User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 39

User:IDCOVReveal
Hi ReaderofthePack. I don't really have the heart to tell this editor that they don't have the ability to block other editors, but perhaps maybe someone else will. I was going to post something about WP:RGW on their user talk page, but probably won't since it will probably only further aggravate the situation. Then, there's also a possible WP:DISRUPTNAME issue given the this is an SPA and their contributions so far. The fact that there's now edit warring on their user talk page though is probably not a good idea for anyone involved. So, maybe you could take a look at things, and take away their TPA if it appears to be the only way to stop things from further spiraling out of control. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It goes beyond edit warring as it's the user in question impersonating ReaderofthePack NJZombie (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes this user is just wasting time (see example), repeatedly placing a fake block notice (seven times now). I imagine some admins are watching this page if ROTP is not available; pinging who had also commented on the IDCOV talk page.--- Possibly (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute any of that, but it probably would just be faster and less drama inducing to simply ping one of the admins who have already engaged the IP and simply ask them to take a look into things; reverting back and forth (even if you're claiming 3RRNO) is not going to lead to a resolution without administrator interventation; moreover, bringing this to AN3 and then notifying the editor about it may only expand the drama to another page (a blocked account can't respond at AN3, but they might start socking). When multiple admins are likely watching a problem account such as this, it's only a matter of time before one of them sees a ping or otherwise sees something on their watchlist and decides to step in and take action. Speed isn't really of great importance here as long as the drama remains on the editor's user talk page and doesn't involve and serious policy violations that needs to be surpressed or revdeleted. If they want to pretend to be an admin and block themselves for another 30 hours, then they'll probably eventually get their wish and find their block extended, possibly even indefinitely. If it makes any difference, what I think they were trying to do is "block" people who were editing their user talk page and leaving messages that they didn't like. I think they mentioned COIN because they wanted to do the same thing there. I think the "You" is meant to refer to everyone who disagrees with them, but I may be wrong on that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - I was out for the evening. I'd wanted to try and give the user one last chance since I was feeling extremely generous at the time, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were just a very frustrated new editor. Looking at their actions since then, I should have gone with my first impulse, which was to indef them. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries on my end. I figured that some admin would eventually see what was happening and take care of it. I just reached out to you since you were the blocking admin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Melvin Gregg
Hello, ReaderofthePack. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Melvin Gregg, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

From complaining an IP's contributions to how to improve a draft
Hello, it's been three months since I hadn't talked with you here.

First of all, I wanted to tell you that there is an IP who is getting away scot-free. This IP mades not only disruptive edits, but also adds hoax content (such as claiming that a 1986 film which shares name with a 2010 German film about animals exists and so does a fictitious 2013 Malaysian film called The Amazing Safari) and changes dates to incorrect ones. I think this IP deserves a strict block because this IP is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Second, I asked in the talk page of the list of Pixar film references if I could replace the "Citation needed" template with a source coming from The Art of Pixar Short Films in order to verify André's cameo appearance in Red's Dream, but no one answered me. Therefore, I had to consult with you if it can be done if The Art of Pixar Short Films is reliable enough to verify this cameo appearance.

Regarding my Pixar-themed draft, I've been progressively improving it. I have a very worrisome question, which is this: how can I solve the notability issues so that my draft can be submitted with success?

That's all the things I wanted to say. I hope you answer me when you are online.-- André the Android (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like blocked the IP, so hopefully they'll stop. If not, then the block can be extended.
 * With The Art of Pixar Short Films, this looks like it would be a reliable source on here so definitely feel free to use that as a source.
 * The draft definitely looks a lot better - since I've pinged Bradv (indirectly, but still a ping) - what do you think, Bradv? I'm still concerned that the article may not be independently notable, but I think it'd be good to have someone else take a look at it (so asking you). ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. Which article are you asking me about? – bradv  🍁  16:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful, wouldn't it? It's Draft:André (Pixar character). ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a topic area I'm very familiar with, but generally I'd have a low bar when it comes to the notability of fictional characters. There is little to no real-world impact if we get the information wrong, and it's a great way for new and young editors to contribute. Regarding the IP I blocked, it had nothing to do with this article. I blocked it for vandalism across multiple accounts. –  bradv  🍁  18:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you think it'd be safe for the draft to be moved live at this point? I'm mostly worried about it getting dinged, but I think it has a good chance of survival. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While we wait for 's answer about what will happen to my draft, I have reverted at least four of the the aforementioned disruptive IP's unsourced edits.


 * As for the source I asked before editing the list of Pixar short films again, I have already added the only citation I could find and it seems that it is a good edit.


 * About improving my draft a little more, I have a idea to add the appropiate portal bar as I did with the article about the short film André appeared for the first time. Well, I wonder what Bradv's answer will be regarding to my draft's fate.-- André the Android (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion Request
Hi, I hope you are having a great time. I am here so i can invite you to take part in this conversation: Articles for deletion/N4 Axis Centre Thanks.  Brascoian    (talk to me)  17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm not really super savvy with notability for buildings, so I'm going to skip this one. Thanks though! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
 * Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; 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 (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

August Editathons with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Proposed deletion of SF Signal


The article SF Signal has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not pass WP:GNG. There are some trivial mentions of the blog in some sources like this Slate article, but I couldn’t find anything in-depth that would demonstrate significant coverage. I’m unsure whether LocusMag is independent or reliable. For instance, they’ve posted updates about the status of the SF Signal website which isn’t necessarily bad, but seems rather specific and involved for such a small website. A lot of the posts don’t even say who the author is and it appears that anyone can submit a blog, book, or podcast for review. It also appears that the magazine’s website has republished/hosted the podcast’s episodes here. It appears that “SF Signal” is a term used in science so a lot of WP:GHITS come from science websites that have nothing to do with the blog and trying to search Google Scholar is a nightmare. It might be possible to claim that the blog passes WP:WEBCRIT because it won an award, but WEBCRIT asserts that anything meeting its requirements should generally still have some coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources."

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 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 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. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of SF Signal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SF Signal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/SF Signal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
for improvements to Somewhere in the Darkness,

Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC) 

Cherry Crush
Thanks for your work on the article. I was struggling to find any sources beyond passing mentions and I appreciate your vigilance! BOVINEBOY 2008 14:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! It's still a little borderline given that so much of the coverage is local and the rest is so slim, so here's hoping someone else can dig up more. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 BOTTO ( T • C ) 20:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Earth in science fiction
You may enjoy my new article, and it would enjoy copyediting (it's now nominated for DYK). And of course, any expansion and so on would never go amiss :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice! I'll go take a look! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski,  BennyOnTheLoose, 🇷🇼 Amakuru and  Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, 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). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Doubts about which source should be used when mentioning a cameo appearance
Hello, ReaderofthePack. A month ago I learned that André, one of the The Adventures of André & Wally B. characters, had his first cameo appearance since Red's Dream. I have planned to add both this reference and the Buy n' Large logo's cameo in Soul in the list of Pixar film references, as well as I have planned to add André's last cameo appearance in my draft about the mentioned Pixar character. However, I don't know if I have to use this link from Laughing Place (which I have doubts if it is reliable or not) or this one from BuzzFeed (which I fear that it might encourage readers to believe in the Pixar universe theory, a fan theory which I consider nonsensical, despite the BuzzFeed article's title is different).

In brief, which one should I use?-- André the Android (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the Laughing Place. I can't remember offhand if it's usable or not, so I'd bring it up at the Disney WP talk page or at WP:RS/N. Buzzfeed should be find for mention of a cameo appearance since that would be more or less an uncontroversial claim, since you're not using it to back up anything like the universe theory. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So you mean that I will have to use the most reliable of the two links to mention two cameo appearances in one film? If so, I guess I would have to talk about the reliability of Laughing Place later.


 * I say that because, knowing that BuzzFeed is more reliable than Laughing Place, I'll add info in both the list and the draft shortly after resolving the doubts.-- André the Android (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Science Fantasy Summer 1950.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Science Fantasy Summer 1950.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) 20:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with a long-term abuser
Hello, ReaderofthePack. Today I unwillingly reverted one of a long-term abusers' edit on the article about exercise balls as I denied him personal attention.

I created this section because I'm concerned that he will use the same IP again and he may "manually revert" what I've reverted by adding the same content on the aforementioned article. That's why I think the page about exercise balls deserves indefinite semi-protection and two remaining unreverted articles the IP edited must be restored to their last version prior to the IP the long-term abuser has recently used to edit.

What do you think of this situation? I admit that it is urgent because good-faith editors shouldn't let articles unattended in case these receive disruptive edits.-- André the Android (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Sorry it took me a while to respond! It looks like blocked the IP for three months. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like it was (as Mr. Rixiers) evading a block. I see what you need about it needing some semi-protection. I'll add it to it, but if they manage to make an account that gets autoconfirmed, they can get around the protection. Still, definitely better than no protection. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just learned about that one--what a way to live. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank both of you! I know that the long-term abuser whom I was refering because I often check his sockpuppet investigation and his page about his long-term abuse. I also know that I was likely to revert one of his edits if other good-faith editors didn't take action agaisnt him.


 * Changing the subject, I have one of two questions that concern me: About the WikiFauna, can I create some fauna based on fictional species? I have a idea to create a WikiFauna species based on André's species (which appears in The Adventures of André & Wally B.), as neither of the already existing WikiFauna mentioned in this project page makes me feel identified and I don't know if creating this one might meet the inclusion criteria.-- André the Android (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm a little embarrassed to say that I wasn't aware of the WikiFauna page until now, despite being aware of some of the WikiFauna out there, like WikiGnomes. I say go for it - just make sure to put a note on your draft that this is a proposal for the WikiFauna page and to make mention on the WikiFauna talk page for advice and when you're ready for it to be considered. (So it doesn't get mistaken for off-topic stuff - I'm just overly cautious, is all.) I'm all about making Wikipedia more inclusive. :) I mean, you won't know until you try, after all. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your advice. Besides, this idea will be possibly referred as a "WikiAndré" when I will start working on this future project page at some point, and please remind not to confuse my idea for the project page about the WikiFauna for the other draft I am working in order to get moved to the mainspace if its next submission is accepted.-- André the Android (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Advice on how to deal with abusive behavior from user
Hi again, I would like to point your attention to this edit made by user Madvark:. As you saw on the AfD for Stel Pavlou, this user was also quite aggressive in making defamatory accusations toward me based on a misdirected semi-DOXing attempt. This was also after the user called for me to be banned here on the BLP noticeboard. I thought you may have suggestions as an admin. Thanks. Qt.petrovich (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right now I think that it would be good to just brush up on some of the Wikipedia guidelines and whatnot. This training was created for students, but gives an excellent overview of the guidelines. You're a newer user of sorts*, so there are going things that you're not familiar with on here. For example, tone works differently on Wikipedia than it does in most other places online. Stuff that wouldn't be so bad in other places can sound non-neutral on here. Quotes and wording have to be carefully written to be neither super praising nor negative, which is honestly one of the more tricky aspects on Wikipedia. I mean, we can write that something received positive or negative reception but we have to be careful that it doesn't sound like we're trying to put it in a certain light. I personally recommend that when it comes to reviews, that we try to find as many reliable sources as possible and then phrase it something like "Reception for (thing) was predominantly positive/negative" and then follow that up with a review aggregator if there is a rating available or some examples of common statements in the reviews.
 * By newer user I mean that you've been away for so long that the guidelines have almost certainly changed a lot since you were last here.
 * Brushing up on all of that will help show that you're here in good faith. Other than that, the only thing I recommend is to clarify your interest in Pavlou. For example, did you come here because you saw the show and wanted to edit about it? If so, that's fine - just be transparent about it. The best offense is a good defense, basically. TBH, it's kind of par for the course when it comes to deletion discussions. I participated in a deletion discussion where someone accused me of being a disgrunted ex girlfriend of the person whose article was being deleted. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, @ReaderofthePack. I saw that this user was blocked. I did not know I needed to declare my interest in Pavlou. Since you asked, I am happy to share. I saw a promo for the Hunting Atlantis show a while ago, and recently, I saw an article in The Daily Beast about a Twitter feud involving Pavlou, his wife, and scientists. All this piqued my interest in editing WP again, and I happened to start on Pavlou. Qt.petrovich (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally you don't, but in the past if someone were to accuse me of something I generally explain my interest in the area if I've edited pretty solely in that area for a while. I find that it tends to disarm the accuser, more often than not. I mean, it would be more outlandish if their accusations were true since in most cases they're so ridiculously specific. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Create protection of Rahul Gupta.
Hi, back in 2014 you create-protected the page Rahul Gupta because it had been repeteadly recreated, but the subject now has enough coverage for Draft:Rahul Gupta to be moved to mainspace, so can you do the honours of un-create protecting it? Thanks. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

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.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

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 WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Citogenesis incident
Hi,

the other day, I followed a citation in an article to a published work, which in turn cited "WK 2011", which turned out to refer to a 2011 version of the article in question. Based on what I've found in the meantime, it looks like this involves dozens of other articles as well. Your username appears in the list of citogenesis incidents, so I'm hoping you can deal with this in an appropiate way, or notify the appropriate person. Here's the overview:

Between about 2007 and 2013, a series of books authored by Peter Baofu was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing. The titles follow the general pattern The Future of this: Towards a New Theory of that:

The publisher is a bit dodgy, according to their article; and these books are dodgy by the standards of that publisher, I think: Quite a lot of the prose was copied verbatim from Wikipedia, paying no heed to whether that content was cited or not. The only upside is that this author does credit Wikipedia.

Later on, people started citing those books in the articles they'd been cobbled together from. A Wikipedia search for the author currently yields 35 hits:

I've only checked a handful, but I'd be very surprised if the pattern described above doesn't hold for practically all of them. I did wonder whether the citations might have been intended as product placement, to steer Wikipedia readers to the books. Across the ones I checked, this does not seem to be the case, though; the responsible editors and the timestamps are quite different for each one. So the likelier explanation is that occasionally, someone applies a tag to one of the passages appearing as-is in one of the books, and then someone else coming across the tag, and googles the former, and finds the latter at google books, and fails to wonder about the "WK" attribution there, and adds it as a ref... and voila, circle closed.

So this seems to be more benign than many of the listed citogenesis incidents, in as far as there's no deliberate fabrication at the root of it all, only originally uncited content. Let me know if you need any extra information, or if I can be of any further help with this issue.

- 2A02:560:42E7:3600:A538:6E0A:4565:830F (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to re-post this at the reliable sources noticeboard to let them know that this is going on. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Atlantis series
Hi ReaderofthePack. Articles for deletion/Raising Atlantis was closed as no consensus, but I do think a rough consensus for a merge emerged towards the end, especially into an article on the author since some reviews on other books by him were found. As you at one point mentioned being willing to work on a series page, I was wondering whether you would like to create Thomas Greanias. Or an Atlantis series article, if you prefer; I'm not sure how much useful biographical information on Greanias is available from these reviews altogether. Lennart97 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try making a page for the author - I tend to prefer that when notability is a bit shaky for a series, as that way we could include a section about the series and also have a bit of information about their other works. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, that makes sense. Thanks in advance and good luck! Lennart97 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting: only now do I find out there actually once was a page on the author and it was deleted: Articles for deletion/Thomas Greanias. You could ask for it to be restored and work from there, but as it was apparently completely unsourced maybe it's better to start from scratch anyway. Lennart97 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm able to see the content in the deleted page as an admin and honestly, there wasn't much there that I would actually use. A lot of it was either kind of promotional or it would just be out of date - or just something I'd want to rewrite anyway. I did get a nice photo out of it, though. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2021


 "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version) 

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging