User talk:Yeeno/Archive 4

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2020
 The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

Volume 12, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2020

Previous issue | Index | Next issue 

Project At a Glance As of Q4 2020, the project has:


 * 239 Featured Articles
 * 88 Featured Lists
 * 10 Featured Topics


 * 33 Featured Pictures
 * 1,650 Good Articles
 * 28 Good Topics

Content


 * Changes to Featured and Good content
 * News items and announcements
 * WP:VG Talk Page Digest


 * Feature: Don't fake your work
 * Follow-up: VG editing in a time of COVID
 * Interview: TarkusAB

Project Navigation

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list. (Delivered 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * VG Project Main pages
 * Main project – talk
 * Project category – talk
 * Portal – talk
 * VG Project Departments
 * Assessment – talk
 * Cleanup – talk
 * Peer review – talk
 * Reference library – talk
 * Newsletter – talk
 * Video game images – talk
 * Video game images – talk

Pasindu Kumara page deletion
Can you help remove deletio nof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasindu_Kumara? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I should do that, since the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines for individuals. According to the guideline, generally, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

Through a simple Google search, it does not seem the subject meets these requirements, and the page has therefore been marked for deletion. However, if you do believe the subject is notable, you can add sources that prove the subject's notability. If you have any more questions on this, feel free to ask! Yeeno  (talk) 🍁 20:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please help improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 04:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I did leave an explanation about the edit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.56.174 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ThermaltakeLogo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:ThermaltakeLogo.svg. 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) 04:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Northcott Deletion
Hey there - contested the deletion of the Ryan Northcott page in the Talk area. Would like some guidance - the page mirrors other actors' pages and has been swept of any promotional links or items that were there previous.

Thanks! SMW

Scoutmasterward (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Navigation
Hallo, Thank you for creating The Six (film). When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie The Six), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find your article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing. Pam D  08:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I'll remember this for next time. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 15:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Otto Bayer Award
Hi! I created an article, everything seems to be good, except references. But I already added so many different sources for the notability of article's subject, including organization's website(for general info), websites of other organizations, independent news websites etc. I don't have any other sources left and some pages have a lot less resources and got accpeted. I'm wondering, what do I do wrong.. Somehow mine gets declined. Could you please help me or give me advice on how could I get it accepted? Selanna13 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I've made some improvements to your draft at Draft:Otto Bayer Award (I've moved it to reflect the official name of the award); you can take a look at the page history to see what I've done. With the sources you've gathered, I think the article has potential, especially if you expand the "Notable Recipients" section with those sources. However, I suggest you take a look at how to make inline citations, since you seem to have only listed your sources in bullet form. Inline citations help the reader understand where each claim (for example, which article calls the award "prestigious"? Which source did you get the list of winners from?) is being sourced from. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me here, or ask some other reviewers at the Articles for creation helpdesk. Happy editing!  Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 03:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

TwinMOS
You and another reviewer rejected Draft:TwinMOS Technologies Middle East FZE. Thing is after submitting the draft, article creator re-create the same on main namespace (see TwinMOS). I think TwinMOS should be redirected to the draft. Otherwise there no point reviewing the draft when that article already exist on main namespace. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Since the page is basically a duplicate of the draft page, I've tagged the mainspace one for deletion. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 00:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you noticed, it’s up again. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC) and is gone now. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Surviv.io Reverted. Why?
Did you even go to the link before you reverted it? If you had, you would have found a community of editors and developers from surviv.io and a wiki with over 700 pages of information. That is hardly what I would call "small" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashedpotatoes52 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi By no means do I discount the work of Surviv.io wiki editors, after all, they work towards the same goals as you and I of building an encyclopedia. However the wiki itself is still very small compared to the wikis that would qualify for an exception to the rule I cited at WP:ELNO. Wookieepedia, for example, has 166,718 articles and 902 active users in the past 30 days. This would be considered a wiki with a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"; you can see some other examples here Category:Fandom (website) wikis.
 * Having your edits reverted can be frustrating, but I know that you will find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. I noticed you like adding links, which is very important; the guidelines on external links and the Manual of Style for Linking can help you out here. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Cheers. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 19:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Twin Suns
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Twin Suns 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 Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Twin Suns
Hello! Your submission of Twin Suns at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ZKang123 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)--ZKang123 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Twin Suns
The article Twin Suns you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Twin Suns for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Curious George (video game)
—valereee (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Twin Suns
The article Twin Suns you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Twin Suns for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Twin Suns
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Dachau Report
Hi Yeeno, thank you for all the improvements to 'my' article. One point I do not understand - in the intro, you inserted "which", though the book is mentioned at the end (publisher is Inkling Books, Seattle). I do not know what this 'which' implies, a request for inserting the publ. at this position? Second point: You exchanged "mass crimes" in the intro by "mass murder", which is correct, but... the report/article also mentions other (very important in the KZ context) crimes like, e.g., the inhumane experiments on prisoners, which is kind of excluded now by the reduction to murder in the intro. I see your point, but think that this intro aspect might be further improved by some addition, but have no idea yet. Best Regards, Pittigrilli (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pittigrilli: Hi, I'd be glad to clarify. With regard to the "which" tag, it does refer to inserting the publisher into the lead. This would make this clearer than just "an American publisher" (I couldn't find the name at first, so I just tagged it). As for the second "mass crimes" link, I just changed it to "murder" because that's what the link referred to. I'm not knowledgeable on how such crimes work, but given what you have said here, maybe Crimes against humanity or Mass atrocity crimes would be a better fit? I'll leave that up to you. I'm going to be a bit busy for the next two days, but I'll be sure to finish the copyedit soon. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions! Take care, Yee no   (talk) 🍁 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Less important point: The mentioning of the re-edition was more like an add-on (because the mere fact is relevant) and has a virtual non-role in the article. It is also (important point) not a re-edition which follows scientific standards, it is more like a normal publishing company having found an interesting subject. This is why I am not too happy to provide details in the intro, which would be different if it would be a 'Yale historical edition' or the like. The other topic (mass murder), I still have to think about a scientifically correct formulation/link. Pittigrilli (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pittigrilli You could probably integrate the republication as one or two sentences into another paragraph, if it's not that important. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Yeeno: I just deleted it from the intro, as the re-edition is already quite extensively mentioned far below in the article and also in the Bibliography. I think that is just fine and enough. Pittigrilli (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Oscars award ceremony short descriptions
Hey, before you go any further, I have created a template for the task: Template:Oscars short description. The idea being that if we add it to all the articles, we can edit all pages at once, so that they're consistent, by just editing the template. I had some real world stuff come up, so I hadn't finished testing it or putting it on every page, but I thought it would be worth mentioning it. — HTGS (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @HTGS: Thanks for coming up with this. I've been looking on how to solve this for the past hour but couldn't figure anything out. I don't have much experience with templates, so you can go ahead and finish it; I can help test and deploy if you like. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 22:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So I just looked it over, and it should be fine to deploy as it is. I might add a category to it, and we might change the wording, but it certainly won't do any damage as it is. Just fill in the year of films eligible in the parameters (eg for the 92nd, you'd use  and for the 93rd you'd use  ) and it should do the rest.
 * The template assumes we write the description as I have, with an emphasis on which year of films was eligible, not which year the awards were held, but I can edit that later if we change our mind on wording. (I think it's more helpful to list year of films, as I think most people think about which films were put out in a given year.) — HTGS (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement
An editor asked me for feedback and help on this page. They have since submitted the page for 'Did you know' and in their response they said they have had difficulty finding Chinese sources. Because they are Pakistani and most of the sources they can find in English language are written by Pakistanis, they have received criticism over POV. This is a fairly new editor to Wikipedia who appears to be doing their very best with the article and with co-operating with other editors. I was wondering if you could help at all as I noticed on your user page that you speak Chinese, and may be better placed to find sources to balance the POV in the article and I have always found your edits to be fair and neutral. Amirah  talk  02:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @AmirahBreen, thanks for the recommendation; always glad to help new editors. I'll have to admit I'm not that familiar with Chinese media, though I'll try to help, using what sources I know. I'll check out the peer review soon. Cheers! Yee no   (talk) 🍁 03:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Amirah  talk  03:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding tag / possible deletion of the article A-HA - Greatest Hits - Japanese Single Collection - (CD+DVD)
I have removed the tag, as I believe I have solved the issue. More sources has been added, track listing has been added etc. I still find it amazing that you felt the need to flag this. The article included from the get go source with info with official Warner Music ID and production number and photo ) Furthermore, most artists on Wikipedia has extensive discography with large lists of releases on them. I still don't get how you can decide what is important or not. I ask that the article remain as it is part of a larger discography that includes various official releases added by others in the discography. This is no different.Mortyman (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Related to Speedy deletion nomination of Maha Khabar
Hello Yeeno. I see you have tagged the page for speedy deletion. I have just created it and adding more information to it. As it is a government registered weekly newspaper with a weekly circulation of 10,000 copies, it qualifies entry in Wikipedia. Before creating the page, I went through the list of Indian newspapers and it has all similar media houses. Please let me know what needs to be done here.Edwige9 (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Edwige9: To demonstrate the newspaper is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, it should meet the notability guidelines on newspapers. Being registered with the government is not enough to meet the notability guidelines. To prove the subject is notable, your article should cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject, like books, other newspapers or reliable news websites. If you want to work on the page first without it being deleted, consider creating the page in the draft space, and submit the article for review when it is ready. Feel free to ask here if you have any more questions!  Yee no   (talk) 🍁 17:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! I will go through these guidelines. Actually I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_India#Newspapers page and found many media publications similar to the one I created. This page has listed numerous Indian media houses but many among them don't adhere to the notability guidelines that you just mentioned. Edwige9 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Re:Soan Meeraas
Dear User:Yeeno, thank you for your message on my talk page. I believe, however, that it has been made in error. When I created the article, it was a stub. The information that you find problematic was not added by me, but rather, by several others. I would appreciate if you could kindly amend your notice on my talk page or remove it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Anupam: Per the Talk page guidelines, you are free to do whatever you want on your talk page, including removing notices. The notice is about the page; if it is not relevant to you, feel free to remove it. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 18:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I wanted it to be clear that the copyright violations were by several single-purpose accounts, which was quite evident from the contribution history. Happy editing, AnupamTalk 18:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Reversing of Baraakta Qol
Hi Yeeno! I noticed you reversed an edit on the page of Baraakta Qol, a city located in Somalia. As of 06/19/2021 the city fell under the admknistartive districts of the Federal Republic of Somalia (with respect to territorial integrity). Please let me know if you have any more questions! Natalie904 (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Natalie904: Do you have a source for the city being under Somali control? I understand that the Sanaag region is partially under control of Puntland, but to know for sure where this city is we'll need a source. Thanks. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 06:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It uses the somali shilling, the currency used by the federal republic of Somalia which you can read here: https://gs.maptons.com/2865566. Sanaag itself does not recognize the currency and still uses the Somali shilling: https://www.politicalholidays.com/amp/the-somaliland-shilling. Natalie904 (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @Natalie904: Both of these sites are not reliable sources. The first is a distance measurement website where the descriptions seem automatically generated; it even says the official currency of Hargeisa is the Somali shilling. The second link is a travel website and wouldn't be an authority on disputed territory. To support your claim, you'll need a reliable secondary source such as a book or news report.  Yee no   (talk) 🍁 05:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Yeeno: Unfortunately, there are no up to date books on control over the contested regions. However there is a reliable map that updates on world's countries and their borders yearly and Baraakta Qol is occupied by both unionist and seperatist forces: https://www.polgeonow.com/search/label/somalia?m=1. I recommend leaving locking the pages of the cities and regions labeled 'heavily contested' and not under government, so as not to perpetuate false claims. Natalie904 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Natalie904: There is an ongoing discussion on how to represent this dispute at User_talk:Shirshore. Feel free to take a look and chime in; I believe those editors are far more knowledgeable on the situation than I am. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 03:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Abhilasha Will
Hey Why every time only my articles are getting delete, every time why are you saying my articles reliable recourses are poor, but when you see this article Raigamayai Gampalayai they also having poor recourses but they are still there, Please tell me why is that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilasha Will (talk • contribs)
 * Hi . Firstly, to address the article you linked, there is nothing stopping anybody from making an article, and sometimes poorly sourced entries slip through. If you're familiar with the subject though, feel free to Be bold and fix it. With regard to your article (I think you're talking about Draft:Guttila kawya), excuse the automated message, but the main problem I see with it is its layout and formatting. Take a look at Writing better articles for some more information on this; once this is fixed, it should be ready to go. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 17:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification in Dachau report article
Hi Yeeno, thank you for all the work you put into Dachau (US Army report). I think the article has profited a lot, and I am going to nominate it for the "GAR" process soon. I just made an edit to respond to the "clarification needed" tag in the "Historical Evaluation" section that you created. In my view, this is an elegant way to clarify the matter, as the requested citations already were/are in the next paragraph, which I now coupled to the first one. To give you some background info: The author of the cited literature (Barbara Distel) is an authority on the Dachau concentration camp and was head of the "Gedenkstätte Dachau" (KZ Dachau memoral site) for a long time. The discussed question is of extreme (sic) importance, as the discussed misinformation about the gas chambers in Dachau - which is obviously and unfortunately a part of the report - was/is part of an ongoing strange process involving Holocaust deniers and revisionists, which sometimes cite this report as an alleged "proof" for the spreading of "false informations" on gas chambers by "the Allies". You are welcome to further edit the section if you deem it appropriate. Pittigrilli (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Pittigrilli, appreciate the clarification. Just to be clear though, the reported gas chambers were actually disinfection chambers and never used for executions? What was the connection between the crematorium mentioned before and the disinfection chambers? Also, if you have information on the Holocaust deniers using this report as "proof", its worth adding to that section of the article. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Yeeno, I am glad I brought up the topic, as for me as a German having dealt with our history (that part...) intensively, I thought the matter as described was crystal clear. Your question teaches me the opposite, hence seemingly it should indeed be further explained/clarified (due to the significance). Trying to clarify: Dachau was not place of any mass murder by use of gas chambers or other 'technologies' (as is also written in the intro), such as were the (about 4(?)) KZs belonging to the complex of the extermination camps lying further in the east, the most infamous of which was Auschwitz. Those were mainly in occupied territories, not in the area of the "Reich" as before WWII. The small town of Dachau is ~15 km outwards from the city of Munich in Bavaria (my hometown). I personally assume the Nazis did not want the real gruesome mass crimes (and traces) in the core part of Germany. The crematorium was indeed what the term says, because even in the early years, 10.000 or so inmates under very poor conditions resulted in many deaths. The crematorium had four disinfection chambers which were also what the term says, because infections transmitted by parasites such as lice were a real problem. Hence, for example, the clothing of deceased inmates (whose corpses were burnt in the crematorium) was disinfected with (now comes a difficult/gruesome one) Zyklon B, which was originally indeed developed for that purpose. The largest chamber in that complex, which is the only item causing 'conflict' here, was the huge chamber of which the report says it was indeed used for mass executions by poisonous gas, and which had the inscription "Brausebad" (in engl. sth. like "public shower room") over the door. The Dachau report explicity states in about 6 or 10 lines how larger numbers of inmates were led into that room, the doors closed and poisonous gas guided into the room so that the people died. However - while that room including the wording above the door was indeed there, the mass murder described in the report, which sounds authentic and is seemingly based on or more anonymous sources not named, can not have taken place in the KZ Dachau - according to all available literature. This is what I wrote in the paragraph citing the Distel article - while the crematorium was there including that large room which looks a lot like a 'gas chamber' as known to have been used in Auschwitz for such mass murder using Zyklon B, the one in Dachau was never used for mass killings. Hence, the authors of the report made - according to the current state of knowledge - a significant mistake here. Maybe (speculation), one explanation might be that the large chamber could have had installations for gas injection due to the planned human "experiments" with combat gases (my own speculation based on reasoning and the real evidence of plans for such experiments by SS-doctor Sigmund Rascher). Currently, I do not have access to the Distel article, which might include information on the Holocaust denier subject, because my co-author wrote that part. I will try to get hold of it though, as I think this might indeed be a topic worth including. I hope I could clarify the matter, if you still have questions please go ahead. Pittigrilli (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Addition: reading through my post above once again, I think the paragraph describing what really was in Dachau is way too complex and rather adds complexity and confusion than clarifying the matter. I asked Buidhe to contribute here, as he/she is knowledgeable about the general subject and has already put a lot of work into the article. Pittigrilli (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think it's worth mentioning the Dachau gas chamber issue as it's covered in reliable sources. This misconception of gassing at Dachau has found its way into even legitimate scholarship such as Daniel Blatman's book on the Nazi death marches. I don't have access to Distel's article either, but I added some info from another source about the false claims of Holocaust deniers and did some additional c/e to improve clarity. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , excellent solution, thank you! I think the matter is now very well explained. Pittigrilli (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks great, and thanks @Pittigrilli for the extra context!  Yee no   (talk) 🍁 17:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Appreciate the barnstar, thanks for your help when I was starting out! Yee no   (talk) 🍁 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Bad Batch Article
I wrote a lot on the bad batch article. You removed it because I did not cite a source. But I did not get any info from a source. I have just watched the show about 10 times. If you check all the info is correct. I understand I need a source though, should I just put myself as the source? I would love to get my writing back up, please tell me how Puppies$Toasters999 (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Saudi telecom company group (STC Group)
Hello Yeeno,

The Saudi Telecom Company operates in telecommunications in Saudi Arabia

STC Group operates in Saudi Arabia via STC Saudi Arabia, Kuwait via STC Kuwait and Oman via STC channels, Bahrain via Stc Bahrain, Malaysia via STC Asia, Turkey via STC Turkey, and operates in communications and cybersecurity via advanced technology & cybersecurity company and electronic banking via STC Bank STC Pay — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEN6 (talk • contribs)
 * Hey : It looks like most sources refer to the two as the same thing, so it might be better to just merge the information about the holding group into the existing STC page. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

John Oliver
Sorry, I should have looked more closely at the edit history, but it wasn't clear from your edit summary that you were reverting an IP fiddle. Thanks for cleaning up. Pipsally (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pipsally: No problem, I should have made my edit summary clearer. Thanks for reaching out. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 06:33, 7 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.

RE Titan Spectator Deletion Request
I’ve gone ahead and added more context to the page The Titan Spectator. This is my first page and I think all the pieces are there to meet the WP:NME. Please provide with feedback.Alecpalm (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Alecpalm: I appreciate the work you've put into this article. Unfortunately, the North West Scholastic Press Association award itself is not a notable award, as it is not covered in any secondary sources (See Category:American journalism awards for some that are). Thus, the publication itself still does not meet NME supplement (not guideline, as I've been corrected) or the Notability guidelines for organizations. As I and other editors have suggested, the best way to cover this student paper would be a merge to the West Salem High School (Salem, Oregon) article, where it can have its own section dedicated to the paper, containing this information. Nonetheless, we'll have to wait for the deletion process to play out, and see if other editors develop a consensus on what to do.
 * Also, a word of caution: if you are connected with the subject in any way, you have to disclose this, as it may constitute a conflict of interest. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 20:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Can the secondary source cover the award itself? Or does it have to cover the specific awarding of the award. If that makes sense.Alecpalm (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Alecpalm: Preferably, the secondary source should cover the awarding to the paper. However, the issue is that the award itself is not significant; there's a different between an award by a local association and the Pulitzer Prize, for example. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 20:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess I am failing to see how this article does not meet Notability guidelines for organizations. I have provided 5 secondary, significant, independent and reliable sources. These articles are not trivial mentions. I think this coverage meets the guidelines of WP:ORGDEPTH. I guess i'm just curious what more editors here expect to meet this? Alecpalm (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Alecpalm: Thanks for bringing this up, I was under the impression you were still staking notability on the award. With those five sources, it does look like the article meets the general notability guidelines, which is sufficient. There might be concerns over your reliance on local sources per AUD, which states local sources alone cannot demonstrate notability. I would advise you present your argument and continue this discussion on the article's AfD page, so other editors can weigh in. If they believe the sources are sufficient, then the article can be kept.  Yee no   (talk) 🍁 23:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I went ahead and addressed WP:AUD in my post on Articles for deletion/The Titan Spectator. Since the WP:AUD states that at least a statewide publication is acceptable the inclusion of the article from The Oregonian should suffice the requirement. Please let me know what you think. Alecpalm (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 20:18:53, 8 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Curtcaster
I have an article that is being rejected for "lack of in depth coverage". The article includes several of those as reference. HOWEVER, Wikipedia's guidelines for entertainers states that to meet the criteria "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." saying nothing about media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jaime_Adler

She has had a primary role in major theater productions in London and been nominated as Best Actress in the Olivier Awards which is the British version of the Tony Awards, the highest recognition in professional theater. She clearly meets criteria.

How do I appeal this rejection?

Thank you.

Curtcaster (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Curtcaster (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Curtcaster: How the subject is covered in secondary sources determines if her roles significant or not. Even her role in The Nether, which you mention as a major role, has little support from sources. Of the six citations given, only two give a one sentence mention, while the rest only list her name in a list of cast members or in a caption. None of the sources cover her nomination for the Olivier Award (which is a good start, but not something you can stake notability on; see WP:ANYBIO, which requires a win or multiple nominations). It is also worth mentioning that the nomination was shared with other supporting cast members, which diminishes the case for individual notability. I think the subject has potential to be notable, but judging by the lack of significant coverage by secondary sources, it may be simply too soon to merit an article at this point in her career. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to the Arthur der Weduwen AfC
Nice work - I've learned quite a bit from tracking those edits - Really appreciated. (Not 100% sure this is the right way to register appreciation - but here it is)

Gilgamesh4 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! There's no single way to show appreciation on Wikipedia, though people often like to send WikiLove which are fun little things like cookies or medals. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 21:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles discussed by external media
Thanks for this edit. Is there a tool that you use to detect external discussions of Wikipedia articles? (Or did you read my post on Wikipedia Weekly?) Deryck C. 16:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Deryck Chan: I wish I had such a tool, but I just saw the article as a regular reader of Hong Kong Free Press. I should probably thank you instead because it was awesome seeing you interviewed on there and offering a Wikipedia perspective. Keep it up! Yee no   (talk) 🍁 17:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Contest Deletion
I understand that this article is very small but if you give me a few more days I can make it bigger and more attractive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarav2104 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi : As of now there is no indication that the subject is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. If you want to work on an article without it being deleted, consider using the draftspace (e.g. expanding what you already have at Draft:Sanaar Crafts). Thanks! Yee no   (talk) 🍁 06:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * According to me this article that I have created is not small, even in a newspaper some of the articles are even smaller than this and wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and an encyclopedia has many small articles most are big but some are small so you can't just say that every small article is useless. I did not read in terms that an article should be very long. And on the other hand if you say that this is useless information and nobody wants to know about a company, than there are many articles of companies in wikipedia because I have read them, such as amazon's article, Microsoft article, India mart article, etc. I want to tell that this article is small but not useless. Many people will be able to know about the company from this and this is not for advertisement purposes, this is just for telling people about a company. There are many articles of companies to tell about them, they are not to advertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarav2104 (talk • contribs)
 * I said nothing about your article being too short. The main problem is, and I mentioned this in my earlier message, is that the article does not show the subject is notable, or important enough to be included on Wikipedia. You need to demonstrate notability through citing reliable sources (newspapers, reliable websites). Please keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion or advertising. This means that if no secondary sources know or care about the company, then it is not your job to "tell people" about it on Wikipedia. There are articles on Amazon and Microsoft because, as it happens, secondary sources also write about those companies. We only reflect what secondary sources say. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 18:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Photo for Doug bowser
Can you see any usable photo of noa ceo doug bowser? Trying to look for one for edits. Thanks! Aalji (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau
Hi, I noticed that you recently edited the Justin Trudeau Wikipedia article. Please read the Justin Trudeau talk page, and join the discussion. Thank you,Peerreviewededitor (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Advertising and links
Hi Yeeno,

This was my first interaction with this website and I was playing around with my name. Can you please help me with two things, because I am sure I need to spend hours reading through rules here and maybe I will not find the proper info: - my name on the official ballot is John (Chubby Hubby) Duta as you can check here (Ward 12 - https://www.calgary.ca/election/information-for-voters/candidates.html?district=ward12&officeType=councillor ) so can I put the complete name on the page? - can I put the link to my official page or in order to have a link it needs to be only internal, to another wikipedia page?

Thanks for your time and sorry for any missunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian20 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Since you are editing information about your self, you may want to check out our Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, though something like correcting your name is fairly minor. I've gone ahead and done it for you, since it is supported by a reference, which is key to meet our verifiability policy.
 * As for links, the general rule is that you do not put links to external websites in text, since Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Hence, we mostly use text links to link to other Wikipedia articles which give the reader additional context. To be a subject of an article, you must meet the notability guidelines for people. On the other hand, there are other ways to include external links in articles, one of which can be seen at WP:ELLIST. To do this for your specific article, however, would require discussion with other editors, since it would need to include the website of every single candidate to avoid benefiting any specific candidate. I hope that clear things up, but please let me know if you have any other questions!  Yee no   (talk) 🍁 02:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

CCI update
Any and all of the work you did and will do in the future at CCI is immensely appreciated. Sennecaster ( Chat ) 12:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Kumuda OS Page Deletion Enquiry
Respected Yeeno, Everything you mentioned is correct Kumuda OS is not a notable OS & doesn't have any discussions as of yet.... but there is a valid reason for that, Kumuda OS has been Officially released 2 days ago & it's obvious that I can't build audience within 2 days, I need some time to complete my website & to create & advertise on social media, so I would appreciate it if you didn't delete the wiki page. Savans3v (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Savans3v: Thank you for understanding the notability guidelines. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a means for promotion. You will have to grow your users by advertising somewhere else. Best, Yee no   (talk) 🍁 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed content
Hi,

you removed content I've added to Forest High School (Florida) I do have a :source But IDK how to get the content back in order to put source so if you could help me out how to undue removal. Tnx in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanzu (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Ivanzu: If you want to restore information that was reverted, you can find it in the page history, which is right beside the "Edit" button on the top right. You can then find your revision (when you wrote the text) and click on the date, which will take you to the page as it was when the information was there. The information can then be copied and placed wherever you like. I suggest you experiment with sourcing in your sandbox first, before adding the information back onto the page. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing! Yee no   (talk) 🍁 00:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Object Management Group Logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Object Management Group Logo.svg. 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) 17:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply
I don't think that It was a necessary to delete a link. I just wanted to help people see a serial of a actor in his encyclopedia page. MuhammadMuzamilSoomro (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Deluxe Corporation edit request
Hello Yeeno, this Jeremy from the public relations firm Cookerly on behalf of our client Deluxe Corporation. You helped with an edit request for the Deluxe Corporation article a while back. I proposed some changes to the article's History section here and was wondering if you'd be willing to continue review of that edit? You mentioned you would return to make the other changes at a later time. Thanks! JeremyJuhasz (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ian Manuel
Hello, Yeeno. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ian Manuel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:GeForce Experience
Hello, Yeeno. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:GeForce Experience, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Mainstreet Research updates
Yeeno, the citation to the Mainstreet Research page that was posted says it is "original research" yet every entry from the company history that was posted directly referenced the wikipedia page that contains the polling for each election that is referenced. I'm unclear why users are insisting on posting history of what is called "Sampling Controversy" when no other firms reference pages cite similar incidents. And conversely, why internally referenced polling history that is accurate was removed? I'm just an amateur at wikipedia so perhaps I'm not familiar with how references work but surely linking to another independently verified wikipedia page that contains the public opinion polling summary of all firms including Mainstreet, should be considered a reliable source. I'd like to ask that this be escalated. I've had to edit this page on this matter multiple times and its simply not coincidental that people keep posting about this with the same information, it feels like an unfair personal attack on this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontlib20 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Ontlib20. I understand our guidelines can be confusing, so I'll try to keep this simple.
 * To address your first concern about the polling data, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, so we shouldn't use Wikipedia articles to support claims in another article. Even if we use polling results from a reliable source, say a newspaper article, we still cannot use those results to support the polling company's accuracy. The article only provides the data; it is not up to us editors to analyze, evaluate, interpret the data, which would be original research. Instead, we leave this to secondary sources, which we can cite if they make analysis such as saying "The data shows that this firm has been accurate 9/10 times". You can take a look at Citing sources for some more detailed information on how to cite sources.
 * With regard to the Controversy section, though I agree with you that it is larger than sections on other polling firms, the section is simply a reflection of what was widely reported by reliable sources about the company at the time. If you disagree with this, rather than removing the section, I suggest you find some sourced information to balance it out, which would also improve the article overall. I am not very familiar with the option research industry, but trade magazines can be a good source when looking for information about companies. Moreover, you can also comment at the article's talk page to discuss the page's contents with other editors.
 * Let me know if you have any other questions, and have a great day! Yee no   (talk) 🍁 18:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @yeeno Thanks for the clarification, I'm not an expert at wikipedia. I am a Canadian researcher that knows a bit about this area, if I have to declare a conflict because I know people at the firm in question, happy to do that too but my edits are fair. How can the only history of a firm being referenced be 2 polling misses and exclude dozens or hundreds of other polls they got correct. I've left the sections about the misses as well and referenced the report that were mentioned to clarify what they actually reported. I doubt the last editor took the time to read the report to validate what had been written. I think it is much more balanced now. I continue to disagree that those sections are at all consistent with content about other firms. I'm unclear why a foreign editor's opinion would take precedence over a Canadian who works in this field but like I said, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia. Ontlib20 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yeeno&action=edit&section=6

Hi again @Yeeno. You've removed the reference to the report that is cited as "not reliable". If the original report that was published on which the media articles referenced by the previous editor can't be used as reliable, I would suggest the sections be removed in their entirety since the source core you've deemed unreliable. I understand that it may be dry reading for a 70 page report. That link is the same link used by the author who is cited. How can the story be considered credible and not the report it links too? This is a ridiculous process.Ontlib20 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not say that the report was unreliable; its findings are used in the sources cited, and I've also added a part directly referencing the report. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 19:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That is what the edit log said, that the source was unrealiable. Please take 5 minutes to read the Execcutive Summary at the very minimum, it clearly states that 1) "We heard that the polls impacted the outcome of the election", nowhere does it actually conclude that, the authors of the report are quoting people they interviewed. The author of the story and the previous editor are wrong. 2. "The other problem originated from the use of interactive voice response (IVR) calls, which may have overweighed the few responses of lesser contacted demographics", that is not at all what the report says. It says on page 28 and again in the conclusion that the use of Directory phone lists and not RDD was the source of the problem. If you're going to allow foreign editors with 0 knowledge of polling or Canadian politics to edit this page, these incorrect citing will continue. Please find an editor who knows the industry. ThanksOntlib20 (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Last thing @yeeno because this part really confuses me "Controversy section, though I agree with you that it is larger than sections on other polling firms". I've repeatedly said this section is inconsistent with other firms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Reid_(entrepreneur)#Angus_Reid_Institute, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekos_Research_Associates, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus_Data, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_Research, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanos_Research. Those are the other Canadian polling firms that have a Wikipedia entry, they all have major polling misses that were heavily criticized at the time. Please point me to even a single reference to a miss or sampling error section among any Canadian pollster, there are none. ,, . , , , Ontlib20 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Ontlib20: There is nothing stopping anyone from adding a major polling error or any other information to a company's article, so the content of other articles should not be used to justify the inclusion or removal of this section. Instead, we can look to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which says that "articles and pages [should] fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Looking at the coverage of Mainstreet Research in the news media, it seems that a lot of it came during that 2017 error, while there seems to be little significant coverage of other aspects of the company, such as its polling successes or other history. Now I agree that's totally unfair, but unfortunately Wikipedia cannot right great wrongs; what we can do is report what sources say about the company, which is why I suggested taking a look at trade magazines, which may cover the more mundane aspects of the company. However, you're definitely free to change the content if you don't think it accurately reflects what the source says, as long as you adhere to a neutral point of view. Thanks, Yee no   (talk) 🍁 20:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

ok @yeeno your latest comment only confirms that you need to review this with other editors. I am uncertain if you are Canadian or familiar with Canadian politics, you've admitted to not being familiar with Public Opinion Research. First, NO, the firm Mainstreet Research is quoted in the media about their work regularly, both before and after the 2017 sampling error that is referenced in their description. As a Canadian who works in this field and does brand reporting regularly. Since 2014, I'd have to guess they have 25-200 media mentions a month. I can tell you they have one of the strongest and most recognized brands in Canada in this field. Over 1 million social media views, nearly 6 million media views per month on. Don't take my word for it, do a Google Trends search, or a Google Alert search, or look at any one of dozens of media reach platforms that track this like I understand you have lots of areas to cover and you are trying to stick to rules that other editors certainly know better than me, but in this case, you really are going to need to take 5 minutes (each) to 1. read the report that is referenced in the original edit regarding the sampling error. 2. Follow the links in the History section I posted, hundreds and hundreds of Mainstreet polls are cited in those pages (perhaps over 1000). 3. Search Google for Mainstreet poll or some similar search, there are thousands and thousands of media mentions, the few that reference the sampling error that are linked in that section represent a miniscule fraction of their work. If you won't take the time to do those things, please escalate this. I'm posting below just what I've found on Mainstreet polls for the past few weeks. Please take the time to do the work or hand this off. I will wait for your response, then make my edits. Please reach out to the active Wikipedia poll followers who post these polls to Wikipedia every time they release one, they can certainly inform you of the scope of their work before you delete 10 years of polling coverage and allow a section on their two poll misses. ,, , , , , , , , Ontlib20 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Squidville
Hello, Yeeno. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Squidville, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Squidville


Hello, Yeeno. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Squidville".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to s1mple
Hello, I saw your wording changes to my section that I created for 2021. I understand that you want to make the article more easier to understand to a general audience, however, is it not safe to assume that a person reading s1mple's page would at least have the most basic knowledge of Counter-Strike? Also removing the superlative preceding his 1.83 rating I believe is unjustified, as rarely during a major does any player post such a high rating against what many to be regarded as a fairly decent team (Gambit). Look forward to your reply. Obama gaming (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Obama gaming, thanks for expanding the page. Like you said, Wikipedia is for a general audience, so we should assume that people of all backgrounds (in this case, maybe older folks or non-FPS players, wondering what the heck is a s1mple) will read any article, and try to avoid jargon, according to the Manual of Style (MOS). I don't think linking the HLTV rating or changing "maps" to "games" (that's essentially what they are in tournaments) will make the article any harder to understand for CS players.
 * With regard to the superlative, the MOS also suggests we avoid flowerly language when possible. It instead tell us to demonstrate the significance of something using facts and attribution. In this case, perhaps we could find an article that says such a rating is abnormally high, and thus worthy of mention. If stated in sources, we can also say something like "the game is widely considered to be one of the best of S1mple's career"; this is okay because we are just summarizing what the sources say. Let me know what you think, and thanks for your contributions! Yee no   (talk) 🍁 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done some digging through HLTV's statistics, and found that actually there was an even higher rating of 2.26 on Mirage vs Gambit, perhaps I should include that, with the proposed sentence reading like this: "posting a rating of 2.26 out of 2.0 against Gambit on Mirage, his highest in the tournament.", and with this link as a reference proceeding it? Appreciate your input. Obama gaming (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Obama gaming: That sounds good, go ahead! Yee no   (talk) 🍁 07:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was directed here by OG and just want to note for future reference that the proposed addition above with just the HLTV stats page as a source is probably WP:SYNTH. This piece does note the 2.26, so I've adjusted the sentence to use that reference instead of the stat page. Alyo  (chat·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 00:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alyo: I was thinking that picking the highest stat would be a simple calculation, but I guess the notability of the stat needs to be supported elsewhere. Thanks for finding that source. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 02:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, it's more the framing of that stat in relation to the MVP award, especially since most other sources I could see about the tournament discuss HLTV ratings in the context of matches or stages, not single tournaments. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan
You can not say Taiwan is a country, it is an island controlled by the government of the Republic of China in Taipei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingzhen Wu (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mingzhen Wu: There has been a very comprehensive discussion of this over at Talk:Taiwan/Archive_30, which determined Wikipedia will refer to the entity on that island as "Taiwan" and a country. This is a binding decision made by community consensus. You are free to open another discussion on this, but please do not go around changing various Taiwan related pages to what you think it should be; this will get you blocked, as other editors have already warned you. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 01:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan is a part of the Republic of China. You should learn the history. China is the People's Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingzhen Wu (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Basically the exact same discussion is happening on my talk by the same user, would appreciate comments there.  Just ' i ' yaya  01:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingzhen Wu (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: Red Flag Deals
They are notorious for banning members for arbitrary reasons, and are hostile when you approach them about any banning. They're much worse than youtube, facebook and Twitter this way. I'll work on a Censorship and Banning section and get back to it later. The quote, btw, was what she actually said to me in an email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.158.192 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Professional Esports Association
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)