user talk:theleekycauldron

This talk page is archived.
To browse the archives, press "Show" and select the month of posts you want to view.

2020 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move, so it's leeky's turn – check back later! (last mover: CopperyMarrow15)

Inbox

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Sometimes messages slip through the cracks. Sorry about that! I keep this list to let me know what I still need to respond to – feel free to add your own name and message here if you're still looking for a response from me.

05:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC) fill out your thing at WP:REFLECTIONS – House Blaster (talk • he/they)
02:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Make a chess move – House Blaster (talk • he/they)
02:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC) ban houseblaster from my talk page for messing with the inbox format theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 July newsletter

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 14:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKSTATS

The last couple of days, DYKSTATS has reported 0 views for all hooks. Any idea?--Laun chba ller 09:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: As best I can tell, the API just isn't dumping new data? pageviews.wmcloud.org doesn't have the data either, and the vandyke script rewrites the table from scratch on every run, so if it were a parsing error, the entire table would be broken. If it stays broken over the next few days, I'll do a special run to make sure the archives are intact :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back online; the archives are showing the stats for 1 July, but /June redirects back to the main page.--Laun chba ller 09:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinning it to my to-do list to redo the June run :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt(ed) legal DYK

Hey, apologies in advance for bringing you a mountain of work, but I think you might be a decent fit for this, considering your interest in law:

I recently wrote Attempt (German penal code), which passed the initial DYK review. It was pulled by Gatoclass due to concerns about the sources exclusively being primary, which was not the case IMO. There were also discussions at their talk page, my talk page, and RSN. Unfortunately, Gatoclass likely cannot continue to work on this and asked me to look for a different person to follow up with (see my talk page). Would you be willing to do that? No hard feelings if not :) FortunateSons (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, FortunateSons! I don't know that there's much I could do to help, unfortunately – non-American law, especially outside the Anglosphere, is a bit far out of my comfort zone. It's hard for me to feel confident that I'm accurately summarizing a source, and that I've come across all of the right ones, when I'm not searching through familiar databases or in a language I can speak. I must say, though, the Gesetzeskommentare are fascinating – reminds me a lot of the Gemara! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I completely understand. I (surprisingly) believe that this is fine and merely needs to be placed back in the prep area, and that the original issue is now fully resolved. Do you have an idea who would take this hot potato? Is there an admin working on DYK with German and legal knowledge? Maybe Kusma?

Yeah, while law school is regularly killing me, that particular style of legal text is something I like a lot! FortunateSons (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

What did you remove? Maybe email if its sensitive. Polygnotus (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: I removed something that could potentially connect an editor to an off-wiki account – please be mindful of the WP:OUTING policy – but i don't think it was integral to your talk page message. Thanks for letting me know about it, by the way; I'll make sure ArbCom is aware. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, figured it out thanks (I had another tab open so I did a diffcompare). Yeah they did actually post that on Wiki themselves, and denied being that person, so I don't think it would fall under WP:OUTING but yeah its not really a vital part of the evidence so removing it is fine anyway. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you link me to that post I'm happy to reconsider – sometimes it's better safe than sorry with OS, but if it turns out the suppression isn't necessary I'll reverse it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with erring on the side of caution. One of the weirdest situations I've seen on Wikipedia and I just happened to stumble upon it! Do you happen to know if a checkuser can look at the logs of failed logins? Polygnotus (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, really strange! For sure that's something CUs can see, why? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless the login attempts were happening on English Wikipedia, I wouldn't be able to see, and this also isn't exactly my field of expertise – pinging ScottishFinnishRadish to see if they think it's worth a look :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I know that correlation != causation but if you are mad enough to post such accusations... I dunno. Polygnotus (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally cu for that, since we'd have to cu the editor who's account is being targeted so that violates their privacy. Also, if it is who you think it is we can't block them any harder than they're already blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Ok, makes sense. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]