This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Prevented checking of constraints on "Wikidata property example" statements (phabricator:T183267)
Added link to the property's talk page to the constraint violation dialog to guide people there to discuss the constraint if necessary (phabricator:T164351)
Monthly Tasks
Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
Netherlands report: Historical aerial photographs from the Ministry of Defense; Texts on Dutch philosophers released under free license; Wikipedia manual; Images from Erfgoedhuis Zuid-Holland
Serbia report: Two Serbian museums welcomed their first Wikipedians in Residence
Voting keep out of spite, because you're not a fan.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
C'mon, give the creator some credit, they also listed Willie! That's 5. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 22:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed they did, 78.26, and I am sorry for my omission of Willie - blessed be his name. I notice that List of prolific songwriters lists Mr. Nelson as having written 337 songs but has a link to List of songs written by Willie Nelson which lists 351 songs. As you said "un-maintainable". SamSailor 23:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@EEng: Not if people try to learn how to behave and follow PaGs. Sure, my ES was less than subtle and did not reflect the details of WP:TPO, but their removal of your question, a question that is reasonable in the context, for a second time in Special:Diff/821829320/821829986 is in clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of TPO. On a second thought a clean rollback and a {{uw-tpv2}} on the user's talk page would have been in order. The fact that they had no edits to SH's talk page prior to yesterday, and previously had a beef with Nagualdesign, speaks for itself. Much time could be saved here, if some people cultivated a sense of when to butt into conversations and when to simply stick to their own business. SamSailor 15:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
You do know I was kidding you, right? EEng 15:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Mmmmmmm... beeeef.nagualdesign 15:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, and the little I know about you is that you are super witty. I was merely covering my back if the correctness police is still updating their secret file on my wrongdoings. :) SamSailor 15:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I see that Yaḥyā has finally found something productive to do where he might actually know what he's talking about. I'd appreciate it if you, Sam, might offer a few gentle words of encouragement on his talk page and advise him to contact The Bushranger to come clean about his non-retirement. I think if he's willing to stick to constructive edits and stay away from talk page claptrap, and take some sort of pride in sticking to WP guidelines and thereby feel appreciated by the community, it would probably be better for all concerned. It's only an idea, mind you, and if you'd rather not get involved I completely understand (in fact I'd recommend keeping Yaḥyā at arms length). What do you think? nagualdesign 16:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
...Oh wait, I see that you've already been to Yaḥyā's talk page and he replied with his typical "X proves my point", so he may not be willing to respond to you either. Ah well. nagualdesign 16:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nagual, FYI, I already contacted The Bushranger yesterday. My account was created to highlight problems I believed could be fixed. Like this [2] comment I left about graphical images in Jimbo page (that's what motivated my question in the Help Desk, to reconcile both). I will take note of the criticism, I already proposed to only quote sources, added to that visual art, I'll refrain to write anything. Yaḥyā (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, Yaḥyā, if you need help with anything, just ask. Kind regards, SamSailor 19:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
That's reassuring to hear. Although, having looked, I see no evidence of that. I hope that means you emailed him, rather than you're telling us porkies. nagualdesign 19:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course by email, ask him, he will confirm. Yaḥyā (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. nagualdesign 20:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
And just a few days ago he was up to his usual tricks. Perhaps it's best to just let nature take its course after all. nagualdesign 16:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Nagualdesign: Thank you for your confidence in me, but after having looked into this user - I was thinking about the Dunning–Kruger effect and then it is coincidentally brought up in Special:Permalink/817650845#User:Yahya Talatin - I see a Besserwisser attitude with little willingness to listen and learn, and far too much bickering rather than getting some actual work done. I don't think me reaching out for him would have any effect. SamSailor 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you're right. nagualdesign 17:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
"the police is still" -- you sound like a hostler in a Sherlock Holmes story. EEng 16:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Considering Yaḥyā's understanding (to use the term loosely) of ad hominem, personal attacks and the Dunning–Kruger effect I dread to think what his reaction to that little joke would be! He'd be off to ANI before you could say [something completely unintelligible]. nagualdesign 17:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Black Jaguar White Tiger Foundation Page
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm unsatisfied because the page of BLACK JAGUAR WHITE TIGER should not be deleted😡. THE PAGE OF BJWT ON WIKIPEDIA IS VERY IMPORTANT WITH ENGLISH VERSION, NOT PORTUGUESE VERSION!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.200.95.138 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
I'm surprised you linked to my essay at User_talk:CASSIOPEIA#Speedy_deletion_contested:_Jelena_Behrend. I don't know if you're aware, but some editors now consider me to be on a topic ban regarding A7 tag removals (there's technically no such ban however). With this in mind, how much credibility do you think my essay has? I also don't think you (or SoWhy for that matter, as he does it too) should be citing WP:CCSI in A7 declines, as it's not a policy or guideline and, in my experience, none of it has any real consensus. You'd be surprised how many editors still consider WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:INHERITORG, and WP:INHERITWEB to apply to significance and A7 (In fact, despite all the nonsense, I'm considering writing another essay just about that issue, going beyond the mere pointing out that WP:NOTINHERITED actually has nothing to do with A7. I actually have a lot more to say about it that I currently have. Putting it in my current essay would make it rather unwieldy). I've actually seen both of you make the sort of A7 decline that would very likely get me on a formal topic ban (this, for instance). By the way, you missed User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 in that thread. Adam9007 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Click on show to view the contents of this section
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #297
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Click on show to view the contents of this section
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Constraint violations can now be checked on qualifiers and references (phab:T168532)
Implemented usage tracking deduplication to reduce database load (phab:T178079). This should not have any effect on what users see on recent changes and watchlists.
Redirects on client wikis that are connected to a Wikidata item can have a tracking category, if set up (phab:T185743). Thanks, Matěj!
As i understand there is another article for Trickeye Museum, which was probably submitted by me by mistake. At that time i just started to figure out the wikipedia article creating system and due to lack of experience submitted wrong. Please, consider this article as the one for publishing.
Yeah, i retrieved it. Should i delete the article in there and then delete an account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arttemoff78 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
If you retrieved it, why are you logging in as Arttemoff78? SamSailor 01:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
That is good question. In the very begging, due to wikipedia complication, by mistake i created 2 accounts. Since arttemoff78 account has full article, i would like to delete arttemoff account together with article. Do you think that would be a solution of the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arttemoff78 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
We do not delete accounts.
Since you retrieved the password for the Arttemoff (talk·contribs) account, the easiest way forward is to log in with that account and continue using it for editing the draft. As you wrote both the text in Draft:Trickeye Museum and in User:Arttemoff78/sandbox there is no need for attribution: simply copy-paste from the sandbox to the draft using the Arttemoff account. Please follow the instructions found at WP:ALTACCN so other editors are aware of the link between the accounts. SamSailor 10:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Do I understand right: you would like me to copy my article from arttemoff78 to arttemoff? In this case what do i do with the article in arttemoff78? It seems there will be 2 same articles from different accounts in that case. Sorry for such complication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arttemoff (talk • contribs) 05:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
You got it right. I have done it for you. Any questions, just ask. SamSailor 08:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Appreciate your patience! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arttemoff (talk • contribs) 09:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Any questions, just ask. SamSailor 10:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 26
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
#1Lib1Ref
User Group update
Global branches update
Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
From the life of Wikidata: with the Wikidata Concepts Monitor we can now begin to discover how our communities use knowledge across the Wikimedia projects, by Goran S. Milovanović
See also: WDCM Journal, several examples of the use of Wikidata on the Wikimedia projects
We are saddened to report that Polish Wikimedian Krzysztof Machocki (who was also active on Wikidata) died on 31 January 2018, aged 36, after a couple of weeks of illness. Our condolences to his family and friends.
The call for submissions for Wikimania (Cape Town, July 2018) is now open. Deadline is March 18th. Ideas of submissions related to Wikidata can be discussed here
Based on community discussions, the ArticlePlaceholder will soon be deployed on Urdu and Estonian Wikipedias.
Statistics
January 2018 brought us 9,770,248 edits, 445,027 new items were created.
The number of users that edited Wikidata per day grew in 2017 from 2439 to 2672 users, 9,6% more compared to 2016. The number of edits by them grew with 18% to 190k edits per day. We also get edited by 542 IP adresses per day, 50% more than in 2016.
In 2017, Wikidata got edited by 46 various bots per day, executing 334k edits per day (63% more than in 2016). The most active bot in 2017 was Emijrpbot, who added 18 million edits to Wikidata.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sam Sailor, can you help me about this unregister user? Based on this IP address 114.124.145.23 and 114.124.179.150, this user made same editting in Kevin Sanjaya Sukamuljo page. I already check on IP lookup, and this IP address came from the same location. I tried to remind this user to follow the WP Badminton rules, through the reverted that i did, but this user not trying to communicate and just reverted again the editting. I hope you can help. Thank you. Stvbastian (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Stvbastian. We are beyond a friendly welcome and an invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Badminton and learn about tournament color codes in this case. You can and should issue {{Uw-disruptive1}}-2-3-4 warnings (the {{uw-genre1}} in Special:Diff/824091775/824096058 was well intended, but is incorrect in this situation). When a user, as is the case here, is on a dynamic Telkomsel connection locating to Jakarta, Indonesia, treat the different IPs as the same user. It is really helpful to start a log in your user space to document time, articles disrupted, IPs used for disruption, and warning issued, just as you would when filing at AN3/SPI. The warnings are likely to be without any effect: they will reconnect and continue to edit to their own likings. Consequently, asking for blocks of individual IPs is meaningless here. You could ask for page protection on individual articles. Better, when you have a log file that shows the extent of e.g. this user's change of colors in the tournament lists, open up a new section on WP:ANI and have some admins look into the case. Perhaps a rangeblock can be made, or a wider range of badminton articles need semi-protection. I reverted in Kevin Sanjaya Sukamuljo. SamSailor 08:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Sam Sailor, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The next Weekly Summary (February 19th) will be the 300th edition of the newsletter! To help making it special, you can share your favorite Wikidata tool, so the other readers discover nice tools
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sam Sailor, thank you for your work looking over my wikipedia entry, and rescuing it from deletion. I did not make the original entry, but in 2017 noticing that the article was out of date, made small edits. I realize now that this was done in violation of Wikipedia rules, but I would submit that the entry should still pass the notability tests. As a journalist, I wrote for The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair, New York, Rolling Stone, Vogue, and many other magazines on popular technology and culture. My book The Wicked Ways of Malcolm McLaren was published in the US and UK, and was extensively reviewed in both countries, including Rolling Stone, Variety, and Select Magazine in the UK, where it was voted a Top 10 Rock Book of 1991. My editorial career has also been extensively covered. My role as the founding editor of Time Warner Pathfinder, the first and largest media web portal, was the subject of the first chapters of John Motavalli's book Bamboozled At the Revolution (https://www.amazon.com/Bamboozled-Revolution-Billions-Battle-Internet/dp/B000HWZ1MS). Since then other journalists have written about my career. Greg Lindsay wrote about the failure of The Green http://www.mediabistro.com/articles/cache/a8113.asp. Kate Gardner wrote about the seven years I was editor in chief and director of Samsung's global brand magazines: https://contently.com/strategist/2013/10/24/samsungs-beautiful-and-defunct-digitall-is-a-valuable-lesson-in-timing/. To my knowledge, there is no public mention my having twin sons, but I assure you that is true. I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia editing process, and don't know how to proceed, but I do not believe that this is mere autobiography, and indeed, that my work as an writer, editor, and marketer meets the notability tests as far as I can tell. With thanks for your help and assistance, CB
Thank you for being frank about Craig Bromberg being an autobiography. When people edit Wikipedia for payment, money is at stake, and that is problematic. Is writing an autobio less problematic? All of a sudden is not just money that's at stake, but our vanity and our understanding of own importance and wider recognition.
I have revisited the article. The single source used in section / Performance and music / was permanently dead, but I found this book source that confirms your collaboration with Glenn Branca:
Banes, S. (2011). Writing Dancing in the Age of Postmodernism. Wesleyan University Press. p. 323. ISBN978-0-8195-7181-6. Retrieved February 9, 2018. Other examples of young choreographers collaborating with their contemporaries in music include Yoshiko Chuma and Christian Marclay; Wendy Perron and Craig Bromberg (who played in Glenn Branca's band), Bosho, Andy Blinx, and Don Hunerberg; Jawole Willa Jo Zollar and Edwina Lee Tyler.
I have made proper citations of bare URLs. Several of the other sources are merely URLs to sites that does not mention Craig Bromberg (CB).
http://www.mediabistro.com/articles/cache/a8113.asp is dead, but I resurrected it from Web Archive: "The Grounding of 'The Green'". mediabistro.com. July 24, 2006. Archived from the original on March 2, 2009. Retrieved February 9, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) - it's certainly not a bad source; it would be even better if Greg Lindsay did not write "... had me wondering how my friend Craig Bromberg was doing". WP:INDY
I have added a citation to the Kate Gardiner source to the article: Gardiner, Kate (February 23, 2015). "The Short, Happy Life Of Samsung's DigitAll Magazine". contently.com. Archived from the original on February 23, 2015. Retrieved February 9, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) - rather than somebody talking about CB, CB is talking about DigitAll.
I saved the article from possible imminent deletion, the process is called Speedy deletion. I have nominated it for deletion by the consensus-driven process called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where other editors can voice their opinions. This includes the possibility of other editors finding better sources for a subject, rewriting an article if needed and !voting for keeping the article. You are welcome to participate in the discussion, but I ask you to read Wikipedia:How to save an article proposed for deletion and Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! first. Going to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Bromberg and just asserting own notability serves little good. If you can come up with further reliable, independent, secondary sources, you are welcome to post them here, and I'll have a look at them. SamSailor 09:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oddly, the NYT Archive doesn't have this article or another I wrote for Arts & Leisure a few years earlier. I do have a CV of every article I've written and can post it to you here -- but it is over 10 pages long.
Thank you again for all your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromony (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Ziggy
Latest comment: 6 years ago21 comments2 people in discussion
I see that Ziggy has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet. Hoist by his own petard (and some rather silly edits, apparently). I'm a bit disappointed that he said he was having some personal difficulties off-Wiki and I expressed my sympathy. Now I'm thinking that it was probably just a ruse, leaving me in the odd position of wishing he really is in dire straits so that I can respect him. It's either that or hope that he's doing fine but he's a bit of a dick. What a quandary! nagualdesign 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Nagualdesign: Yes, I did notice, and I did sockstrike his frivolous, bundled nomination of 20+ cricket articles in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 English cricket season. His edit in Special:Diff/821071998 is asking for an SPI case, just plain stupid. We are in dire need for more intelligent socks, I'd say. But hey, for once we both acted nice and helpful in stark contrast to our true nature; and all that time we could have had some decent fun.[FBDB] Closing on a serious note: whatever it is that drives people to act deceptively online - lack of love? lack of self respect? - I'm glad they're not in my little circle IRL, and we can't be expected to do much more than hope they sort out things for themselves, can we? Cheers, SamSailor 20:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for making me laugh out loud 3 times with a single post! As for the rest, good question – I have no idea what the answer is – and I couldn't agree more with the last couple of points. That's a good contender for Post of the Month. nagualdesign 20:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
For a technical ignoramus, this edit is impressive! And its substance is hard to disagree with. :-) SamSailor 13:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Who are you calling an ignoramus! I actually just adapted it from here. It's much easier to rewrite code than to write it from scratch. Although I've designed a couple of dozen websites and I can program in a few different languages it's hard to know what you can and can't do on Wikipedia. Even simple things like making an image the full width of the screen I still can't work out how to do. It's always fun when you get something to work though, like the large Picture of the Day on my user page where clicking the date (if it's still showing yesterday's) purges the page. nagualdesign 14:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, wunderschön ... didn't r-e-ally think a qualifier was warranted there, but I guess my attempt at a well veiled innuendo failed, and my disdain is now official. I certainly know what you are talking about, but the sheer joy of figuring it out is well worth the time, as well as the background noise of the missus quibbling about the car needs washing instead of "whatever it is you are doing". Never mind that a purge for the rotating {{POTD/{{#time:Y-m-d}}|image}} only works once a day! If you get a confirmation form for the purge request, and want to get rid of it, put this code
On the other hand I wasn't aware of <syntaxhighlight> so cheers for that. nagualdesign 19:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Nice, that works fine with me also. For the record - and my three talk page stalkers - I first tried Meta:User:Glaisher/autoPurge.js, but that did not seem to work. SamSailor 20:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
It's becoming a source of endless amusement. I'll be spending less time on WP for the next day or so, so feel free to fill in for me with my duties.
You might also note that I've been making good use of <syntaxhighlight>. Very useful indeed. nagualdesign 15:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Glad you liked it. And have a proper "thank you" for the shorter purge code you gave me.
In regards to the latest admin attention: in Special:Diff/823410292 you "Remove[d] duplicate". But have a look again at Special:Permalink/823410292#February 2018. It looks like a dupe, but it is in fact not. First you were served a {{subst:ds/alert|blp}} (diff), then 11 seconds later a {{subst:ds/alert|ap}} was added in this diff. I can't recall seeing that before, but in order to compensate for my infamous ignorance I peeked in the log for filter 602; I doubt such "double ds/alert" practice can be considered common.
This place is sometimes like having a free ticket to a bad film; you know you ought to leave, but you keep hanging around just for kicks-and-giggles. SamSailor 15:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Well spotted! One of them was about "pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles", the other was about "pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". Double whammy. I should have left both hanging for all to see. Ah well. Looking at the log I see that they're considered some sort of official warning! What a crock.
That film's hilarious! At first I was glancing at the duration, thinking I can't take 15 minutes of this, but the acting's so wooden it's actually funny. I've got it paused at the 2 minute mark and I'm going to watch the rest during the ads on TV. I used to watch a lot of B-movies. We had a local video shop when I was a teenager that had nothing but old blockbusters and B-movies. Me and my mates enjoyed many an evening laughing at unintentional comedies. It's amazing how much money is wasted even on low-budget movies. nagualdesign 21:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Jesus! First there was Brexit, then the 2016 Presidential Election and now this!
I was thinking about you the other day when I watched The Cloverfield Paradox – a film so bad it isn't even funny. The original was okay, I guess. A product of its time. The sequel, 10 Cloverfield Lane, I thought was really good. If you've never seen it I highly recommend it. John Goodman's performance was brilliant, and it really upped the ante for the franchise. So when I saw that they'd made another I was really looking forward to it. I couldn't have been more disappointed! There's one scene where one of the astronauts is trapped in an airlock that's filling up with water, and when the outer door finally gives way for some reason the whole lot instantaneously freezes! It cuts to Chris O'Dowd and the look on his face came across as incredulity that he's in such a shit film. I actually burst out laughing at that point, and it continued to go downhill from there. If you get the opportunity to watch it do something else. $45 million dollars down the pan! nagualdesign 16:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hehehe. Then I'll stick to spending the evening trying to get another PAID/COI BLP deleted from this place. ... I have not seen 10 Cloverfield Lane (let alone The Cloverfield Paradox), the genre is not my first choice in any way, but the cast is certainly good. Thank you for introducing me to it. Noticing your contribs have not gone up, and recalling the old addage "there's a reason why we keep you c.... isolated on an island" perhaps this could be inspirational. All the best (and some words in jest), SamSailor 16:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hah! I just stick to en.Wikipedia and the Commons, which is more than enough for me. And yes, that final link was rather heartening! nagualdesign 17:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Voted. I didn't actually realize until yesterday that I was allowed! nagualdesign 16:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, rules are quite lax. It does take a bit of an effort to look at the candidates' contribs cross-wiki and form an opinion, but seeing how this guy handled the Trump Street DYK, voting was a no-brainer. Say, was he the second admin in less than a month who ran away with his tail between his legs after having posted on User talk:nagualdesign? SamSailor 17:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am attempting to avoid another confrontation that was experience with what was said in the recent Tea House activity about film plots and addressing questions on the Talk Pages. I recently made factual edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_(film) and Old Jacobite as unilaterally said that they are not constructive. They are all factual and better reflect the film plot. I reverted his rejection of the changes. What else would you suggest that i do? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
What is your mother tongue? Are you aware of and understand WP:BRD? SamSailor 20:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I saw you left a thank-you note in my box for these edits. I was just wondering why you did so. Chubbles (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Chubbles. Because I'm thankful when people take the time to try and preserve material. I saw the first AFD shortly before it closed; searches with different modifiers, e.g. "Dovetail Joint" gladfelter and "Dovetail Joint" dapier, and "Dovetail Joint" chicago turned up multiple hits in e.g. Billboard. I did not have the time nor the courage to do something about it - one could probably spend every day salvaging articles at AFD, and I occasionally do my bit.
I can't recall ever seeing an article being undeleted directly back into main space and immediately re-posted at AFD. My understanding of userfication was that the deleted material is restored to user space, so the user has plenty of time to work on the article (with a possibility to draftify and get input from other editors) before moving the article to main space. But here we are ... I will be happy to see, if I can find more sources, but I suppose you have already been there. Some of the challenges stem from the tone and amount of unsourced details introduced in this big 2006 edit. SamSailor 08:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks, though it looks like it's probably for naught; the article does not look to be long for this world despite all the work. I didn't know if there was some sort of new policy that mandated a second AfD, so I went along with it, but it seemed kind of superfluous. I never put that kind of work into an article unless I know the subject meets the notability threshold, and I proved that it did, but AfD looks like it has gotten a lot tougher of late; the bar is a lot higher than it used to be. Chubbles (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:ATD is clear: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." But what takes the most time? Reading the article, finding sources, pruning and editing - a thorough WP:BEFORE, or just slam an AFD tag on it and let somebody else try to save it? Is anyone thinking that the four minutes between this edit and the subsequent delete !vote are enough for a proper WP:BEFORE?
I noticed that Dovetail Joint (album) was taken to AFD on 12 January. In most cases, album articles that can't readily be sourced to meet WP:NALBUMS, can safely be redirected to the artist article. That is deletion policy, WP:ATD-R. Why take them directly to AFD? In five or ten years from now, more sources may become available to restore a previous revision of such an album article and source it. Now, nobody except admins and above can see what was in Dovetail Joint (album) and evaluate it. It sometimes seems that some editors entirely overlook WP:ATD.
Honestly, man...you're preaching to the choir. I've been living ATD for years. A userfied page is as good as dead, though; it won't be found through the site itself or through search engines, and the battle to re-establish it in mainspace will be very steep without a raft of new sources. After what I've dug up, I'd have to start tracking down paper magazines to find more (no doubt, they got reviewed in Alternative Press, but their online archive doesn't go back that far). Chubbles (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
That is why I'm concerned about the undeletion process here. It comes as no surprise, that the editors !voting delete at the 2nd AFD have not joined the active editing of the article. SamSailor 11:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I added a few more sources, among them a few from HighBeam. SamSailor 12:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Niiiiiiice! Thanks!! That's some serious deep digging. Chubbles (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Martyn GT (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Sam - not sure what the problem was with the references I selected for the article on Dr P M M Pritchard. They included his obituary from the BMJ and also another article from the BMJ relating to his setting up of a patient participation group. I have looked at the guidance on references but would be grateful for your further comments. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyn GT (talk • contribs) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Please read the advice given in grey box on the draft: follow the links, read the instructions, then ameliorate the draft accordingly. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: , but do not sign in articles.SamSailor 22:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #300
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Click on show to view the contents of this section
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Welcome to the 300th Weekly Summary!
The weekly newsletter was started by Lydia at the very beginning of the Wikidata project, even before the first deployment, to keep the community informed about the developments, the new projects and tools. More than five years later, the newsletter is still there, its content powered by the community, and sent every week all along the years. I wanted to say a warm "thank you!" to each person who helped filling the Weekly Summary <3
Over the past years, as you know, Wikidata has grown a lot. More data, more tools, more editors and reusers, more exciting projects led by the community. The Weekly Summary has evolved with us, and the 300th edition seems a good moment to ask you all your suggestions about the newsletter, how it could continue evolving, and how you would like to improve it.
On that purpose, you can find a feedback page to express all your ideas about the Weekly Summary. We're very interested to know more about your reading habits, the parts you're more or less interested in, the new topics you would like to share with the community. Thanks in advance for filling it.
I stay available anytime to discuss with you, feel free to contact me if you have any question or concern! Cheers, Léa
A selection of cool tools on Wikidata
Here are a few tools that are recommended by some Wikidata community members. External websites, gadgets or scripts, they are very useful for Wikidata editors or users!
QuickStatements is a powerful tool that can edit or add Wikidata item en masse, via a text editor or importing a spreadsheet. (Éder Porto via Facebook)
Mix'n'match (manual), which helps us to interlink Wikidata with the rest of the web and the world :-) (Spinster, Siobhan via Twitter)
WikiShootMe! allows you to see Wikidata items plotted out on a map and shows you whether they have images or not. (Ham II)
Yair Rand's WikidataInfo script adds the QID of the equivalent Wikidata item to the page being viewed (on sister projects), along with its Wikidata label and description. (Andy Mabbett)
Recoin measures the degree of completeness of relevant properties of a Wikidata item and suggests any relevant statements that can be added to the item. (Rachmat04)
DuplicateReferences gadget adds a link to copy references and add them to other statements on the same item. (PKM)
checkConstraints gadget adds notifications on the interface to easily notice the violation of constraints and help people fixing them (Léa)
Resolve authors lists scientific articles with the property author name string (P2093) and groups them on the basis of co-authors and topic, which helps to distinguish people referred to by identical name strings. (Daniel Mietchen)
The Wiki Loves Monuments map is powered by Wikidata. You can look for a city and find the monuments around. (Stefano Sabatini via Facebook)
Fixed incomplete "Label:", "Description:" and "Statement:" entity usage messages in various places (phab:T178090). Thanks, Matěj!
Improved violation messages for ranges involving the current date (e. g. “should not be in the future”).
Continued work on caching constraint check results.
Enabled Lua fine-grained usage tracking for better performance on several more wikis: hywiki, frwiki, svwiki, itwiki, zhwiki, bewiki, nlwiki, glwiki, and Wikimedia Commons (phab:T187265phab:T186714)
Representation and grammatical features of the form can be changed using the UI (WikibaseLexeme) (phab:T173743, phab:T160525)
Your message is empty, and I'm afraid nobody can help you with the draft. If you would speed up the deletion process, please blank it, paste {{Db-author}} onto it, and save the changes. SamSailor 19:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #301
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Click on show to view the contents of this section
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I noticed you added two book citations to the Leena Hiltunen. Google Books shows a preview for second citation, but I can't verify the Nordic Genre Film reference. Since the article is up for deletion, can you please describe what the citation says about the actress or point where the page can be retrieved? Thanks. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Gene93k. It's a trivial mention (as far as I can read it), it says "It is produced by Joe Sarno Productions – probably created only to produce Come and Blow the Horn and one other Sarno film, Kärleksön ('Love Island', 1977), with the same female star, Leena Hiltunen ..." there the preview ends for me. There's nothing that suggests we get more details about Hiltunen. And I failed to find say a "Where has she been the last 40 years"-interview or something of that kind that could count towards WP:BASIC. I guess we could redirect to Fäbodjäntan per WP:ATD-R. SamSailor 22:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Any particularly reason why you changed the references on Hinrich Ladiges to this "citybook" system? I find them very confusing compared to the system I am used to. It may just be a matter of habits but I would really like to keep things consistent . So is one system considered better than the other? I have written thousands of articles within my areas of interest so it will be a lot of work to change them and I know others that list references in the same way that I do.Ramblersen (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It is called List-defined references and moves the citations away from the body text while leaving ref tags or here {{r}} tags inline, making for a much easier read in edit mode; in particular when archived links are added. Feel free to revert and readd Thalbitzer Clausen Rist 1906. Best, SamSailor 21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough that you prefer that system but what I don't understand is the point in changing other editors's choise of reference system when people obviously have different preferences. I know plenty of editors that prefer the same system as I do.Ramblersen (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not a change made because you used the much more widespread practice of having the entire citations inline. It is a change made because it reduces text clutter. I will gladly change it back, if you still find LDRs confusing or for any other reason such as citing WP:CITEVAR. Just let me know. What you refer to as "citybook" is the citation template {{cite book}}. Works for book citations in the same way that {{cite web}} works for www citations. Kind regards, SamSailor 23:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
U have already changed it back. It's not just about what I find confusing but is also about wanting to avoid ending up with different reference systems on the same page. I have basically just adopted the same reference system that everybody else seemed to use on the pages that I work on (Danish culture) and I am constantly expanding and maintaining lots of my old articles. If I suddenly began to use another system, even if it has advantages, it would lead to a lot of wasted time, confusion and inconsistency. But thanks for the explanation and the wish to improve.Ramblersen (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. I have not changed anything. You went and in this diff reintroduced revision 828277289. Unfortunately that also reintroduces your multiple spelling errors, the red-linked People from Altina and Viborg, the Danish word Ugift in the middle of it all, and multiple MOS errors on top of that. I don't expect thanks for moving Henrich Ladiges where you had started it to the correct spelling Hinrich Ladiges. I do expect that you try to work for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, not to make it worse. The reader will never see how the references are organized. They will, however, see the errors in the article text. SamSailor 00:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The "U have already" was meant to be "I have already". Sorry that I did it the wrong way but it wouldn't let me revert. Thank you for for fixing it and sorry for offending you. I was merely trying to explain why I want to stick to my old system of making references and to prevent you from changing them on more pages to save us both the trouble of changing thing back and forth.Ramblersen (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No offence was taken, and no hard feelings should be between us. When situations like these arise, give the other editor a chance to rectify the issue, if you're not comfortable doing it yourself. I will - as I should - gladly respect that you prefer the traditional inline ref tags. Making use of Show preview and proofreading one's edits before saving/publishing is well worth the time and effort. Kind regards, SamSailor 11:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Douglas Stewart wiki page is a link page to various Douglas Stewarts. This page is a new wiki on Lawrence Douglas Stewart ...read the full page please and advise on resubmit — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLance105 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #302
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Click on show to view the contents of this section
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I notice that List of prolific songwriters lists Mr. Nelson as having written 337 songs but has a link to List of songs written by Willie Nelson which lists 351 songs. As you said "un-maintainable". Sam Sailor 23:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Nagualdesign: Thank you for your confidence in me, but after having looked into this user - I was thinking about the Dunning–Kruger effect and then it is coincidentally brought up in Special:Permalink/817650845#User:Yahya Talatin - I see a Besserwisser attitude with little willingness to listen and learn, and far too much bickering rather than getting some actual work done. I don't think me reaching out for him would have any effect. Sam Sailor 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Sam Sailor 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
I actually just adapted it from here. It's much easier to rewrite code than to write it from scratch. Although I've designed a couple of dozen websites and I can program in a few different languages it's hard to know what you can and can't do on Wikipedia. Even simple things like making an image the full width of the screen I still can't work out how to do. It's always fun when you get something to work though, like the large Picture of the Day on my user page where clicking the date (if it's still showing yesterday's) purges the page. nagualdesign 14:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Sam Sailor 13:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
It's becoming a source of endless amusement. I'll be spending less time on WP for the next day or so, so feel free to fill in for me with my duties.
, but do not sign in articles. Sam Sailor 22:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
