInTheNameOfResearch (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@AllInTheNameOfResearch: I'm somewhat busy, currently, but will think on these and try to get back to you soon. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries! I've decided to center my main idea on a different focus of Wikipedia, although I am still curious about what you have to say. Take your time. AllInTheNameOfResearch (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The article 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1964 Illinois House of Representatives election for comments about the article, and Talk:1964 Illinois House of Representatives election/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Theleekycauldron -- Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)