User talk:AryKun/Archive 4

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 26



 * January and February 2024&mdash;Issue 026


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!



Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

GAN
Hey Ary, notice you snagged a bunch of GANs today. I'm online the rest of the afternoon and if you are able, I'd love to knock the one out for Hypericum x inodorum. I can respond to comments quickly and get right to editing. I'm getting really close to a GT and am anxious to get over the finish line. Thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 19:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah sure, I'll do it in a couple of hours when I finish up some irl work. AryKun (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for White-winged tapaculo
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Meratus blue flycatcher
—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No hard feelings
Hey, just dropping a quick note to let you no I have no hard feelings about the revert on the honey badger article. I won't argue, but I disagree about the significance of such things. Similar "In popular culture" references are added to articles all the time. They may not be "important," but they're interesting and add dimension to the main topic without detracting. I went to read the article about honey badgers because of the YouTube video, and I was very surprised that there was no mention of it in the article. So that's why I added it. No big deal, though. Win some, lose some and all that. :) Yesthatbruce (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * In popular culture sections are discouraged by MOS precisely because they attract immense amounts of trivia that really isn't relevant at all to the topic. Articles are for notable information on a topic, not everything that's interesting. There's a dozen videos on YT about honey badgers with over 30 million views, and none of them are at all notable because YT is a platform where random videos of a tuna being cut in half get that many views. Trivia sections also do detract from articles; since there's no criteria for exclusion once you start adding non-notable stuff, they become those unmaintainable lists that drown out the actually useful parts of an article. AryKun (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks for the explication; much appreciated. I'll heed going forward. Yesthatbruce (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Your WikiCup submission: Featured list candidates/List of Hot Black Singles number ones of 1989/archive1
Hi AryKun, thanks for participating in the WikiCup. You submitted Featured list candidates/List of Hot Black Singles number ones of 1989/archive1 for FLCR points in the WikiCup a few weeks ago. I apologize for not letting you know earlier, but per WikiCup/Scoring, this review does not seem like it's long enough to be eligible for points. I know this may be disappointing, especially if you did conduct an in-depth review and found no issues, but this is done to prevent people from submitting cursory reviews.

In the future, if you don't find any issues in an FLC, it might be best to list how the list complies with the Featured list criteria. Even if it's only a single paragraph, such a review would qualify for points. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Our current top scorers are as follows:


 * with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
 * with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
 * with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
 * with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
 * with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

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

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Black-headed tailorbird
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)