User talk:Pentagon 2057/archive D

Archives:Sep 17-Feb 18, Mar 18-Aug 18, Sep 18-Feb 19, Mar 19-Aug19 current page

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
 * 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
 * Flag of the United States Library of Congress 2.svg Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
 * Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

WikiCup 2019 Reminder
Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 2 of this year's WikiCup! There are only a few days until the second round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 05:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport
If Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3 and Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 4 have Wikipedia articles, why Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 1 and Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 2 don’t have it? Bam Z 412 ( Talk ) 11:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The pages were deleted due to a lack of encyclopedic content. if you wish to develop an article over time, consider using your Sandbox to create the article and submit the draft to WP:AFC. Also, please do not play with redirects as you were doing at Infrastructure of Singapore Changi Airport. Thanks -1.02 editor (T/C) 12:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just went to do some checking T3 article is also a redirect. 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3
You cannot redirect Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3 because there’s was an existing article before that. Bam Z 412 ( Talk ) 12:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport
Sorry for being like this. I’ve only realised this when you redirected Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3 and Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 4. I thanked you for doing this. Please forgive me. Bam Z 412 ( Talk ) 13:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * everyone makes mistakes when they first start out. Editing wikipedia is not something easy to learn. take your time and learn the ropes, if you need help you can ask experienced editors or people at the WP:TEAHOUSE. 1.02 editor (T/C) 13:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

BamZ412, my story
I only joined on 7 June 2019. Before that, I was an anonymous user with different IP addresses and earlier today I accidentally logged out and edited as an anonymous user until my mom which she asked my dad on FaceTime before helping me to log in again. I joined Wikimedia Commons 13 days ago in Singapore Standard Time. Bam Z 412 ( Talk ) 13:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Singapore
Hi, 1.02 editor, I just joined WikiProject Singapore. What should I do there? You can talk to me on my newly refurbished user talk page. Bam Z 412 ( Talk ) 13:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * 🇳🇫 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
 * Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
 * SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding CalEditerILikeTrain
I am starting to doubt 's intentions here and i have become more convinced that he is a troll or a sockpuppet of another banned account whick is not uncommon considering the position of wikipedia in Singapore. Does anyone have any suggestions on what course of action to take regarding this matter? I am considering ANI but i would like to get your opinion before heading there. Thanks. 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The possibility occurred to me too, because of edits such as this on the page of someone who's not edited in almost eight years, trying to change a date stamp, and the messing about with templates. They may, on the other hand, be an overly clever young person who finds regular editing insufficiently challenging or amusing. I don't remember seeing more sockpuppets or block evaders from Singapore than from other places. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * well that is a possibility but we still need to do something about this we cant just keep warning him over and over again as he will just blank his talk page. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cyphoidbomb and 331dot are both administrators, and they may recognise the behaviour of a particular banned/blocked user in this person's edits. I'd give them at least a day (maybe several) to reply. We're short on administrators due to the Fram thing, and they may be busier than usual. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly question some of their choices but I'm willing to wait a bit before taking any administrative action, assuming good faith. The blanking of their talk page is fine. It's considered proof that they read the messages. If they keep making weird decisions and disruptive edits, then I'll handle it. I don't presently have a sockmaster in mind. Right now it seems like a basic competence concern. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Update, I have indeffed them, since they have created more problems and created a secondary account which they presumably would have used to proliferate the same problems. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can understand why you indeffed them, their edits were mostly horsing around, with very little in the way of positive contributions - though there were a few. I had hoped they would improve the proportion, and I thought they had some potential. It did seem like they were communicating reasonably well, and improving, and correcting things that people asked them to correct. For example they did remove the thing about deleting pages immediately after you asked them to. I might be inclined to give them a second chance to smarten up, though it may well be that they're just not mature enough to contribute constructively, without wasting a lot of other peoples' time, at the moment.
 * I must say though that I'm concerned with some of the talk above about sockpuppetry, as it's a serious offence. We're required to assume good faith, and there's no actual evidence for it. Also, the second account wasn't made while they were blocked, and it disclosed the connection. If the main account is blocked as disruptive or not here to build an encyclopedia, then I can see it makes sense to block the second one too. But sockpuppetry involves a breach of community trust and intentional deception that I'm not seeing here, so I'd like to suggest removing the sockpuppetry template, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with or seen many similar cases of Singaporean editors usually if they really want to contribute meaningfully they would try to adopt a serious tone on talk pages and try to expose themselves with the 'WP:' namespace, but instead, as what Cyphoidbomb has pointed out on User talk:CalEditerILikeTrain he seems to just be here to mess around and is messing around in the wrong places. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, though I'm not sure what it has to do with being from Singapore or not. Everyone is different. My impression is that they're quite young, they remind me of some kids I know... a lot of fooling around, but sometimes with patience they can learn what is appropriate behavior. Or not - and I don't have the time to babysit them every day. But being a troll or a sock is another thing, it means being here for the purpose of intentional deception and disruption. Even though I recently had a bad experience of being taken in apparently by a sockpuppet pretending to be a new user in need of help (/), I'd still like to assume that most people have good intentions - "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It seemed to me CalEditerILikeTrain was making some honest efforts to improve and contribute, and I'm not convinced that they're not at all here to help build the encyclopedia. There are a number of good-faith edits to articles, and a few of them were actually helpful - if they would just spend a lot less time fooling around with templates and things, and a little more actually editing - even if it's just fixing typos - it might be an overall plus for the project. There's no age limit for editing Wikipedia, and I thought maybe a shorter block the first time around, and suggesting for example Guidance for younger editors, might be more appropriate than a full "not here" indef. Though again I don't necessarily disagree with the indef, and if they're not able to explain themselves in the unblock request, then maybe it's just as well. --IamNotU (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PS, I just looked through their edit history to show some examples of helpful edits. I checked the last 200 edits, and nearly all of the article-space edits had already been reverted or fixed, and I ended up spending over an hour reverting or fixing a dozen or so of the remaining ones. I didn't find a single one that didn't have problems. So, meh, I guess despite good intentions, maybe WP:CIR does apply pretty well here... --IamNotU (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * can I propose that we unblock him and impose community sanctions restricting him from the All namespaces but Draft, User and Wikipedia and the associated talk pages and the Talk namespace in order for him to learn but not affect the ‘public’ side of Wikipedia and put him through Adopt-A-User to provide him with a mentor to guide him. Once he demonstrates his competence and proficiency in editing the sanctions would be lifted. 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's an adopter available, that would be good. Not sure how useful the restrictions would be. Getting reverted is a good way to learn... I think if they're really incapable of editing productively in article space (or formulating a reasonable unblock request), then they probably don't belong here at all. --IamNotU (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that they are here to edit constructively. They have false information on their user page; they have made a number of incompetent edits, they have created useless templates; given warnings to people who haven't edited here in a while; warned someone for screwing around in the Wikipedia sandbox, which is pretty much what it is for; they created a second account which they also labeled as semi-retired and as a sockpuppet--the list goes on. They're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, they were here to screw around. So I personally am disinclined to unblock at present. If they want to edit at a Wikipedia in their native tongue, that's an option available to them. Or if some other admin wants to consider unblocking them, that's an option. But consider their poor ratio of helpful edits to useless ones. Unblocking them is likely to be a time suck for all involved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

1.02 editor
Can you reply to me as soon as possible? Thanks. Bam Z 412 ( Talk ) 13:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1.02 editor (T/C) 01:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)