User talk:ULPS

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|ULPS}}), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Quantum Parxexia proposes a novel approach to human consciousness. By merging quantum physics with philosophy, it suggests that consciousness is not merely a product of the brain but rather an interaction with the quantum nature of existence. Particle entanglement and superposition of thoughts are some phenomena highlighting the relationship between consciousness and quantum nature. Through this synergy, new understandings of the human soul and its evolution are unveiled. Alexandros Vougiatzis (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to ULPS for accumulating at least 5 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think all the AFCR song redirects shouldve been anchored to the table NotAGenious (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the track listing? Typically people just redirect songs to the album articles (that's what I've usually seen and it's what I've always done) but I guess you could anchor them to the track listing ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ULPS!

I appreciate you reviewing After 7 (Lay Bankz album). Was wondering if I could get some help with reviewing these pages that are stuck in the queue? (No problem if there's too much on your plate!)

- Bludnymph

- Snow Wife

- Drew Louis

- Heatwave (Bronze Avery album)

Thank you,

- Sovenfire3982 Sovenfire3982 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how your edit to the Anecdotal Evidence page is helpful. You stated that I did not cite a necessary source. The article as it stands now does not cite sources for many of its claims.

In addition, you reverted the article to a state where only one community of people are considered, that of scientists, when anecdotal evidence figures in to far more topics.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here. I am going to revert the article. If you can state which parts are unsourced or need to be sourced, as well as why certain parts of the revert are not sourced, I would be happy to follow any guidelines.

Thanks.

-Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:A18E:6D23:2A5E:8FC4 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that the page as it is is not perfect. However, it does cite some sources, whereas yours did not at all. Also, yours is not written according to Wikipedia's MOS. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues that I have with the article:

Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. There is no citation for this claim, no reference for it, and it does violence to the entire concept of anecdotal evidence. First of all, ALL evidence is based on personal observation from the perspective of epistemology. The only exception is deduction of logic. So this statement does not help the reader and misinforms the reader that anecdotal evidence is somehow different from other evidence in the respect that it is "observed personally". How is evidence observed impersonally, for instance? This is a terrible explanation.

collected in a causal or non-systematic manner This again, is a poor definition. What is meant by "causal"? What does this add to the opening remarks? It just confuses the reader. "Non-systematic" manner does not mean that something is anecdotal, nor does "systematic" prove that evidence is not anecdotal. Biographies, for example are Anectodal Evidence, but they are systematic. Random sampling isn't systematic, but it is not anecdotal.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are highly regulated[1] in some jurisdictions.

This is a poorly worded and non-sequitor statement. A section needs to be made and expanded for Anecdotal Evidence in marketing.

When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value

There is no source cited here, and anecdotal evidence is NOT generally regarded as limited in value EXCEPT by certain portions of the scientific community. For example, eyewitness testimony in legal trials (which is a form of anecdotal evidence) is the MOST CONVINCING to a jury, even above scientific evidence.

Anecdotal Evidence is the modus operendi of the realm of Law, Journalism, History, Psychology and regular human behavior and it is NOT "generally regarded as limited in value". This is clearly an opinion statement from a very small group which is not representative of the use of anecdotal evidence by general society. Also NO SOURCE is cited for this!

due to a number of potential weaknesses,

Anecdotal evidence does not have "weaknesses" nor is it weaker. It has less aspects of intellectual vigor, meaning there are less safeguards in place to prevent incorrect, inaccurate of fabricated data. This does not mean that all anecdotal evidence is weaker.

but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, 

Anecdotal evidence cannot be empirical as those terms are polar opposites. Verifying anecdotal evidence with empiricism does not turn anecdotal evidence into empiricism. It's simply two wholly different methods which agree.

All of these claims and statements, again, are WP Opinion, or are just simply wrong. I could go on, but I hope you see my point.

I agree on some (the legal one seems wrong to me, could've sworn this is the opposite.) Good thing we need sources! If you can back up your claims with sources, I don't think anyone would object :) The issue with your rewrite were that which I stated earlier. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I'm not clear what statements need sources and which do not. Many of the statements in the article have no source attribution. If it's necessary to source each and every claim and statement, that's fine, but that's not what I see in wikipedia articles. 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:A18E:6D23:2A5E:8FC4 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is anything that could reasonably be challenged should have a source. (So, you don't need to source the obvious fact that the sky is blue.) Also, as a lede is a summary of the article body, you may not see citations in the lede. This is because it is assumed it is summarizing the body, which does have citations backing up whatever info is in the lede. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July 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. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Im kinda new to editing so my bad 79.186.243.104 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we all make mistakes! Generally, the easiest way to check if a song is actually a single vs just a song is to see if it was released on streaming separately from an album it's on. For example Not Like Us is released on streaming as its own song under the "Not Like Us - Single" release, whereas Watch the Party Die isn't even on streaming. Not a definite rule, sometimes things are radio only singles and you'll have to check, but if the song isn't titled/on streaming it's almost never a single. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Untitled Kendrick Lamar song has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 14 § Untitled Kendrick Lamar song until a consensus is reached. Roasted (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Untitled Kendrick Lamar song (2024) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20 § Untitled Kendrick Lamar song (2024) until a consensus is reached. Roasted (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 2024 Untitled Kendrick Song has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20 § 2024 Untitled Kendrick Song until a consensus is reached. Roasted (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
• MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
• Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

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 2025 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]