Hosta

8 June 2024
News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023 Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024 Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth Featured content: We didn't start the wiki Essay: No queerphobia Special report: RetractionBot is back to life! Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer Comix: The Wikipediholic Family Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox Concept: Palimpsestuous
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Thank you for closing the discussion regarding the political position of the GOP. However, I would like you to clarify your comment regarding the "ranges of believes": do you mean that the position should simply be "right-wing" without mentioning that parts of the party are centre-right and far-right, or did you mean something else with that?

Cortador (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador that's exactly what I meant - I can clarify that bit in my statement if it didn't quite come across as that! Mdann52 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful. Thank you again. Cortador (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about clarification in that close, you note "as stated in and supported by reliable sources...as long as backed up by the relevant sources". Does that mean you find consensus in the discussion that the sources do back it up, or are you merely reminding everyone of the general applicability of WP:RS/WP:BURDEN? DMacks (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: - I don't recall any mention of sources in that discussion, so I haven't considered them, and hence that caveat. If there had been discussion of sourcing, I would have worded it more like "as backed up by the sources cited below" or similar, but there was no discussion of sources so I deemed that appropriate for another discussion (and that represented the consensus from those who !voted). Regardless, I don't think it would be correct in that sort of discussion for a closer to unilaterally decide what sources were reliable or not. So yes, it was just a reminder of "this RfC doesn't trump WP:V". Mdann52 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw you edited the past winner section of this wikipedia article. However, I think it's cooler the wikipedia page shows the flags of the winners, that way it's nice to see people from other countries who've won it.

Thanks in advance for eventually re changing this 178.51.60.97 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for reaching out! Just to clarify, however, Wikipedia prefers not using flags under such circumstances as the competetors are not representing a country - MOS:FLAG is the guidelines on this, hence their removal. thanks for your interest however! Mdann52 (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matt for your guidance and help. It means a lot for me as a new Wikipedian. Techy.Sap (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For bringing back RetractionBot to life. It's so good to have it back. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! First of all thanks for your comments on the Grand Cadaver draft. It surely improved it a lot! I have updated it with more sources, but before I resubmit it could you take a look at it? I don't know how strictly the "If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted." rule is applied, hence I want to be cautious! The Space Stout (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Space Stout: don't worry about that warning too much - that's more for the blatent cases where articles don't meet the standards we have or where they are obviously promoting something! I'll have a better look later this evening, but I'd recommend trying to remove and replace the sources to www.metal-archives.com - it looks user-generated, so isn't really considered reliable. Just thinking aloud here - do you know if there's any additional coverage/reviews/attention in Sweedish sources at all? You can include non-English sources to meet our guidelines! Especially if they show they meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND. Mdann52 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: I see. In general the www.metal-arcives.com is usually the go-to place for the metal community, but yes, you are right that it is user-generated, and I'm unaware whether there is some kind of review process before publishing. In any case, as I was using it solely as a reference to the other bands of the members I'll try to find other sources. Thanks for your help! The Space Stout (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I unreviewed Qeshm earthquake with a mis-click. Please feel free to mark it as reviewed again. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]