Prisencolin

Dota 2 Asia Championships

I see you created an article about Dota 2 Asia Championships before. However, there is a second season Dota 2 Asia Championships which is Dota 2 Asia Championships 2017. See this link [1]. Can you create an article about Dota 2 Asia Championships 2017 and rewrite Dota 2 Asia Championships to include both detail of Dota 2 Asia Championships 2015 and Dota 2 Asia Championships 2017 like this http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Dota_2_Asia_Championships Miracle dream (talk)

The official PUGB (PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds) World Championship sponsored by developer company Bluehole

Can you create an article for PUBG Global Invitational which featured a 2 million dollars tournament prize pool, see [2][3]. You can get some information from [4], [5] and [6]. The PUBG Global Invitational was the largest tournament for PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. It was sponsored by its developer and publisher, and had a 2 million dollars tournament prize pool.

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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 it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Shanghainese people in Hong Kong

added a link pointing to Sino-Japanese War

Simon Peh

added a link pointing to Anxi

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If you want to talk about CFD

Do so at the debate.

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I posted notices to two relevant WikiProjects, which is allowed explicitly by the CFD guidelines. I may add none of the nominators took this step. I also notified an IP user who participated in a previous related CFD, but was not notified by @Marcocapelle: in created the latest one. Also, please be aware that you are resorting to frequent whataboutisms both right now and in our discussions.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:True Damage

Hello, Prisencolin. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:True Damage, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Akali

Hello, Prisencolin. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Akali, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Shanghainese and Lower Yangtze people in Hong Kong for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Shanghainese and Lower Yangtze people in Hong Kong, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shanghainese and Lower Yangtze people in Hong Kong until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ben Glaser

Hello, Prisencolin. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ben Glaser, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:True Damage

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

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!} 03:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem on List of composers who studied law

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?amp=&article=1031&context=clarkmemorandum, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: hi, thanks for alerting me to this, however I wish to appeal the removal of content on the grounds that the text copied was not prose but a list of papers presented at a conference, which I do not believe is eligible for copyright protection.—Prisencolin (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

But that's not what I removed. I removed a paragraph that started with "The body of literature about the connections between musical composition or performance..." that appears on page 38 of this paper.— Diannaa (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Other than the first two sentences, it is just a list of a dozen papers on their authors. I will remove those two sentences if my revisions are restored.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a bunch of material that's commented out; you did this yourself at 01:26, February 23, 2021, by accident I assume. Open the article for editing to view the missing content.— Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the list of composers, which some people had complained about the inclusion criteria for. You removed a paragraph of text that was largely "Topics included: The Score as Contract: Private Law and the Historically Informed Performance Movement... "[7]--Prisencolin (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like this:

Symposium, Modes of Law: Music and Legal Theory- an interdisciplinary Workshop, 20 Cardozo L Rev 1325 (1999) TOpics included: The Score as Contract: Priate Law and the Historically Informed Perfomrance Movement, Music THeory as. Mode of Law, Musion Folk, a Common on Law and Music, and Origins of the Game Theory of Law and the Limits of Harmony of Plato's Laws Earlier writers also explored the music metaphor. See Jerome Frank, WOrds and Music, Some Remarks on Statutory Interpretations 47 Colum L Rev 1259 (1947); Richard Posner, Bork and beethoven 42, Stan L Rev, 1365 (1990); Sanford Levinson & J.M. Balkin, Law, Music, and Other Performing Art, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1597 (1991)"<ref name="Scharffs"/>

The sentence "Earlier writers also explored the music metaphor" is also copyright. I am not going to restore - some of it is copyright and to add the list-like material without context or explanation makes no sense. And the italics are all wrong. Spelling errors, other typos. It needs too much work. — Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Resource Exchange

Hey there Prisencolin, just following up on your requests on the resource exchange (Emigrant Entrepreneurs; Widescreen; Levinson). Do you have what you need such that these can be marked as resolved? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Everything has been fulfilled, thanks for following up.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Text from Category:Shanghinese emigrants to Hong Kong

Emigrants from Shanghai and nearby regions in Jiangnan as seen in this article: Chen, Frank (December 21, 2015). "Shanghainese in Hong Kong: a tale of two cities". EJ Insight. Hong Kong Economic Journal.:

For the first time Hong Kong saw a robust inflow of people from outside Canton, many of whom were businessmen from Shanghai, who fled communist rule after they were tagged as members of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie and their homes and assets confiscated. British Hong Kong became their port of refuge.

Together with their business acumen, Shanghai tycoons and small factory owners marshaled their capital southward, and in the next decade they gained their footing in Hong Kong when the territory took flight as an emerging manufacturing base for textiles, toys and other light industries since the early 1960s.

In the following decades business gurus from Shanghai and its neighboring urban centers like Ningbo, Suzhou and Wuxi scaled new heights in Hong Kong.

Ningbo-born Sir Run Run Shaw moved his family’s film operations from Shanghai to Hong Kong before the Japanese invasion and founded the Shaw Brothers Studio and subsequently TVB.

So did Shaw’s townsman Pao Yue-kong (包玉剛) who went to Hong Kong in 1949, having managed to remit much of the family's assets and money from Shanghai before events made that impossible.

Pao later inaugurated his shipping empire and became Hong Kong’s richest man in the 1980s as the territory’s first businessman of truly international stature.

Pao’s son-in-law Peter Woo Kwong-ching later became chairman of Wharf Holdings and Wheelock & Co. Shipping magnate Tung Chao-yung was also from Shanghai, whose elder son Tung Chee-hwa became the city’s first chief executive post 1997.

Teo, Stephen (1997). Hong Kong Cinema: The Extra Dimensions.:

Although the standard line in cinema history books published in China states that Hong Kong cinema only produced ' national defence movies ' as a result of the infusion of Shanghai émigrés such as Cai Chusheng, Tang Xiaodan, Su Yi (蘇怡), Situ Huimin

..

The majority were Mandarin movies directed by and starring ex Shanghai luminaries such as Zhu Shilin, Yue Feng, Wang Yin, Butterfly Wu, Zhou Xuan, Yuan Meiyun (all of whom had worked in Shanghai during the 'Orphan Island' days and through the Pacific War) ...

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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 it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Unicorn Ridge

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

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease has been nominated for deletion

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Akali

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

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!} 19:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Harassment

If you continue to cast aspersions on me, I will report you to WP:ANI. I have been subjected to racial/ethnic attacks at WP. While I have WP:AGF, your baseless snipes belie that assumption. The next move is yours. If you continue on this path I can no longer AGF in your actions and assume you are up to no good. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've been subject to racial/ethnic attacks but that's something that doesn't apply in my case so I don't know why you've brought it up here. My concern is that you're just typing the same things over and over, and in this discussion, you just ignored the existence of sources. WP:BEFORE might not directly apply to categories, but you can't act like the sentiment isn't relevant to category discussions.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tangwai movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dupont.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virtus.pro

Template:Virtus.pro has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pbrks (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Hong Kong people of Wu descent

A tag has been placed on Category:Hong Kong people of Wu descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ben Glaser

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

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"All Asians look the same" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect All Asians look the same. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 17#All Asians look the same until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tempo Storm

Template:Tempo Storm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pbrks (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sandstein 21:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Lee Teng-hui

added a link pointing to Tingzhou

Seah Eu Chin

added a link pointing to Gambier

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2021 National People's Congress

Hello, Prisencolin,

Thank you for creating 2021 National People's Congress.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Dates given don’t make sense

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mccapra}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shanghainese people in Hong Kong

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong 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 ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shanghainese people in Hong Kong

The article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Shanghainese people in Hong Kong for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chen Bijun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DreamHack logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DreamHack logo.png. 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) 17:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruption at League of Legends

Attempting to send League of Legends, a recently promoted FA, to GAR is beyond disruptive. Your dissatisfaction with how the article has evolved is well noted, as well as the fact many of your spin out fan articles have been merged or deleted. Its time to leave this topic alone, or I'll go ahead and block you for disruption. -- ferret (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't touched the article for months. In any case the article shouldn't have been promoted. It's not disruptive to request reassessment, I wish to revert your remove of the tag but I won't do so until I'm sure it's okay for me to do so.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You had every opportunity to have involved yourself in the FAC, you were editing at the time and active. GAR is not even the proper process, this is an FA, not a GA. Certainly nothing has drastically changed in the article (or in relation to the topic) since the FAC concluded that would warrant a reassessment. That you disagree with the fact it was promoted at all is not grounds for reassessment. -- ferret (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:VOLUNTARY you can't unilaterally object to my reassessment but because I wasn't involved in the assessment process to begin with.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • If you are not even going to follow proper guidelines for a FAR, I certainly can, especially with your history at this topic area. FAR requires listing the issues with the article and allowing time for them to be addressed before reassessment is opened. You've failed to do this. And the ultimate goal at FAR is to resolve the issues, not delist. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

      Featured article status is granted by community consensus, so to withdraw it you will need to show the community does not still believe it is an FA. That process can be reviewed at WP:FAR. If you wish to pursue that option, I wish you good luck. You will likely be seen as disruptive given the recency with which the topic was promoted, but you are still free to pursue that option. Izno (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

      • I didn't plan on the timing of my recent action; I had no idea it was even FA since I don't usually visit the main page and I just happened to check the LoL article on a whim today and noticed the star.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • You Talk:League of Legends#Bloat quite clearly were aware it was at FAC in February, and the top of the talk page also clearly denotes that it passed. Let's not play these games. -- ferret (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
          • I don't even know what you're insinuating here but yes, now that I think about it I had known there was an evaluation for some kind of featured status. I will admit that I don't really understand the differences between "Featured" and "good", but that's irrelevant. It's not my intention to "snipe" anyone's hard work from being recognized if that's what you're suggesting. The timing has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 19, 2021. --Prisencolin (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
            • @Ferret: Well today's discussions appear to have veered every which direction. Can I ask that the topic be put up for GAR without risk of some kind of "ban for disruption"? I don't believe any sort of consensus is required just for nomination.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
              • The discussion seems to be veering in one single direction, actually. No, why would I tell you that you can put the article up for a GAR? As you've been repeatedly told, GAR is the wrong process, this is a Featured Article. WP:FAR requires several weeks of efforts to resolve the issues before the formal assessment begins. It requires far more than sticking a template on the talk page, including that you (the nominator) outline exactly what is wrong with the article and why it falls short of FA requirements. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Alright apologies for being unable to wade through the WP:BUREAUCRACY of Wikipedia. I will proceed at WP:FAR.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • This isn't about wading bureaucracy. You have been directly told 3-4 times today by various editors. -- ferret (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • Prisencolin, no, do not proceed to FAR, or I will block you indefinitely. You are about to be, at the very very least, topic banned from that article, so you will be unable to followup on the nomination. Proceeding to FAR, in the face of overwhelming resistance at ANI, the article talk page, etc, will be considered disruptive editing after a clear warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
                    • Alright what am I to do then. This is a terrible incomplete article that is about to proceed to the highest levels of recognition on this project. I can't see this happen. As far as I know topic bans don't preclude someone from discussing the related articles in other namespaces. I don't know who you are and how you're involved in this discussion but from what I've gather @Ferret: isn't even objecting to my nomination so you're blocking is unreasonable, and there's not even an edit war going on.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
                      • You've been misrepresenting your position throughout this entire discussion, that you didn't know it was an FA, that the GAR had nothing to do with it's upcoming TFA, etc. The latest statement makes it pretty clear that it does. I never even brought up the TFA, before you did and talked about "sniping" recognition, which neither I nor Izno said anything about. I absolutely object to you attempting to FAR this, and a topic ban applies everywhere. Once you are topic banned from video games (or just League of Legends), you are not allowed to discuss or edit them on Wikipedia, period. -- ferret (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
                        • Well it's on you for allowing subpart content to proceed on this project. If this is the last time we speak, so be it. Good day to you.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
                      • (e/c) You are going to have to let it go. It is now someone else's problem. The community clearly thinks you need to be topic banned from video games; maybe they'll relent and make it just a topic ban from this one article, but I kind of doubt it. A topic ban means you can't discuss the topic in any namespace. See WP:Topic ban. That's why you need to listen to multiple editors frequently telling you to stop being disruptive; eventually the community's patience is exhausted, and you end up not being able to contribute to the topic area at all. We'll have to wait to see what kind of topic ban the community decides on (or whether you're banned from Wikipedia altogether, which seems to have some traction), but it's clear that at the very least you're going to have to leave this article completely alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
                        • This is the first time I've even been editing the topic of video games in months, I'm not sure why there's some kind of uproar over tbanning me at this moment. I will admit the ANI was a little bit of an overstep, but Ferret admits his ban threat was as well. Somebody needs to remove the FA on this article in my place.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)