This is Sdkb's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 90 days

I want to people know me, and I have done a long time of influencing people, I have account on social media and I have done a lot of donations and Maken memories, want your support

Thanks ROX AYUSH Ayushprachi20 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushprachi20, this is probably the leading Bad Idea for an Article. see WP:BAI. Guy (help!) 08:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Cindy'SweRr Cindy'SweRr (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Mhiz Destiny Mhiz Destiny (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
433		Claremont Colleges (talk)	Add sources
340		Claremont McKenna College (talk)	Add sources
12		Harvard Crimson women's basketball (talk)	Add sources
1,392		Social distancing (talk)	Add sources
1,219		Anissa Jones (talk)	Add sources
20		On the Loose (outing club) (talk)	Add sources
1,513		European migrant crisis (talk)	Cleanup
984		Pharmacology (talk)	Cleanup
324		Line Webtoon (talk)	Cleanup
1,337		Travel restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic (talk)	Expand
304		Harvey Mudd College (talk)	Expand
19		White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (talk)	Expand
1,781		Death (personification) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
18		Online art gallery (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
14		Michael Govan (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
798		British passport (talk)	Merge
24		Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) (talk)	Merge
626		Second plague pandemic (talk)	Merge
60		John Currin (talk)	Wikify
26		COVID-19 datasets (talk)	Wikify
670		Individual involvement in the Chernobyl disaster (talk)	Wikify
12		Adam Sender (talk)	Orphan
26		Nam Doh-hyeong (talk)	Orphan
1		William Vandercreek (talk)	Orphan
15		Claremont station (California) (talk)	Stub
244		Max Perlich (talk)	Stub
1,384		Sugar baby (talk)	Stub
9		E. Wilson Lyon (talk)	Stub
6		Frank Seaver (talk)	Stub
4		Meg Cranston (talk)	Stub

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Random numbered subpages of Draft:Sample page. Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here to post this; looking for your input is all. If you had checked before now you wouldn't have found your name mentioned there, but you have been now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to add the current event statement I was given a message. What are these discretionary sanctions and who should I talk to? https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=AcWEX9fFBoSKytMPj-yo4AQ&q=amy+coney+barrett&gs_ssp=eJzj4tVP1zc0TKmsqMrOMS4zYPQSTMytVEjOz0utVEhKLCpKLSkBAMHCC7M&oq=amy+c&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMg4ILhCxAxCDARDJAxCTAjIICAAQsQMQgwEyCAgAELEDEIMBMgIIADIICAAQsQMQgwEyCAgAELEDEIMBMggIABCxAxCDATIICAAQsQMQgwEyCAgAELEDEIMBMgIILjoLCC4QsQMQgwEQkwI6BQgAELEDOggILhDHARCjAjoICC4QsQMQgwE6CwguELEDEMcBEKMCOgsIABCxAxCDARDJAzoFCC4QsQNQXlikYmCDbmgAcAB4AIABUogB9wOSAQE3mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABAA&sclient=psy-abPersonisgaming (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personisgaming, your link is just a Google search, and I'm not sure why you're reaching out specifically to me (it looks like you've also asked Bluerasberry, who is also confused—you won't get far on Wikipedia unless you communicate clearly). To answer you as best I can, many pages under discretionary sanctions have edit notices that appear to all editors. If by "current event statement" you mean Template:Current, be aware that that template is often overused, and is not appropriate for most pages. For general help, you are always welcome to visit the Teahouse, a dedicated help space for new editors. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination Event Tag

Is adding a current tag necessary. Which variant please specify?

Personisgaming (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Personisgaming: Okay, it's clearer what you're trying to do now. I replied to your additional post at Talk:Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination. Please be aware that it's generally not a good idea to start a discussion/question about the same thing in multiple places. You can use ((Please see)) if you are posting at an obscure page, but the Barrett nomination page is definitely not obscure. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on trimming down COVID-19 pandemic, and all your COVID-related work in general! Ovinus (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus Real: Thanks so much; I appreciate it a lot! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have seen you on TfD and other template related pages and I was wondering if there is somewhere I can propose a change to a template other than the talk page, since I want to add the incremental service awards to ((Service awards)) however I know I should get a consensus before doing any changes. But I doubt anyone is even watching the talkpage. Thanks. Terasail^[Talk] 16:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terasail, Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards looks active enough; maybe post there? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot to check the Wikipedia talk page, thanks. Terasail^[Talk] 13:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw beleatedly the ((flux)) discussion, archived at

Redirects for discussion, August 23 2020

A point that was not made is that there typically are zero uses in the main space, and that the template it redirects to typically has under ten uses in main space at any one time, and sometimes zero.

Yellowdesk (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Although I am not totally unfamiliar to the process on Wikipedia, I'm not very active so many things are unfamiliar to me. I noticed that the section on the Donald Trump talk page I wrote was swiftly discussed on by others and closed before I had a chance to address the responses. I also read the message you wrote as you closed the discussion indicating that the thread was too broad to be productive, but I wanted to ask about the amount of detail needed in order for it to be productive. I also wanted to know a little bit more on -- assuming almost every sentence in the introduction was debated on to some extent -- how previous debates can be *restarted* if there was an argument (new or old) I wish to (re)introduce. Thanks! -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaiisao, broadly, the intent of talk pages is to improve the article. If you had said "the first two sentences are negative in tone, I think they should include X positive statement, backed by reliable sources and included in the body of the article", then you can have a discussion, but "there are no positive sentences" is just a comment, not a proposal for change, and is true of a lot of articles. There are articles where controversial figures have nonetheless done good things. At Benito Mussolini, for example, we note his recognition of the Vatican City State. See if you can find some things that are recognised as positive achievements by neutral sources like the Financial Times. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdkb, I was surprised and fascinated to read about Bertha Weber's suicide, which you added to her article. How did you discover this? I am wondering how I missed it, but it was not in any other source I checked. T. E. Meeks (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. E. Meeks, yeah, I was surprised to read about it, too; you don't hear about too many suicides at age 74! I really just happened upon it—I searched newspapers.com for her to fill out one of the citations, and it came up. (Searching again now, it's not coming up the same way, so I'm not sure what search term I used.) It does look like most of the coverage of her death covered up the fact (or just didn't know) that it was a suicide. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 14:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sdkb. I created the sandbox article with the edits I proposed but I did it in mainspace... I should have used my userspace? I wrote here for help Wikipedia:Help_desk#COVID-19_pandemic/sandbox but maybe you know how to handle this? Thanks -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 23:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto, it doesn't matter a ton (AFAIK), but I moved it to User:Gtoffoletto/COVID-19 pandemic sandbox, just to be safe. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Another editor pointed it out and I started having second thoughts! -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 00:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Online learning.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you meant to link to in this edit so I'm just letting you know the WP:Plain and simple Manual of Style link that you provided there goes to an empty page. Maybe it would make a good redirect to whatever page you had in mind? 78.28.55.139 (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad; made the redirect! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the fifteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Variants C and D deployed

Variants C and D are two new arrangements of the newcomer homepage. We hope they will increase the number of users using suggested edits. They both make suggested edits the clear place where newcomers should get started on the page. They have some differences in their workflows, because we want to test which design is better. We deployed these variants on October 19; half of newcomers get each variant. After about 5 weeks, we will analyze the data from the tests. The goal is to determine which variant is helping more newcomers to make more suggested edits. We will identify the better variant and then use it with all newcomers.

Structured tasks: add a link

As we discussed in previous newsletters, the team is working on our first "structured task": the "add a link" task. After community discussion on design ideas, we ran user tests on the mobile designs. We decided on the design concept we want to use moving forward: Concept A. We're now engineering the backend for this feature. Next, we will be running user tests for desktop designs.

Learn more about the findings.

Community news

• We recently deployed the Growth features to Polish, Portuguese, Swedish and Turkish Wikipedias. 18 wikis now have Growth features. Learn more about getting the features.
• Have you recently checked if all interface messages are translated for your language?

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

10:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that you have not acted on this. Is it your view that the community may form a consensus to violate accessibility guidelines? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, I find the arguments against the small versions based on MOS:SMALL persuasive. I haven't modified the RfC because it's already a more-complex-than-average structure, and I don't want to complicate it further by modifying it mid-way. But I suspect the accessibility argument will prevail.

There is some further room for discussion, though. I don't think we've figured out just how much smaller captions are than normal text, so there might be some room to make the time note a bit smaller without it dropping below 85%. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Associated Students of Pomona College 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/Associated Students of Pomona College 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb, Thank you for your help! apologies for the late response. I'm glad the article could be reclassified as a C-class. Hopefully, I can improve it further! Pinklily08 (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinklily08, of course; happy to help! I notice that kaya toast doesn't have Template:Educational assignment or Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment on its talk page; you may want to add one of those. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, ah, good catch. I'll add that in. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinklily08 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour is becoming objectionable in the talk page. Removing the do not archive tag is the same as archiving it because you yourself deliberately wanted it archived, claiming that it is the bot that did it is disingenuous. I get that you like the Trump visual there, but restoring the image and then hiding away the discussion before it gets archived is just trying to get your own way. There is no certainty it will get closed (or if anyone will notice that it has been closed when it is archived). What is wrong with leaving it there for a specified time until it is archived. And no, a discussion is not dead just because you said say, and WP:STICK is meant for a dispute that does not apply to RfC, and you cannot violate anything that is just a humorous essay and not a guideline. Hzh (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For context for anyone else, this is your reply to this.

Hzh, please take a look at WP:ANRFC. Every discussion that is listed there receives a close, since there is no automatic archiving of old listings. The only way for an item to be removed from that page is if it receives a close or if it's an improper listing (which is clearly not the case here). So yes, it will receive a close (at which time the closer will most likely restore it to the talk page); you just need to be a little patient. Regarding the rest, I don't have anything to add to my previous reply. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply in the thread was even more objectionable, trying to suggest I was trying to gain more support. The tag was there to allow everything to be concluded, it would have been completely wrong to archive it before it ended. In this case it is just waiting for it to be closed, that you want to suggest otherwise is offensive, especially when it was you who restored an image without consensus. Hzh (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you now accept that there is no consensus for the Trump video there, and that you should not have restored the visual? Hzh (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ur response i am trying to create this article its getting rejected. once it had got approved again it got nominated to speedy delectation person is notable has many individual sources but i am getting error as person is not notable now its showing Require extended confirmed access kindly look into the article & help me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anusharai_(actress) this user had accepted the article Nomadic_chiru after that its getting nominated to speedy delectation AjKa180

Hi AjKa180—you've properly submitted the draft to our articles for creation process. There is unfortunately a long backlog, so it may take some time for the page to be reviewed. Please be patient and don't try to jump the queue, and it will be reviewed in due time. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this below link its showing 20:36, 15 November 2020 Woody talk contribs protected Draft:Anusha Rai [Create=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 20:36, 15 May 2021) (Repeatedly recreated) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anusha_Rai will it get affected to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AjKa180 (talk • contribs)

@AjKa180: Ohh, I see; the proper title of the page is Draft:Anusha Rai, but you can't create it there because it's been create-protected, which happened because the article was deleted and repeatedly recreated by socks (possibly including yourself; sorry I don't have enough info to know). I'll leave a comment for the AfC reviewer, but beyond that I can't really help you further. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ur support No no i got to know many soks has worked on page. She has gud source but not able to create the page. kindly help me in this — Preceding unsigned comment added by AjKa180 (talk • contribs)

@AjKa180: I've done what I can for you, providing information for the draft reviewer. It'd be unfair to all the other drafts in waiting for me to review the page myself, so you'll have to be patient; it could unfortunately take up to several months, but it'll get done eventually. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AjKa180 (talk • contribs)

Hello, I just have attempted to do a merge between ((Top25)) and ((Top 25 report)) which you closed recently. I have set Top25 to a redirect, nothing seems to have broken & I updated the doc for Top 25 report. Just wondering if there is anything else I should have done, thanks. Terasail^[✉] 22:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terasail, I haven't been too involved with performing the actual merges, so I'd put a note at the holding cell, where the templates are listed, and see if others can weigh in. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok thanks Terasail^[✉] 22:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HI Sdkb,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thank you for starting the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Expired nominations. You were encouraged to take a passing comment on Wikipedia Discord and start a full discussion on Wikipedia. I'm impressed! Keep up the good work. :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: Thanks! I just wanted to give space to the thought in a forum where there's some chance it could lead to action if there's enough consensus. We'll see what happens! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You were kind enough to come do a review of Biblical criticism, and I am guessing you are done with it as you haven't returned. If I'm wrong then please ignore this, but if I am correct and you are done, then I'd like to ask you to close it, and if possible, post your conclusions concerning what you did. If the comments are not struck, and it's left open as it is now, and there is no conclusion posted, then other reviewers think all those issues are unresolved - that I didn't fix them or cooperate with you. Since that is not the case, this creates a false impression about me and this review. I'm sorry to be a nag. This review is important to me. Thank you again for participating. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777, no worries at all; I collapsed the majority of my comments, which have been resolved. There are a few small lingering things which we need input on from others, which I've moved to their own section, which should hopefully be more digestible. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're wonderful. Thank you so much. I will address those lingering issues immediately. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editing introduction discussion is at User talk:Robert McClenon/Edit Intro. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Champ and Major, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Major will be the first rescue dog to live in the White House? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Champ and Major. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Champ and Major), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your new template shows "ACT" as a parameter. Could you relabel it "ACT Composite" for clarity to distinguish it from ACT Math and ACT English? Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor321, since it displays as "ACT Composite" and there are no parameters for ACT Math or ACT English, hopefully the usage will be clear. I did just modify the documentation to make it clearer, though, and added the composite label as an alias. The thing I'm a little more concerned about people messing up is using the scores of the admitted class rather than the enrolled class (colleges love to publish the former because it's normally higher). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for making those changes. I realize I should have been more specific in my request: the admissions infobox just shows "ACT" (under SAT Math change) when editing, whereas "ACT Composite" would, I believe, minimize potential confusion.

I agree with your point regarding admitted vs. enrolled, and am concerned that when editors go to add data in the infobox there is nothing there to indicate enrolled data should be used. It's specified in the documentation subpage, but I'd guess 99 out of 100 editors wouldn't look for, much less find, that documentation. Can an instruction to specifically use enrolled data be added to the infobox that an editor would see when adding or updating data? Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor321, by "infobox" do you mean the basic usage example code? I just changed that so it now uses the more descriptive alias. Beyond that, I think it's somewhat of a fool's errand to try to put complete instructions in the code itself, since by the time you've put in enough instructions to cover the big points, the code is so long that no one actually reads it. To phrase it another way, even though documentation is often ignored, ultimately there's no place to put the documentation other than the documentation. Regarding this template specifically, I am hoping to ultimately have it become automated, which would help reduce the potential for human errors like using admitted data by mistake. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant the basic usage example code. Thanks for updating it. Contributor321 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb, I figured if anyone knew, it would be you. As of now, do you know if there is a way to add a custom link to the top toolbar alongside the "Talk - Sandbox - Preferences etc." ? I have a to do list I've been using for some time now, and figured if it's available I may as well talk advantage of it. Aza24 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24! You can do that through a script, I believe. User:Lourdes/PageCuration adds a link for the new page feed, so you could probably copy and paste the code from that and just change it to the link you want. Hope that helps! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow yes, I was able to adjust that script easily. Thank you! Aza24 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You can look in User:Jonesey95/vector.js file for "Add link at top for Tools page". Copy the section from "Wait for the DOM/page to finish loading" through } ); and put it at the bottom of your own vector.js file (it looks like you have something similar at User:Aza24/vector.js). I can't promise that it is up-to-date code, but it works for me. Replace the page name with your own page name, obviously. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that seems to work well too – thanks. I may as well ping SandyGeorgia and Gog the Mild (whose to do lists that I stumbled across convinced me to make my own), they may also find this useful... Aza24 (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, I am having difficulty following just what the issue was that was resolved. Any chance of a diff and/or a link to the article altered? Re my To Do List, linking it via Kiss Boxes on appropriate pages seems to work for me; does this do something similar, or am I missing the point? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild sorry, I suppose the conversation above was rather fragmentary. If you copy this (I would copy it from the source editor, not the talk page it self):

$( function() { // Add link at top for Tools page mw.loader.using( ['mediawiki.util'] ).done( function() { mw.util.addPortletLink('p-personal', mw.util.getUrl('User:Gog the Mild/Tasks'), 'To do', 'pt-todo', 'Go to User:User:Gog the Mild/Tasks', null, '#pt-preferences'); });

/* Override annoying purge dialog */ if ( mw.config.get( 'wgAction' ) === 'purge' ) { $('form.mw-htmlform').submit(); } } );
and paste it to your js page it will put "to do" in between your "sandbox" and "preferences" at the top toolbar. Maybe that will be useful? Aza24 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, ah, that would be handy. Except that I have "To Do" permanently saved on a browser tool bar immediately above this - along with other useful links such as Wikt, Watch, FAC, Transl, Google Maps, etc - so this serves a similar purpose, except that I never need to scroll up to access it. Many thanks for explaining it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:QuestBridge partner colleges has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Le Deluge (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding unsourced information to the encyclopedia? Have you read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:AFD? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLP (emphasis in original): "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Please also see Wikipedia:Core content policies. Let me know if there are more rules here that you aren't familiar with that may aid you in editing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone curious what he's referring to, I reverted his unilateral attempt to turn List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page into a redirect because it was unsourced; more is at his talk page. I won't respond further here to avoid creating a talk fork. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(As an update, Koavf was subsequently indefinitely blocked over this.) ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 13:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Good morning. It's been over a week since I left this message. (the one at the bottom of the page at the link) I know I should've wrote this message earlier, but I wanted to give some time to see if IVORK responded. I wanted to know, did you write a message to IVORK regarding the creation of this article? It's okay if you did not, but I'd like to bring this back up, because if it's suitable enough for Wikipedia, it shouldn't have been declined in the first place. I also thought this was important because maybe you have more authority over me that would prompt this person to send a response back? Please let me know when you can, and thanks for reading this message. Have a nice day. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up, Trevortnidesserped. Although I am an AfC reviewer, I do not have the permissions to create SuperMarioLogan because it has been create-protected, so I am going to place a tag on this thread that will attract an administrator.

Context for the admin: Trevortnidesserped made a draft for SuperMarioLogan, which was declined by IVORK. They subsequently sought assistance at the Teahouse in this thread, where I encountered them and where the sentiment was generally that this draft was better sourced than previous attempts and perhaps ought to be let into mainspace (where it can be AfDed if anyone so chooses). I'd appreciate a second opinion from you on the notability, and if you do choose to accept it, please note that there are other redirects (Logan Thirtyacre) that will also need to be unsalted, and that the page will likely need some monitoring and/or protection due to the controversy of its subject. It could also certainly use some general cleanup. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevortnidesserped: I accepted Sdkb's explanation around the notability to the article and had said he is fine to approve/accept as he wishes, but I think by that point you had already edited your sandbox into another article. Obviously be aware that for incidences like that, you can use any namespace under your username User:Trevortnidesserped/sandbox1 User:Trevortnidesserped/NewDankAssArticle etc. but mainly only in events where the draftspace titles are salted. There is no need to overwrite one in place of another. — IVORK _Talk 21:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse message didn't influence this decision, but Special:Diff/990135378 did. As the unprotection request to the protecting administrator has remained unanswered until today, I'm downgrading the protection to semi-protection. Future similar requests can be made at WP:RFPP. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sdkb,

I hope you are well.

I see you just reverted an edit on the COVID-19 pandemic article. You seem to be the only dissenting voice in discussions regarding that topic.

Please participate in the discussions and explain your views more clearly so that we may find a compromise. Those discussions have been lasting months with no resolution in sight manly due to your dissenting opinion.

Let's fix this!

Thanks,

-- ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 13:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you at the talk page. I will note for the record that I was not the only dissenting opinion, and that your edit went against the page's current consensus item 9. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 13:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdkb,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged GeoWizard for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging participants of the prior discussions on infobox plurality: @GhostInTheMachine, Funandtrvl, AlanM1, BilCat, Jonesey95, RexxS, and Nikkimaria: I have drafted an RfC follow-up which could hopefully make it clearer how to proceed. It's currently at User:Sdkb/sandbox/early drafts, and would probably be hosted at VPT. I'd be interested in your feedback—is this the right way to proceed, and if so are there any tweaks I should make to it before launching it? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Update: Discussion happening at User talk:Sdkb/sandbox/early drafts, so let's centralize there.) ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sdkb deliberately introducing HTML errors. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello Sdkb,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Washington Post, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eugene Meyer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, hi again, I hope you don't mind me coming back here for some insight – you seem to always to be very sensible. I was recently look at Hildegard of Bingen and noticed the (rather ridiculous) double infobox for her being a saint and philosopher/scientist/composer. I suppose I must have glanced over this before, as I've been to her page multiple times; I looked around a little and found a similar situation of two infoboxes on Ambrose and (this one is painful to see as there are three additional sidebars) Augustine of Hippo (I'm sure there are other pages like this). After discussing this with a user who works on Christian-topic articles, she concluded that there is no obvious reason for the infoboxes to be in such a manner. I'm assuming (?) the appropriate solution would to make one able to be imbedded in the other, presumably the saint one, any ideas? Also, where would you think be the best place to hold a discussion on finding consensus for this? Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24! Totally agreed that the double infobox looks fairly silly and that embedding would be the preferable solution. I'm not entirely sure about a good venue for discussing; you could hold it at Template talk:Infobox saint and just put a ((Please see)) at the religion or even biography wikiprojects. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb, coming back to this to think about how I could draft an RFC, I'm not sure how exactly templates work with embedding. Would I proposing that the infobox saint be available as a module? If so, this forgotten RFC is perhaps the same proposal? Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, my understanding is that embedding as a module would be the way to combine the infoboxes, so yeah, it might be worth reviving that discussion. For an example of this happening elsewhere, I was just looking at Infobox officeholder earlier, which seems to have some decent documentation related to embedding. ((Infobox NRHP)) is another example that comes to mind of an embeddable infobox. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 10:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar and the support. There won't be a next time for me. But I appreciate the good thoughts. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David S. Breslow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that plastics researcher David S. Breslow's interest in chemistry began as a child when he used a chemistry set to make stink bombs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David S. Breslow. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David S. Breslow), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you're updating various articles via AWB. It auto-sorts templates alphabetically, however per MOS:ORDER, the ((short description)) template is to remain first. Please undo your changes that put 'short description' at other than the top of the article. Thanks —ADavidB 23:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adavidb, thanks for the heads up. I was just using the default AWB settings and I hadn't seen it do that before, so I assumed there was just some change in consensus about where the short description should go. That's rather concerning that the default settings are causing changes that go against MOS:ORDER, since changes added to WP:GENFIX are not supposed to break anything. It sounds like something that should be fixed with AWB; should we post to WT:AutoWikiBrowser or is this a known issue? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 00:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is a known issue with a previous version of AWB. See WT:AutoWikiBrowser (search for "short description") to see a note about this problem being fixed in the latest version, and previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive 32. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, thanks for the links. I'm using 6.1.0.1, which based on the header at WP:AWB is the latest stable version, so it seems the developers haven't yet released a non-beta version that fixes the issue. (Clicking Help > Check for updates within AWB leads to "Retrieving current version...FAILED", so there's something else going on there...) ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 00:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it's known/addressed. I've also encountered the update issue with 6.1.0.1. —ADavidB 06:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, I know I should've wrote this message before this damage was done, and I know you are probably sick of hearing of this, but is there anything we could do to fix the issue of the SML page being re-salted? The main reason I'm asking is because I don't understand why they would delete the article if, as you stated, it passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT, so I just wanted to ask if there was anything else we could do to re-vamp this, this time justifying an irrefutable reason against its deletion. It just honesty boils my mind at this point that so many people feel that the creation of an article revolving a relatively notable subject is going against their existence, and that this one person can make the final decision as to whether the page gets deleted again. I feel bad asking about this again, but I wouldn't feel right not doing so, in the sense of "getting [this] off my chest." Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 1:42 December 15, 2020 (UTC)

Trevortnidesserped, it's no trouble to reach out, and I'm sorry that you're having such a frustrating experience. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything that can be done to get the page revived currently. The participants at the deletion discussion hopefully looked at the question of notability more thoroughly than I did as an AfC reviewer and had more relevant subject expertise, and they came to a fairly clear consensus that the topic was not notable. So it seems the available sourcing just isn't persuasive enough to demonstrate notability, and in that situation, there is nothing else that can be done. However, this doesn't mean SML will never be notable. If there is additional media coverage in the future, you can ask for the page to be restored as a draft and then try publishing again. For now, though, I'd suggest finding other topics that interest you to write about. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at Yahya M. Madra, and I notice that you have rated it as a stub. I cannot tell whether the article was formally accepted into Wikipedia or simply added by its creator.

My question is: how did a short article which fails to demonstrate notability get into Wikipedia in 2020? I thought we were better than that. If you were the reviewer who let the article go live, I would like to ask whether you took a look at the interviews, papers and other connected sources supporting the article. It's a classic case of non-notabililty; the sort of thing which gets declined every day.

If I am mistaken as to how the article was accepted, please let me know who reviewed it and how a person can look at an article and find that out, as I have yet to discover where this information is found.

I'm sure Madra is a nice guy, and Marxists are always facinating, but that article isn't ready to go live yet, as nobody writes about him.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) See WP:NACADEMIC, #8. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Quisqualis, I encountered the author seeking help at the Teahouse in this thread. They argued that Madra meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion 8 (The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area) as the editor-in-chief of the academic journal Rethinking Marxism, an argument I don't see fault with based on a plain reading of the guideline. Regarding "nobody writes about him", [1] and [2] seem to make at least a plausible case for GNG. Regarding the short length, we don't impose a length requirement for accepting drafts, and to the extent we de facto impose a style bar, this one was well above average in terms of MOS compliance. Based mainly on the NACADEMIC claim, I accepted the draft, although I didn't tick off the NPP so as to get a second pair of eyes on it. I hope that helps clarify. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article in Turkish is an interview. Also, "head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area" does not mean just any academic journal. Rethinking Marxism may be a major Marxist journal, but, going by the scope implied by its title, I would judge it to be pretty minor within the realm of political science journals, despite being over 30 years old. Looks like I am going to have to learn about AFD, finally.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you wanted to do here, but AutoWikiBrowser might help you if you're looking to generate lists of pages in a category and wrap each title in some wiki code. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. As I mentioned at the discussion, I'm looking to see if it'd be possible to convert a list page to something that just updates based off the category members, which would reduce the redundancy between categories and lists. AWB can't help with that, unfortunately, and it seems it's impossible until some back-end improvements are made. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Sdkb!!
	Hi Sdkb, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all you do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ozzie10aaaa, and I wish you a happy holiday season as well! Could you point me to the template for this box? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBH actually I copied/pasted it from one I got last year(I myself tried to find the Holiday page for these but I couldnt)...Merry XMAS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much; best wishes to you, too, and please stay in touch! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for all the work you do on Wikipedia especially in the vital articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not understanding this. I appreciate your advise but honestly I don't even know how to respond to your comment? I would be happy to move the subject to its own page but I'm not entirely sure how to do that. Can you assist in that, please?

-NW NinjaWarrior99 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(For reference, this is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1087#Help. NinjaWarrior99, I've moved your draft to Draft:James H. Dargie and added a submission banner, which you can use once you think the article is ready to publish. It would be declined if submitted in its current state, so I recommend you read Help:Your first article and Help:Introduction to learn what it needs. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

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)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

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

Thanks for fixing whatever was in error but maybe a note about why you edited my sandbox would have been nice... Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: There were a bunch of incorrectly categorized pages in Category:Happy holidays and seasonal greetings WikiLove templates, and I just went through and cleared them out to make the category more navigable. Enclosing categories of templates in ((Sandbox other)) is standard practice, but I probably should've used a better edit description than just decategorizing sandbox. I hope it wasn't any disturbance, and happy holidays! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdkb! Season's Greetings,

I strive to be a contributor on Wikipedia, so I would like to improve the quality of my User Talk page by adding an Infobox on it, with the following labels: 'This user was last active on (date and time)', 'This user has last seen the Talk page on (date and time)', and 'This user is expected to be inactive until (date and time)', which I can update everytime I visit my Talk page. But the problem is that I am unaware of how to add such an Infobox as there are no pre-existing templates for this. I hope you can help me out.

Also it would be extremely helpful of you if you can guide me on how to send the Barnstars to other users.

Thank you.

CX Zoom (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom: Hmm, that's an interesting request! I doubt there's any way to automatically detect when you were last active, but you could put together an infobox that you could manually update with your last date of activity; it'd just be a little annoying to have to constantly update it. For when you do plan to be away, ((Wikibreak)) is what people generally use. For an automatic date of last edit to your talk page (not quite last activity, but close), you could use ((REVISIONUSER)). For Barnstars, see WP:Barnstar; one way to do it is (on desktop) go to their user talk page, click on the red heart in upper right near the search box, and then follow the instructions. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Thanks a lot. I would also like to invite you to my User Page to give your feedback as I am setting up my User page and the allied Talk Page for the first time and would require some guidance to do it. Thank you again. Cheers. CX Zoom (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb:Thanks a lot. CX Zoom (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with the closure of the RfC! I see that ProcrastinatingReader has closed it with the consensus that the first sentence should read: "TikTok ... is a video-sharing social networking service owned by [the] Chinese company ByteDance." Although the consensus has been established, I'm concerned it still may not be appropriate for me to implement it myself. Can you go ahead and make the change instead? (Happy to do it myself if given the green light.) Bkenny44 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkenny44:  Done here. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gay Republicans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As per WP:BLPSOURCES ....contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Moxy 🍁 15:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me, although it should be redirected, not deleted. I'm not really the editor you need to notify, as my only interaction with the page was to !vote to get rid of it (by merging). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about those situations - just making sure this wasn't being build purposelessly for article displays. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refractory materials are generally divided into two types, namely unshaped refractories and shaped refractories. Unshaped refractories are also called castables. They are mixed powder particles composed of a variety of aggregates or aggregates and one or more binders. They must be mixed with one or more liquids and mixed evenly during use. Strong liquidity. Shaped refractory materials generally refer to refractory bricks, the shape of which has standard rules, and it can also be temporarily processed during construction and cutting as required. Referred to as firebrick. A refractory material with a certain shape and size. Refractory brick According to the preparation process, it can be divided into fired bricks, non-fired bricks, fused bricks (fused cast bricks), refractory and heat insulating bricks; according to the shape and size, it can be divided into standard bricks, ordinary bricks, and special-shaped bricks. It can be used as high-temperature building materials and structural materials for building kilns and various thermal equipment, and can withstand various physical and chemical changes and mechanical effects at high temperatures. For example, refractory clay bricks, high alumina bricks, silica bricks, magnesia bricks, etc. We have been producing refractory materials for more than ten years, welcome everyone to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy123lee (talk • contribs) 08:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for remedying the lack of brick-related advertisements on my talk page. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb,
I thought this got sorted out some months ago? This obviously isn't any big deal at all, but I guess it would be annoying to the anon users who find that their first attempt at editing get WP:G2-d . WP:AN thread here.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sdkb,

I just deleted this draft after it hadn't been edited for six months but I found it an interesting list. When I looked at the contributors to the draft, you were the only editor who wasn't an IP and who is still active so I wondered if you wanted to do any additional work on it and submit it. I can restore it if you wish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Liz. Yeah, I remember that one. If I recall, it definitely had some issues, but I forget whether or not they were of the fatal keep-this-out-of-mainspace variety. I don't think I'll be putting more work into it myself, but if you're feeling inclusiony, maybe just add the necessary tags, launch it on the grounds that it's a net positive for readers, and see how it fares? If someone decides to AfD it, maybe that'll attract WP:ARS to swoop in. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 00:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was cute and informative which I don't think meets most editors criteria for keeping an article. Most of the associations between emoji & political positions were unknown to me but maybe they are common knowledge on social media. I'll look at it and again and see whether it was ever submitted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sdkb, I'm back.

I saw you commented on a move discussion on Talk:Gay Republicans, advocating that this article be merged with another. Subsequently, this article was PROD'd and is due to be deleted over the next 24 hours. If you have some interest in this merger, you might want to take action sooner rather than later or remove the PROD unless you agree that it should be deleted. If you have no opinion, sorry for bothering you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks again for the heads up! Thinking about it, since Republican is a disambiguation page, there's no way to be sure that someone searching for "Gay Republicans" is interested in U.S. politicians, so perhaps it wouldn't be appropriate to leave behind a redirect. I'm not comfortable merging when there are such severe unsourced BLP issues, so I'll just let the PROD expire instead. It's much less of a loss to Wikipedia than the emoji page haha. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True! Plus much of the content is reproduced on the LGBT Politicians list. The only element that the Gay Republicans article had only was state legislators, not just politicians at a federal level. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am--Hacker-index (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My request on the article Draft:Asif Tariq was declined because of lack of sources. Unfortunately this is very difficult to find many sources as i am from very small town. The said subject is a renowned Kashmiri poet i worked hard on this article. Please help me by approving this article. I did my best. Hope in your help. Majid Saleem78 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Majid Saleem78: There is an extensive backlog of new drafts waiting for review. Please be patient and do not attempt to jump the queue. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to request you to review the article Governor (United States) which seems to be outdated, especially the Race and ethnicity and Gender sections and its corresponding map. It clearly says 'as of October 2020', much of which might have been changed by now, after the 2020 election. My concerns arise from the fact that Puerto Rico now has a male governor (Pedro Pierluisi) but the map shows it to be a female and 'race and ethnicity section' mentions the then-governor Wanda Vázquez Garced. But I don't have much knowledge about the other state's & territory's governors, so I'm reluctant to edit this article.

I'm not sure if I should've requested you here but I did so because your user page says that you're a member of "WikiProject Articles for Improvement" and "WikiProject District of Columbia". If I should've requested somewhere else, please let me know. I'll take care of it from the next time. Thank You. CX Zoom (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CX Zoom! I don't have the capacity to dive into that personally, but thanks for sharing, and here are a few thoughts.

It looks like the article has already been tagged since May with ((Update)). You can tag specific pieces of information with ((Update inline)), but beyond that I can't think of any great places to go to get attention on it. The page doesn't look like it's in bad enough shape to be a good Articles for improvement candidate, and the issue isn't urgent enough to be likely to draw editors if you shared it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics (although you could try; it certainly won't hurt and I might be wrong).

When data on high-level pages becomes outdated, it's often a sign that the data was too detailed. I'm not sure if that's the case here, but it's worth asking if it'd be possible to write the content from a broader angle that wouldn't require so much updating.

And it's no problem for you to come here. For future reference when sharing potential tasks with other editors, some can be touchy about WP:Volunteer, so I find it generally works best to frame the invitation as "here's a task that you might be interested in if you're inclined" rather than "here's a task I'd like you to do". Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 13:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Information ecology has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Twofingered Typist; it's definitely an improvement! The article still has a long ways to go with regard to overly technical language; would it be okay to apply ((Technical))? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 14:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on an undesirable effect I described at

User talk:ClueBot Commons#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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]