Biblical criticismEdit

Someone is complaining about the length of the FAC at Biblical criticism and asking if discussions such as the one you anchored could be moved to the talk page. I would deeply appreciate anything you could do to help with this. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry ChristmasEdit

  Merry Christmas Sdkb

Hi Sdkb, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness.
Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry ChristmasEdit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Sdkb, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,

Mollifiednow (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Mollifiednow (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Minor change to a Happy New Year template caused a problemEdit

Could you please comment on an undesirable effect I described at

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2021/January#A bug? Bot removed an equal sign from section titles

and

Template talk:Happy New Year fireworks#HTML comment in a Section header and the archiving bot

which resulted from your edit Special:Diff/997387763 (the second line of the template's cod)...? --CiaPan (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@CiaPan: From the discussions you linked, it seems the issue arose because of a bug with Cluebot, which my edit just happened to trigger, so the core issue needs to be resolved by the Cluebot folks, not me. Still, I moved the hidden comment to circumvent the error. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I know the problem is in bot's parser but I thought it might be shorter to avoid it than fix it :)
And if it wasn't fixed soon we would all forget about the problem until the next new year. Thank you for a prompt action. --CiaPan (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Short desc.Edit

Hi, I just completed the whole level 5 vital article categories for Video games (215 articles), Gambling (14 articles), Other games and plays (44 articles), Sports Basics (14 articles), Sports equipment (27 articles), and International competitions (top 12 articles). Plus, I did an odd one here and there. It takes a lot longer than expected because I have to patrol each article one by one to check the short desc. since the pet scan link takes too long to load and yields no results. I plan to do many more categories, as this kind of tedious work interests me. So, do I get a barnstar? Huggums537 (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply! The rewards board ask was technically to complete all the level 5 categories, but yeah, that's probably a bigger lift than any one editor could take on. Your work looks like it's taken care of a good chunk of the pages, so I'd say you've earned the star; here you go! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem about the delay, and yeah it is a lot of work for one editor, but I think over time I'll be able to knock out a large swathe of it just by myself, so thank you for the barnstar! Huggums537 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Interview requestEdit

Hello, Sdkb!

My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.

I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.

Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dalorleon! Yes, I'm happy to share my thoughts; feel free to ask what you'd like to know! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Sdkb!
Thanks so much for agreeing to speak with me. My questions are below; let me know if you need me to clarify any of them.
1) How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you been an active editor of the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article?
2) When adding content to the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are relevant / notable enough to warrant inclusion?
3) When removing content from the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are irrelevant / non-notable enough to warrant deletion?
4) Are there any particular Wikipedia policy / guidelines pages that you rely on to guide your editing? (Like “Wikipedia:Editing policy,” “Wikipedia:Writing better articles,” etc.)
5) Do you feel that Wikipedia’s “official” editing guidelines are helpful, or do you generally ignore them? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?
6) Has adding or deleting content from the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article ever brought you into conflict with another Wikipedian? If so, how were those disputes resolved?
7) Do you identify more as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither / something else?
Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! Feel free to weigh in on anything I didn’t specifically ask in regards to your editing practices. I’m primarily curious to learn about what factors you consider when deciding what content ought to be added / removed from Wikipedia articles.
Finally, if I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! --Dalorleon (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. @Dalorleon: I made my first edit way back in 2012, but I became active and started to think of myself as a Wikipedian around summer 2018. You can see my (or anyone else's) editing history here. I started editing COVID-19 pandemic regularly in March around the time the U.S. went into lockdown. My editing history of that page is here (much of it is reverting unconstructive edits and other maintenance-type work) and my editing history of the article's talk page is here. I backed off I think around July, since I got burnt out trying to prevent the page from deteriorating. I've also edited a few other COVID-19-related pages and the associated WikiProject, but I focused mainly on the main pandemic page, since it's one of the highest-viewed pages and has less medical content than COVID-19 (I generally focus more on the societal aspects of the pandemic rather than the medical aspects, since I don't have medical expertise).
  2. Wikipedia's guidance on that is WP:DUE, which basically says to reflect the prevalence of information in reliable sources. That's very broad advice and hard to apply precisely, though, so naturally there's some amount of editorial discretion. Something that I always try to keep top of mind is, to the extent possible, removing my own personal experience and taking the broadest possible perspective. This means, for instance, making sure that COVID-19_pandemic#National_responses doesn't give undue weight to English-speaking countries (a constant battle because they tend to have more editors; looking at the page now, I see a picture of Trump has been added to the top of the section, which isn't really helpful imo). Taking a broad perspective is a skill I know from my work as a journalist, but even so it's hard to do well. For a page with the scope of COVID-19 pandemic, sometimes the questions become impossibly broad. For instance, one question we faced early on was whether or not the instances of xenophobia warranted mention in the article's lead (which is supposed to be a summary of the body, and thus has an even higher bar for inclusion). I argued for it based in part on a front-page NYT article and similar coverage (here's the discussion for the U.S. article, which is a little less messy than the one for the global page), but given all that's happened between late March and now, if we revisited the question I'm not sure I'd still support it being there; the death toll and economic impact seem like more the main story. That perspective change is partially due to the fact that there's been less coverage of xenophobia after the initial burst, but in large part it's just a call I'd make based on my understanding of the world.
  3. A lot of the removals I make are pretty easy calls. They're often edits from new editors who haven't checked the talk page and don't realize that the topic they're editing about has already been discussed at length at the talk page and is the way it is because of an established consensus. See the current consensus list for some of the ones that keep coming up. (Having a list like that is pretty unusual; we borrowed it from Talk:Donald Trump, where it was pioneered. Some other pages like Talk:Global warming have an FAQ instead, which is the closest analogue.) Others are tougher calls; I apply the same sort of thinking I mentioned above, and when there are conflicts I generally follow WP:BRD to avoid edit wars.
  4. Yeah, I rely on all the policies/guidelines and occasionally essays to guide my editing, and to help justify my edits when there are conflicts. I cited some above, and if you look at the talk page archives you'll see the more competent editors citing them regularly. Some of the key ones can be found linked from Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  5. Wikipedia is a complex operation, and this creates a need for rules, so I'm glad they exist and think they're generally helpful. Sometimes I propose changes to them if they don't seem to be working as intended, and one of the areas I work in is trying to condense them and make them more accessible to newcomers, but there's a limit to the amount it'd be possible to condense them. One of Wikipedia's most famous policies (policies supersede guidelines, which themselves supersede information pages or essays) is WP:Ignore all rules (IAR), which has existed since Wikipedia's early days (when things were a lot less structured). Different editors interpret it differently, and nowadays I think it's often invoked more in name than in practice; there are few situations in which you can do something justified only by IAR and get away with it. But the point is to avoid following rules just for the sake of following rules, and sometimes when I see a pointless piece of bureaucracy I wish it'd be invoked more. Here's a recent example of a particularly bureaucratic insidery incident.
  6. Yeah, definitely. When you edit a high-traffic page regularly, you get to know the other editors that frequent that page. Some of them are more competent than others, and some are easier or less easy to work with. Wikipedia has a whole host of policies/guidelines on dispute resolution, but the basic normal process is outlined at WP:BRD: anyone can make bold edits, and if they're challenged by reverting to the status quo, people then go to the talk page and try to achieve a rough consensus on whether to make them. This can happen very informally for small questions, or it can take the form of more formal requests for comment for bigger disputes or disputes more in need of attention from a wide audience.
  7. Ah, that's a big question. I'd say I have elements of each. On the deletionist side, duplicated content is a big pet peeve of mine, so I often try to consolidate pages that replicate others. On the inclusionist side, I don't spend a ton of time at WP:Articles for deletion, since I don't really enjoy deleting others' work. I'll do it when it's called for, since Wikipedia needs to set inclusion limits to keep its size manageable, but it's not a task I seek out. I think the general notability guideline, our primary criteria for inclusion/deletion, is about the right level of restrictive.
Regarding attribution, you're free to use my username and the biographical details I share on my userpage; this page and that one are publicly accessible. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your thorough response, Sdkb! I really appreciate your answers; they'll be quite useful for my research. I'll let you know if I have any follow-up questions. But, for now, I wish you the best of luck! --Dalorleon (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Kepler-Gymnasium Ulm moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Kepler-Gymnasium Ulm, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Speaking as a NPP patroller myself, you made a bad call here. High schools are almost always notable, and the page as a stub was certainly lacking but also clearly a net plus to the encyclopedia, and there was nothing about it "not suitable as written to remain published", as your templated message above states. I added sources to establish notability and moved it back to mainspace, but next time please spare others the work of having to clean up after you and do a rudimentary WP:BEFORE before you draftify. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologiesEdit

Hello,

So Trump talk has now become a mess, and this is just a note to say I apologize if I inflamed it with my thread. When I originally asked if the predetermined proposal would be implemented, I got a series of responses that seemed unhappy (they weren't even answers to my question), and so fearing an edit war I managed to find a slightly different version that no-one instantly hated to be used temporarily, while a better one was found. In hindsight I don't know if it was the right decision to implement it, but I thought it was at the time. Sorry if that worsened things.

Anyhow, hopefully the page will settle down soon and a permanent wording can be found. Regards, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Giraffer: No worries. We're trying to navigate a complex circumstance without a good solution, and while I'm frustrated we've ended up here, I don't blame anyone trying in good faith to work things out, and I don't think you particularly inflamed anything. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

YTEdit

Thanks for restoring this ref [1] I had deleted from Whitey (slang). I had read the page before I deleted it and thought it didn't mention "whitey", but I just read it again and saw that it does mention that "yt" can be an abbreviation for "whitey". I don't know why I missed that. Anyway, thanks for restoring it! — Chrisahn (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: I actually had a weird deja vu moment, since I found and added the reference before I caught up on the recent spate of edits and realized I was actually just restoring it haha. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald TrumpEdit

Hi Sdkb,

here's my view on the latest kerfuffle at Donald Trump (an adapted copy of my comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GoodDay).

tl;dr: Let's cool down. :-)

The situation at Donald Trump is indeed very messy. Despite multiple attempts, we haven't yet been able to develop a consensus about the first sentence. You argue there has been "prevailing consensus" for using the word "was" instead of "served as", but that has been disputed, and the relevant item #17 on Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus currently simply says "Note that this item is obsolete given that Trump is no longer the current president".

You argue that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the status quo, which was "Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States", and replace "is" by "was" while changing little else. That's a reasonable position.

But others have argued that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the wording in other articles about former US presidents, which is "X is an American [occupation] who served as [n]th president of the United States". That's also a reasonable position.

So the problem is that we neither have a consensus for a long-term solution, nor a consensus for an interim stop-gap solution.

In the last two days, several users (roughly half a dozen) changed the first sentence to "served as", and you repeatedly changed it back to "was" (here, here, and here).

You added warnings about edit warring and sanctions on other users' talk pages (here, here, and here), using the words "you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree". But these words would also be a correct description of your actions on Donald Trump in the last two days.

Now you're trying to sanction other users. Somewhat understandable. But based on the same criteria, others would be justified to try to sanction you.

In conclusion: Yes, the situation at Donald Trump is messy, but neither "was" nor "served as" is a terrible solution for the first sentence. As long as we don't have a consensus, it will probably be changed back and forth a few more times. But let's not make the situation even messier by starting a back and forth of enforcement requests. Let's cool down, everyone.

I'd suggest that you take a step back, and take a deep breath. I'm sure someone will change the first sentence to "served as" again in the next 24 hours, and others will change it back to "was", whether you are involved or not. It's an unfortunate situation, and I wish I could think of a better solution. But neither "saved as" nor "was" is awful. Not really worth fighting about. I'm sure the situation will be resolved in a couple of days.

Take care!

Chrisahn (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Thanks for leaving the note. I have a few quibbles with your characterization which I noted at the enforcement request, but broadly I take your point and agree that we should try to de-escalate. Seeing that GoodDay self-reverted, I have moved to withdraw the request. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Recommend (in future) you hold off from handing out so many warnings & take a 24-hr waiting period, before you decide making any report on anyone. The idea for such reports are preventative, not punitive. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

TFL notificationEdit

Hi, Sdkb. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Pomona College people – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 12. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Giants2008: It looks good to me; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Content in articles does not have to be independently notableEdit

Please don't tell other editors that content in articles, particularly content in embedded lists, must be independently notable. That is not true. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: There's no rule that list entries have to be notable, but notability is listed at WP:CSC as a common selection criterion. My view is that we should always apply a criterion at least that stringent for any alumni listed directly on a college page. College pages are supposed to be about the institution, not a laundry list of impressive associated people, so it's debatable whether it's normally justified to mention any individual alumni outside of spinoff people lists (I'd prefer only statistics such as X governors or Y billionaires if they were more widely available), but I certainly have difficulty imagining any person who is both not notable enough to warrant a page but also so important to the institution that mentioning them on the institution's page as a notable alum is WP:DUE. Does your perspective differ? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:CSC is a guideline for standalone lists (i.e., list articles), not embedded lists (i.e., lists that are part of other articles). It's possible that someone is noteworthy within the limited context of an institution but not independently notable.
In practice, I don't find this to be a significant problem. In nearly every case, people who should not be included in a list can be removed simply because their inclusion isn't supported by a reference. That is always a valid reason for removing material from an article.
(Much of this confusion is caused by the unfortunate selection of "notable" as the adjective of choice to say "meets our standards for an independent Wikipedia article." That definition is much more narrow than the common understanding and use of the word, including how it's used in many articles especially the sections of articles labeled "Notable <something>." Sometimes I use "noteworthy" in discussions with other editors to try to avoid this confusion when talking about material that can or should be included in an article although it doesn't merit its own independent article but that's not a common enough practice to really be helpful.)
ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sortname requestEdit

I am hoping to get an honorific parameter added to template:sortname for titles like "Sir", "Rev", "Dr" etc which will be displayed but neither linked to or sorted on. E.g. {{sortname|James|Wales|ttl=Sir|dab=British Army officer}} which would display Sir James Wales, link to James Wales (British Army officer) and sort on Wales, James. Can you help? Thanks Greenshed (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Greenshed! MOS:HONORIFIC is pretty restrictive about the circumstances in which honorifics should be used, so I'd first double check that it's truly appropriate for the use case you have in mind. If you do want to go ahead with it, it might be better to use span data-sort-value, as shown here, rather than building it into the template, as doing that might encourage improper use. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry & ThanksEdit

Hey, Sdkb! Thanks for this revert. Actually I was using twinkle for the very first time so unfortunately that mistake happened. Now I will never use twinkle 🙁. Sorry and thanks! Hyderabadi Wikipedian (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hyderabadi Wikipedian: No worries; it was just a click! Twinkle can be very useful for some more advanced tasks, so I hope you'll be ready to return to it at some point! You can always experiment first in your sandbox to find your footing. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Monymusk (dance)Edit

 

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

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 by following the instructions at this link. 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! 15:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Request from paid editorEdit

I am utterly lost in how to create a Wikipedia page. You said there were a whole heap of things wrong with what I submitted but I find all the instructions on correct practice utterly baffling. So if we want to create an academic profile for our employer please can you tell me what is the right process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Paulsen (talkcontribs) 05:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ian Paulsen: I am a volunteer. You are being paid. I generously provided you with the links you need, but I'm not going to do your work for you by holding your hand through each step of the process. Please read the links I provided to you and follow the instructions, including respecting the volunteer nature of the project. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

News On Wiki check-inEdit

Hi there! Thank you for your interest in our campaign to improve the public's knowledge about local newspapers. Time has flown since we got going in September, and our six month campaign ends in just a month! We'd like to check in with you about work you have done, or any articles you'd like to write or edit to do before we wrap up.

We published a mid-campaign report, highlighting strong work from several Wikipedia editors (both new wiki folks and veterans); contributions from Kristy Roschke's journalism course at Arizona State University; and strong engagement from groups like AfroCROWD and Wikimedians of the Caribbean.

As we begin our final push, we would love to learn what you have been working on, or help you with any challenges. We're hosting several informal video conference sessions in the next week. (If that format is no good for you, just let us know.) We'd love to hear what newspapers have caught your interest, any articles you've already written, and also any kind of support you could use in writing up newspapers that lack Wikipedia entries. We'll focus especially on newspapers of the Caribbean in our final month, as we continue to work on Black-owned U.S. newspapers, and newspapers of Washington State. Please register for one of these Zoom meetings. If these times don't work for you, or if you hate Zoom, etc., just reply here (please include the text "[[User:Peteforsyth]] and [[User:Shanluan]]" so we get notifications), and we'll find another way to connect with you.

We hope to hear from you soon! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Peteforsyth, there is a vital outstanding task for WikiProject Newspapers that the project is too inactive to take on. If you actually have a coordinated community of editors able to take on collaborations, I would strongly suggest making it your top priority.
There are currently only three featured newspaper articles on Wikipedia: the long-defunct Illustrated Daily News of Los Angeles, the Sunderland Echo (a small British paper with <10k circulation), and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Of these, the Inquirer is clearly the most significant. It's also currently undergoing a FARC, and without coordinated intervention is all but guaranteed to be delisted. It's not based in the Caribbean or Washington state or black-owned, but it is vital to the development of every newspaper article on Wikipedia that there be a roster of featured-class newspapers that editors can look to as models. The Inquirer is an indispensable part of that dwindling roster, and keeping it from getting delisted should be the #1 task right now for any newspaper-focused Wikipedian. So far, I'm the only one who's engaged. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and Peteforsyth/Shanluan, another important (albeit less time-sensitive) newspaper-related task that will take a group effort is adding wikilinks to newspapers where they appear in references. This will help readers more easily verify the reliability of newspapers used as references, which given News On Wiki's stated aim to help build trust in credible news sources should fit very squarely with the project's goals. It does require AWB; details here and in linked discussions. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Peteforsyth/Shanluan, the window closed; page has been delisted. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Sdkb, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I agree that it's an important issue, but it's a bit outside our remit of what we're specifically trying (or equipped) to accomplish. I'll see if I can find a way to nudge it back toward FA. I'm interested to talk some more about the best approach to linking newspapers systematically in footnotes; I'm pretty familiar with AWB, so maybe I can pitch in on that as well. Excellent stuff, thank you. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: The next step for the linking is probably to solidify the consensus that it's a beneficial thing to do. So far, I've done a few AWB runs to change e.g. New York Times to The New York Times, with the rationale being that if someone hasn't been picky enough to get the name correct, they're unlikely to have strong feelings about linking vs. not linking. I'm a little more hesitant to do The New York Times to The New York Times runs, though, since I'm guessing at some point I'll run into someone who prefers it delinked and objects. It'd be good to have a discussion to point to that establishes that, while certainly not required, when there's a question linking should be preferred. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like a pretty sensible approach to me. I'd be happy to brainstorm what might be an effective and manageable way to broaden the discussion, if you'd like. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Sure, sounds good. I'm not sure exactly what venue or framing of the discussion would be best. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Might you be open to bouncing some ideas around in a voice call? I could put together some ideas here on wiki if you prefer. I look at this kind of thing more as "art" than "science," I think having a few small-ish discussions can often be more effective than trying to start with one "authoritative" one. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I tend to prefer on-wiki discussions for something like this if that's alright. Starting with smallish ones sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'd suggest something like this:
  • Identify a set of articles to try it on, that are in the remit of a WikiProject besides journalism/newspapers
  • Boldly edit one article in that area to link every newspaper
  • Using that article as an example, initiate a discussion at WT:WPNEWS or the topical WikiProject, with prominent invitations all relevant WikiProjects
  • Rather than asking whether this should be done for all of Wikipedia, propose that it be expanded to all articles in the set identified above (as a further step in an experiment / conversation-starter)
  • If consensus is gained, implement that, then write about it for the Signpost or similar prominent venue
For a topic, I suggest we choose an area where we know we have a good variety of newspapers-as-sources that have Wikipedia articles. I might suggest Category:Oregon politicians, which is an area I've worked in extensively, it draws on a lot of local papers, and we have articles about a lot of those papers.
It might also present a good opportunity to talk about general goals re: newspapers, such as notability standards, the featured article issue you mention, etc. But maybe that's something to come back to once discussion is underway, so that we're not bringing up too many topics at once at the outset.
Thoughts? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The issue with systematic linking IMO is that some Wikipedia articles might cite 10 NYT articles, but many Wikipedians would argue that you only want to link the first one to avoid seas of blue. So I would run only on pages that don't already link to The New York Times article. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Buidhe: I guess it depends on how you apply MOS:LINKDUP. Personally, I tend to favor repeating links in captions/footnotes, since those things aren't read through in order the same way body text is, so a link above isn't a guarantee someone will already have come across it. As a reader, I've certainly had plenty of times where I've come across black text and wished there was a duplicate link, but I've never seen a duplicate link and been annoyed by it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marilyn Manson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Frank LoMonteEdit

 On 5 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frank LoMonte, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that lawyer and press freedom advocate Frank LoMonte helped pass legislation in 14 U.S. states outlawing censorship of student media by school administrators? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frank LoMonte. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Frank LoMonte), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gary KatesEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Gary Kates at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sir I am not paid editorEdit

Respected sir

I am not a paid editor this page is mine and i am the CEO of this website i made this article my self but they marked as a speedy deletion kindly help me to improve this article my page name is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Www.bismatrimony.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setmroger (talkcontribs) 07:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Setmroger: You have a financial conflict of interest when writing about your own website, so yes, you are a paid editor. See WP:PAID. Regarding the rest of your request, as I told you at the Teahouse, we are not going to do your advertising for you. Read the rules and stop wasting our time as volunteers. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Message from Phoenix7119Edit

Hi Sdkb. Thanks for accepting my article. For a moment there, I thought I had been trapped in an episode of The Twilight Zone:) I had read through the notability guidelines enough to know that my subject meets the criteria. So, obviously, there was a breakdown in communication somewhere. But with you, and others like you, on the case, I now know for myself that Wikipedia does make an effort to be fair to everyone. You have redeemed my faith in human decency. And if you don’t mind, would you answer a few questions for me please?

(1) On the Articles for creation page, you said: “You can now create articles for yourself.” Could you tell me what this means? Do you have guidelines or a tutorial that can explain the process? (2) In regard to my Rasmussen article, you said: “the page still has some other issues.” What are the issues? Do you have guidelines or a tutorial that explain these issues?

I’m relatively new to Wikipedia. Even though I joined a few years ago, I never had time to contribute until now. So, I look forward to making contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Phoenix7119 (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb. I guess I need to stop writing at 2 A.M. Wow! I really asked you how to create an article:) If you have a moment, I would like more information on how to create articles for myself. And if you could offer some suggestions on how I might correct the issues with my Rasmussen article, I would appreciate your assistance. If you're too busy, I understand. So, please point me in the right direction. Thanks again for help. Phoenix7119 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Phoenix7119, re (1), it means that since you're autoconfirmed, you have the option to create an article directly in the article space (by searching for a term and clicking the redlink) rather than creating and submitting a draft through Articles for creation. It'll still be reviewed by other editors before appearing in Google search results, though.
Re (2), looking more closely at it, I'm not seeing any major issues. A few small things I notice:
  • Every wealthy person likes to call themselves a philanthropist, so it'd be good to have some sourcing establishing that choosing how to spend his money was a significant occupation for him, not just that he made some donations.
  • The language rose to the top of the business is a little flowery – it'd be better to just describe directly.
  • The standard way to title a reputation section is just "reputation", not "Reputation as a no-nonsense businessman".
Regarding a tutorial, Help:Introduction covers the basics, but for developing your page further WP:Article development might be more useful. I hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


Hi Sdkb Thanks so much! Yes, this information helps a lot. I'll do my best to locate additional sources and make the corrections. Also, could you help me with something else? I received the following notice yesterday: "Hello, Phoenix7119, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources." When I asked for an explanation, the person said the wrong template was used to send a "welcome message." Since the message was rather lengthy, I don't know which part of the message was the template and which part was the actual message. The person has yet to offer an explanation or clarification. So, I'm a little confused. Is there a possibility that my Rasmussen article "may not be retained?" Is Rasmussen's notability still being questioned? Since you are the most professional and straightforward person with whom I have corresponded thus far, I thought I had better ask you. I know you'll give me a straight answer. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't trouble you with something like this, but if you remember, you settled the issue with Rasmussen's notability in the first message I received from you. So, I don't understand why other people keep raising this issue. I know I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so am I missing something? I would appreciate your help with this matter. Thanks for your time. Phoenix7119 (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Phoenix7119: The message was 100% a template (this one, to be precise). From the reply you got here, the editor misclicked, and meant to give you I think {{Welcome-belated}}. So basically don't worry about it at all; I can never promise for sure but I think it's unlikely the page would be deleted given the strength of sourcing. You can delete the message from your talk page if you want, or just leave it and carry on. Sorry about the confusion it caused! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 08:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb OK. I appreciate the clarification. Thanks so much! Phoenix7119 (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alfred WoodfordEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Alfred Woodford at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Albie PearsonEdit

According to the source, it was actually Mt. San Antonio College. Thanks for calling my attention to it; not sure how that mistake was made. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem, and glad to see it fixed! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well! Not sure how I overlooked that one. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse headerEdit

Before I'm shortly exiled to Commons, i'd be interested in your thoughts on the change I sandboxed to the header. The transclusion was in there already, i just un-nested it and it appeared again. The featured host images work alright in the testcases but the dimensions seem too big, right? Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Zindor, looking at the current header, the title seems to be off-center. Is there a specific problem you're trying to address with your changes? If so, maybe seek out someone better at CSS than me, and if not, just leave as is. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the featured host images disappeared when the DJ was moving the styles externally. I just remembered recently to take a look at it. I posted on TH Talk but no response so thought I'd ask you, as you'd previously done some styling on it. I'm not bad at CSS or wikitext, so will wrap my head around what's going on in there soon enough. I won't make anything live unless i've got it nailed down. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Dockless semi-autonomous bicyclesEdit

Hi,

First of all, forgive me if I am doing something wrong here as this is the first time I try to edit something.

I wanted to add some relevant information about bicycle-sharing systems. The added information was rejected due to "No evidence this paper has been covered in reliable sources".

This information (my edit) is supported by a couple of references, the main one being a paper published back in 2017/2018 in the IEEE Access. For those who don't know this journal, it is the open-access (meaning the content can be consulted for free) journal of the IEEE, which is the main Engineering association in the world. This IEEE Access is a Q1 scientific journal (top category) with a high impact level (3.75).

Therefore, I don´t understand how this can be deemed as a non-reliable source, I am sure plenty of references in loads of Wikipedia articles are based on similar references.

Please can you help me clarify this?

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 232m232 (talkcontribs) 22:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi 232m232, and thanks for reaching out. I removed the addition because the way Wikipedia determines which information is significant enough to warrant inclusion is by looking at the amount of coverage it has gotten in reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers. Discussing a research paper by citing the research paper itself, as in your edit, is citing a primary source. Are there any newspapers that have discussed García's paper? If so, we can add it back. If not, Wikipedia isn't the place for that information yet. Also, if you have any personal connections to García, you should disclose that. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Not Stub-Class Department of Fun articlesEdit

Hello, Sdkb,

Do you expect this category to ever be used? It is not connected to any parent category and just exists in isolation. I just happened to stumble upon it, it's not part of the Wikipedia category structure. If it is going to remain empty, it should be deleted according to CSD C1 criteria.

If you can find ONE page that is appropriately categorized into it (and not just any random page), its existence can be justified, otherwise it will be tagged for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: If I'm remembering correctly, I believe it's a tracking category. The idea is, per the link at the top, all Department of Fun articles should be stub-quality, and any that are accidentally given a better rating end up in the category. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Permission to Use Interview MaterialEdit

Hi SDKB! I'm a graphic design senior at Parsons School of Design, who is creating a series of zines on Wikipedia Community/Culture. I was wondering if I could feature the interview conducted by Dalorleon in a magazine that I am making? The zine, of course, will not be for profit, but instead be a free downloadable copy for whoever wants to access it. Here's a sample of what it might look like: https://www.ceciliazhang.work/blank-1-3-1 Let me know it's cool with you if I use some of your words! Thanks for reading! Hotplates (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hotplates: Sure, that's fine; only condition is that you send me a link once it's out so I can see it! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh how exciting- thank you so much! In fact, if you're in North America, I'd be happy to send you a risographed printed copy as well. Cheers!Hotplates (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be fantastic! I sent you an email. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for A Bread FactoryEdit

 On 17 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Bread Factory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2018 comedy film A Bread Factory, about the difficulty of producing meaningful artistic work in a market economy, received acclaim from critics but earned less than $18,000 at the box office? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Bread Factory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A Bread Factory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swati Sharma (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple hills???!!! Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

New message from GreaterPonce665Edit

Hello, Sdkb. You have new messages at GreaterPonce665's talk page.
Message added 20:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 20:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred WoodfordEdit

 On 1 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Woodford, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that for nearly two decades Alfred Woodford was the sole professor in Pomona College's geology department? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Woodford. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Woodford), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Custis VezeyEdit

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #17Edit

16:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susan McWilliams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carey McWilliams.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Gary KatesEdit

 On 9 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gary Kates, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that historian Gary Kates turned down recruiters seeking to help make him a college president so that he could teach undergraduate history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gary Kates. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gary Kates), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring accusationEdit

Sdkb, please don't accuse me of edit warring. You refactored my comments. My "edit warring" was simply restoring them. As was correctly noted by another editor you crafted the RfC in question as to provide only a limited number of choices, presumably all ones you were OK with. That is misleading as the prior RfC didn't limit the scope to those choices. I admit I didn't initially notice this framing but it is now quite clear. Anyway, this is always a risks with opening a RfC out of the blue. Editors may not agree with the scope of the question and push for changes. BTW, it's inconsistent that you pushed options E and F out of the opening statement but not D. If you wish to keep D in I will insist that E and F are also kept in. Springee (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I created the RfC to provide a limited number of choices because the RfC is an extension of the prior RfC, which (per the closing) reached consensuses that ought to limit the scope of the follow-up and preclude some options, even if you personally wish otherwise. I drew the options directly from the prior discussion, and agreed to add option D because it relates to language used in the close. That is not true for E and especially not true for F, which is why I object to them. This is fully under discussion at the RfC itself, so for the sake of keeping discussion consolidated, I advise you to comment there rather than here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Traditions of Pomona CollegeEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Traditions of Pomona College 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 Kncny11 -- Kncny11 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Traditions of Pomona CollegeEdit

The article Traditions of Pomona College you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Traditions of Pomona College 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 Kncny11 -- Kncny11 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Archimedean ExcogitationEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Archimedean Excogitation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Martina VandenbergEdit

 On 16 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Martina Vandenberg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Martina Vandenberg moved to Russia and founded the country's first rape crisis center when she was 24? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Martina Vandenberg. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Martina Vandenberg), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

PreciousEdit

Pomona College people

Thank you for quality articles about people who move things, such as Martina Vandenberg and David S. Breslow, for the list of Pomona College people and filling it, for contributing where you see unmet needs, for read before commenting, - professional journalist, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2558 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you; I'm honored! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Sdkb, Well, it's about time. Good Job! -- Panini🥪 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename|Move "Lists of films by studio" by "Lists of Major Studios|Distribuors by Country".Edit

HI ! I'm new and I don't have the required access to move a page. Can you move|rename a page ? Because the one who have created it was in public account : only the IP Address appears so impossible to contact.

The Page is "Lists of films by studio" AND Should be renamed as "Lists of Major Studios|Distribuors by Country". Also the Page Should Stay in the current Categories which are good like that ! ACI99-0001 (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)ACI99-0001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACI99-0001 (talkcontribs)

@ACI99-0001: What you want is not entirely clear, but I just took a look at the article, Lists of films by studio. It's a list of lists of films by studio, so I think the current title is correct. It's listing films, not studios. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In Fact the Article wants List the Companies not the films|movies themselves. Is for that reason only Companies names appear in it. A Film|Movies Titles doesn't appear Anywhere in the Article. So what I'm trying to say is that This Article is Actually A Companies List of Major Studios|Distributors by Countries and not a Film|Movie List

Thank for your answer !

P.S. : It's because This Article is very usefull and well redacted. Just the name should be change for the one I've mentioned confer supra. ACI99-0001 (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)ACI99-0001

EDIT : OK ! I've seized your way to approach this article finally ! But, directly, this is a list of Major Distributors AND Indirectly, when you click on a link this a List of Movies made by the associated Companies. So as you want, but maybe a title modification could make the Title clearear at 1st glance. So As you want. And thank you for your answer again ! ACI99-0001 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)ACI99-0001

CongratulationsEdit

Your DYK hook about the Martina Vandenberg drew 5,207 page views (434 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talkcontribs)

Thanks! Nice to see it, especially for a hook not in the lead slot. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal about an articleEdit

There seems to be continuing disagreement about this article, which I encountered at WP:AN3 back in December. I think it would be a good idea to expore the option you proposed with this talk post on January 11. You wanted to separate references and footnotes. Do you think that would be sufficient to avoid the 'bloat' problem whereby the notes column becomes huge, as in the version of the article created on March 8 by User:Nevermore27? Do you know of any examples on other articles where this issue is successfully handled? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm not sure I would characterize it as a "continuing" disagreement anymore, since there was an RfC that resolved to restoring information properly defined as notes to the "Notes" section. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Unclear to me that the RfC reached a result. Maybe you could offer your own summary on the article talk page, and say what you think was agreed to by the participants. There is also the option of asking an admin (or other third party) to close the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Yeah I just noticed the further revert by the original reverter. Here we go again. This is based on an overly narrow and obviously deficient idea of what counts as a "note" and I don't understand why such a position should be given a privileged position over a more fulsome rundown of the facts, in the main body of the article. The RfC expired after 30 days afaik, so it wasn't prematurely closed. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The RfC tag was removed by the bot after thirty days; unclear that the participants actually formed a consensus on anything. (A closer might call it 'No consensus'). That's why I wrote to Sdkb since his proposal might be able to satisfy some of the objections of the two disagreeing sides and lead to a definite result. In the discussion that followed, I didn't see any followup to Sdkb's idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't really follow what happened at the page after I !voted in the RfC, but it seems like it was hampered a bit by low participation. My sense (not having looked super closely) is that the situation now is less a matter of resolving an unanswered question than just dealing with a problem editor. The good thing about Wikipedia is that such editors are always in the minority, so I'd say try to implement whatever's best understood as the prevailing consensus, and if someone edit wars to try to keep mixing notes and references, they'll cross 3RR and end up blocked. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: just so I'm clear, who's the "problem editor"? Nevermore27 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to name anyone without fully reading the discussion, but when it proves this difficult to do something as simple as separate out the notes and references, WP:STONEWALLING is usually the cause. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of RTGameEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on RTGame requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://tqva.ideedisplay.de/rtgame-jesse.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Onel5969 TT me 15:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: This is a restoration of a previously deleted page after additional sources became available that significantly bolstered the case for notability. The other URL is copying us, not vice versa. @Jimfbleak: please restore the page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969 and Jimfbleak: The redirects to the page have now been deleted as well. Please ensure that those are recreated. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
There is another issue, though. The article was recently deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTGame. Given that it's just some self promotion and a bit of gossip, there is no obvious reason to recreate even if it's not a copyright violation. Number of YouTube views is not a criterion for WP:Notability (people), and neither Twitch nor YouTube are considered as WP:RS sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Twitch and YouTube are obviously not the notability-establishing sources. They are The Verge (which was widely accepted as a qualifier at the AfD, the issue then just being there wasn't a second source at that time), Kotaku, and Polygon. Again, please clean up after yourself here, and next time be more cautious with your copyright patrolling. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 13:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in ReviewEdit

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Book sales pages are unacceptableEdit

Read this ANI discussion[2] where I was reported for removing his link to a Amazon page. The complaining nearly got blocked for his actions. That Princeton Press book page is a sales page just like Amazon....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to read an entire ANI thread, but looking at WP:BOOKSPAM, which you cited in your revert, it says absolutely nothing about whether or not author pages from the Princeton University Press are reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF-type information, and by our normal standards it should be fine. Contrary to your edit summary, the page does indeed include his title—you neglected to click the "Author(s)" tab (which is understandle; it's unfortunately at the same URL). I couldn't easily find another reference, as UPenn seems not to keep faculty pages for emeritus professors and the other mentions I found all left out the emeritus part. But since you seem to feel passionately about it, I'll switch to using a different outdated reference, and leave it to you to source the emeritus part. Also, as many others have requested, please fix your confusing signature. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect flagsEdit

Hello! I meant the articles for Summer and Winter Olympics. In the 1948 Winter Olympics for example Bulgaria used the flag from 1948 until 1967 they changed to that flag three days prior to the games. South Korea's flag at the 1948 Winter Olympics they used the 1945 flag until October of that year and they also used the same flag at the Summer Olympics. South Korea used the 1949 flag at the 1984 Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics until they changed flags in October of that year. Sincerely yours, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles where i spot the incorrect flagsEdit

Hello! The articles which i spot the wrong flags is in the countrys own article for the specific Olympic Games. en:Bulgaria at the 1948 Winter Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1948 Winter Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1948 Summer Olympics, en:Spain at the 1980 Summer Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1984 Winter Olympics and en:South Korea at the 1984 Summer Olympics. Yours sincerely, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: RTGame (March 30)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Berrely were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Berrely • TalkContribs 18:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 
Hello, Sdkb! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Berrely • TalkContribs 18:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A WikiYanny for you!Edit

  WikiYanny
For writing Wikipedia's notability policies Please keep up the good work. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad ideaEdit

Your proposal is a bad idea! – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A visitor for your talk pageEdit

 


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

as per your requestcsc-1 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Arccosecant: Oof! That's rather larger than the trout I ordered! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Your order was interpreted creatively. — csc-1 02:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Editnotices/Page/BostonEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:Editnotices/Page/Boston, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

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. Moxy-  04:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: I'm really not sure what you're doing. It's an April Fools joke. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
If I had realized it was you ....I would not have gotten involved. But now that we are here....You sure this dialect joke is the best way to use your template editor privileges? pls read.Moxy-  04:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: Each time you deny that you knew it was me you were stalking/trying to harass it becomes less plausible. Regarding your concern, editnotices are not reader-facing, and the joke is properly disclosed, so there is no issue. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Normally its because your signature is not visible ....this time I just noticed junk. Another great edit.Moxy-  10:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021! I hope you have a good rest of the year. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Nrco0e: Thanks! Already planning for 2022... {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For [3], I hereby award you the EEng April 1 Platinum Medal of Honor First Class, with Embedded Chrysanthemum Beryls and Oak Leaves. EEng 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Archimedean ExcogitationEdit

 On 4 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Archimedean Excogitation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the rolling ball sculpture Archimedean Excogitation (pictured) has almost 30 moving or sound-producing components? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Archimedean Excogitation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Archimedean Excogitation), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Automatically generated short descriptions for Infobox songEdit

Hi, I saw from the talk page that you were involved in adding the feature that generates automatic short descriptions for articles which use Infobox song, so I was wondering if I could ask you a question: Why does it generate the inaccurate short description "2021 single by The Beatles" for I'm Down? –Paul1337 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see "1965 single by the Beatles" on that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Paul1337 and Jonesey95: I added the release date to Wikidata, which I presume fixed it, but it should've been able to detect the absence of the information previously and not tried to generate a description. I'll investigate what happened when I'm free in a bit. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so investigating, it looks like it's likely related somehow to a set of changes Wbm1058 made to the template and to {{Year}} in late January. What's supposed to happen is that the template checks to see if there's a Wikidata value for the release date and if {{Year}} extracts a valid year from it, and only moves forward with autogenerating the description if all's good. That was/is (I temporarily unadded the date from Wikidata for troubleshooting) failing in this case—there's no Wikidata value, but it's moving forward anyways, and when {{Year}} is used on an empty value, it returns the current year, which is why we're getting 2021. Wbm1058, could you perhaps clarify what the modifications you made were aiming at and see if you can help us pinpoint exactly what's causing this? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox song/doc hasn't been updated to document this functionality. It doesn't explain that this template retrieves a "short description" nor how it does that. This functionality may also be counter to MOS:ORDER that says short descriptions should be placed at the top of the page, before hatnotes, maintenance templates, and infoboxes. I've seen pages with multiple short descriptions, one at the top of the page and one coming from inside the infobox. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: You're correct about the documentation. Sorry that wasn't already present; I've now added it. Regarding MOS:ORDER, there are plenty of other templates that generate automatic short descriptions, and I'm not aware of the community having any concerns along those lines, but you could try asking at the short descriptions WikiProject. Back to the issue at hand—do you remember what your were trying to do with your edits in late January, or what specifically is going wrong at I'm Down? If not, we should probably revert to go back to the stable version of automatic short description generation that we confirmed was working properly when we implemented it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
As documented at Template:Short description#Testing I've enabled my Special:MyPage/common.css to show me short descriptions. It firstly tells me that Yesterday (Beatles song) is a "1965 single by the Beatles" and then on the next line says "2021 single by the Beatles". I see that Happening (song) says "2012 single by Medina" and gets this from {{wikidata|property|P577}} which returns 14 September 2012.{{year|{{wikidata|property|P577}}}} returns 2012. For the Beatles song {{wikidata|property|P577}} returns nothing. You could check first to see whether {{wikidata|property|P577}} is null before passing that into {{Year}} and intentionally generating an error that I patrol for any try to fix. I added parameter {{{2}}} to Template:YEAR so you could use that to check for errors when extracting the year from {{wikidata|property|P577}}. Errors that #iferror detects are errors that I detect and you shouldn't be demanding that editors edit Wikidata to fix Wikipedia errors. It's lot easier to just add a {{short description}} template. All this increased complexity is making things harder to maintain.
What I did only effects results from non-blank data. Note the difference Error vs. error. I must have done this because there was non-blank junk coming back from Wikidata somewhere but I don't recall the details. If you first check for null data and find that, then you're done and attempt to generate a short desc can be aborted without even calling {{year}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I don't follow exactly what you're proposing, but if you want to make edits to the template(s), feel free to do so, and if it fixes the error we're good. If it's going to take you a bit, we should undo your late January edits in the interim, as we don't want to let all these articles sit in a broken state for too long. It's unfortunate they've been this way for as long as they have already, but I'm glad Paul1337 discovered it and raised the issue. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the code change that implemented this. The first check is "Is infobox in lead"? The first thing to ask should be "Is {{wikidata|property|P577}} non-blank?" If there's nothing there, it doesn't matter whether there's an infobox in the lead because you can't generate a short desc without data coming back from {{wikidata|property|P577}}. wbm1058 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe I've fixed it now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It appears that the new code will completely omit the short description if there is no date in wikidata. Is that what is wanted? I would think that if there is no year, there should be a short description saying simply "[type] by [artist]", instead of no short description at all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Wbm1058: That seems like a somewhat messy fix, and I'm not sure whether it handles all edge cases (such as when the value returned from Wikidata is "18th century"), but I guess we can see if it works. I'm going to bow out at this point—I took responsibility for getting the functionality working smoothly at the time I implemented it, but I can't take responsibility for resolving issues arising from subsequent modifications; those are the responsibility of whoever makes the modifications. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
What Jonesey95 is asking for would be an enhancement that was not supported in the Sdkb original version. Adding that capability would make the code even messier. I think it should be possible to code this more cleanly in a Lua module but I've yet to find/make time to become sufficiently proficient with Lua to tackle that. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of RTGame for deletionEdit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RTGame is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTGame (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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.

-- ferret (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad faith commentEdit

Sdkb, do not make comments about other editor on article talk pages. This comment violates talk page guidelines and does nothing to bring about consensus nor does it strengthen what ever argument you are attempting to make.[[4]] Springee (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've given you many chances to demonstrate good faith, Springee. At this point, WP:SPADE applies, and advising other editors to stop arguing with you will improve the discussion if they listen. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any examples of what ever you are claiming. Your comment was not WP:FOC. If you aren't aware that making comments about editors instead of about the topic is a violation of talk page guidelines then perhaps you shouldn't be editing AP2 topics. Springee (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

ExConEdit

{{If extended confirmed}} doesn't seem to work. Too tired right now to figure out why. Primefac (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Hmm, I'd guess there's been some change to common.css that's caused it. I'll take a look; thanks for the heads up. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: Just getting to this, but when I checked, it seems to be working properly. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, right, because I'm not technically ExCon. This could pose problems if there are uses other than at WP:UAL or random user pages (depending on its intended use). Primefac (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: Hmm, I thought that the way we set it up included admins. I'll adjust the template; the alternative would be to adjust the underlying class it's based on. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome6Edit

Hi, I just closed this discussion and noticed that there is also Template:Welcome6 which looks a lot like Template:Welcome. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sunshine Protection ActEdit

 On 14 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sunshine Protection Act, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sunshine Protection Act would make daylight saving time in the United States become permanent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sunshine Protection Act. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sunshine Protection Act), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

National Memorial for Peace and JusticeEdit

Clearly stuff like this needs some work. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • See if you think I did enough to warrant removal of the tag. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Since you've read through the parts you've edited more thoroughly than I have, it's your call if you think it's good enough to remove the tag; feel free to do so if you think it's warranted.
      Regarding the short description, the reason I changed it was that the current one is far too long (per WP:SDFORMAT, the target is 40 characters, whereas right now it's a whopping 103). Also, "national memorial" is technically incorrect as a description, since it's not official like these. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll tweak it some. It's the whole "Lynching memorial" thing, it sounds a bit disrespectful--and I know that I created it as such, but I've come back from that somewhat crude shorthand description. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • @Drmies: Would Lynching victims memorial in Montgomery, Alabama, United States be acceptable? I don't think anyone would mistake it as a monument to the practice of lynching, but adding "victims" makes it extra clear. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)