Relativity

Important Information
If you came here from User talk:Rel8ivity, that's me, just my alt account. Please stay civil. I'm not an administrator. I subscribed to the admin newsletter just to see what's going on with recent appointments of admins, CheckUsers, and Oversighters. None of my previous talk conversations are at Archive 1. PLEASE DON'T TEMPLATE ME IT'S INSINCERE ESPECIALLY WHEN I'VE BEEN AROUND HERE Burma-shave

Question from Sozzini2024 on Unitarianism (02:21, 23 August 2024)

Why was the brief history of Unitarian Universalism removed from this page? Why was Whitney Young Removed? --Sozzini2024 (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sozzini2024: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! According to the edit I think you're talking about, apparently it was unrelated to the article. You might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Too much detail. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Pero coo on User talk:Pero coo (01:39, 24 August 2024)

Hello how can I add image to my biography --Pero coo (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Eandvwigle (04:06, 28 August 2024)

Assuming that you are unable to find a citation for something tagged as citation needed, would it be appropriate to replace that information with something similar that you do have a citation to.

Additionally, is it appropriate to directly reference encoded material (such as a law or clause in a constitution) despite it not being academic or scholarly? --Eandvwigle (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eandvwigle: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! It'd be helpful if you can provide a link so I know specifically what you're talking about, so my answer might not perfectly fit what you're asking about. For your first question, I would check how old that citation needed tag is. If it's less than two months old, you probably should keep the information there since removing it would be premature. However, if that citation needed tag has been there for quite some time, I would remove the info and replace it with what you've got. You also might want to leave a message on the talk page saying what information you removed, but that's totally optional.

For your second question, it depends on the situation. (Please read WP:PRIMARY if you want to use that information for something directly on that law or clause itself.) Not all sources that are used on Wikipedia are scholarly or academic. We use news sources, books, etc. So what you're citing doesn't need to be academic or scholarly as long as it's reliable. However, please keep in mind that directly referencing a law of clause in a constitution is a) not going to help you establish notability and b) may put you in danger of one of the things outlined in WP:OR. Use your best judgement and be bold. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment, and at Talk:Black and Tans on a "Warfare" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)