This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. I do not know if there are more editors who will be willing to update this template. In recent months, it has already become more challenging to edit the template. Will it be possible to use Wikidata for several countries? I am aware that this bot updates some relevant pages, but it does so more than one day after new figures are released. However, using the bot is now more preferable because it reduces the need for editors to open a lot of sources several times every day. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @LSGH! The fact that COVID-19 data has been decentralized rather than consolidated into a centralized venue was an ongoing source of frustration for me until I eventually just gave up. At that time, Wikidata wasn't really being the centralized venue it ought to have been, which was creating problems when we tried to source from it, as @Naypta and I did for per capita data (some discussion about that is here; he stopped editing pretty suddenly last August, so I hope he's alright). I haven't been following since then, so perhaps the bot you link has improved the situation. Overall, if you want to dive into that area, best of luck, but I'm unfortunately too burnt out to be of much assistance. Eventually the pandemic will end and we'll stop having to constantly update the numbers. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we do hope that the pandemic will end soon. I also need to deal with other problems in real life. I checked some of the related Wikidata pages, and it appears that only a few of those pages are being constantly updated manually by some active editors. As far as I know, the template contains fetch codes for India and Indonesia only. It's difficult to do a lot of manual updates every day, and some countries release figures irregularly. Is it okay if more fetch codes will be placed in the template even if several of those Wikidata pages are not updated manually? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@LSGH, you'd have to discuss and see what the consensus is. I know @RayDeeUx was active in the area a while back, but I'm not sure who's there nowadays. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I already asked an editor who used to edit the template several times every day, but he has not replied yet. If using Wikidata will not be possible and other people cannot help, then what else can be done so that editors can edit the template less often? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything can be done. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I did see you are editing on wikidata so maybe you could help me with a problem I have.
I have asked here but not yet received an answer.
This file Huaynaputina tephra fallout under Structured data/Wikimedia username, as an example.
I'm adding "Wikimedia username:" to my works here. I then get a "!" where it's stated "citation needed constraint" and that I need to add a reference.
I have read and tried numerous variations of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Goran_tek-en but no one has been accepted.
What am I supposed to put there? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en, hmm, interesting. What seems to be happening here is that statements on Wikidata generally allow references, but that functionality hasn't been imported for the use of Wikidata for structured data on Commons, as most things added there wouldn't need a reference. Because of that, there doesn't seem to be a way to get the exclamation mark to go away.

My suggestion would be not to try to add your username to the structured data in the first place. It's technically incorrect, as Wikimedia username (P4174) is for people, not for images; the image itself doesn't have a username. You'll still be recorded as the uploader on the main file page, and if that information is ever transferred to structured data, it'll likely be imported automatically. I hope that helps! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining although I didn't fully understood all of it.

• You say not to add Wikimedia username, but my problem is that a bot is doing this in this way (with out exclamation mark) and in doing so it adds an incorrect creator with Wikimedia username so I have to correct it. This is due to that I have stated |author=[[User:Goran tek-en|Goran_tek-en]], requested by and knowledge from ((U|x)) in the information Template so the bot takes the last username and add it as creator, this is what I'm correcting now. Also I have now changed the way how I state requested by and knowledge from ((U|x)) to avoid this problem.
• I understood it as this was the Wikimedia username of the creator, but you say it's not. So then the bot is also doing something which is wrong, that is serious as it affects many images.
• If this is not the name of the creator I don't understand how it can be added by the bot under "creator/". This is so complicated and hard to grasp. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Here you can see what SchlurcherBot is adding regarding name etc, here.I will also contact the user for that bot. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en, so the bot appears to be working correctly as far as recording the data in the proper format. It's adding Wikimedia username as a qualifier to creator (P170), which is the correct way to do it: the image doesn't have a username, but the creator of the image (i.e. you; it records it as "some value" since it doesn't know of a Wikidata item for you as a person) does.

Adding the wrong username is definitely an issue, though. I'd definitely reach out to the bot operator, as they're expected to be communicative about that sort of issue. They also probably know more about structured data than I do. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you have been active in the archive template area (With your TfD of ((Auto archiving notice))) and thought I should notify you that I have TfD'd ((UserTalkArchiveBox)) for merge with ((Archives)) here. Terasail^[✉️] 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite; commented! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to Wikipedia. 1RingFB (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, 1RingFB! Is there a particular edit of mine you saw that prompted this? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Please help me find the video editor. I used it earlier today. I am surprised to find my edit from earlier today is now replaced by someone else. I have not prepared another edit yet, but after 10 edits and 4 days, I can edit the criticism in the Blue Lives Matter article. --TravelerEditorRealChanger (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @TravelerEditorRealChanger! I'm not sure what you mean by the video editor; I'm not aware of Wikipedia having any in-house video editor. Regarding your edit, it looks like you did a good job including a reference and it does not appear anyone else has reverted it. Let me know if you need any further help. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks for mentoring. I meant to ask how to find the visual editor I used earlier today not the video editor. Text editors show us hand code, maybe, but visual editors allow us to type as if in a word processor. Difficult to see how to reply to your answer, too. --TravelerEditorRealChanger (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@TravelerEditorRealChanger: Oh, VisualEditor! Yes, to enable that, just change your preferences as shown here. Feel free to let me know if you have any trouble. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a good way to find that visual editor. I also used my settings to choose it by default when possible. I think it is beta, but I like it. By the way, I never wrote those sentences using reference 11. I used that reference with one shorter sentence that is now gone, but no complaints. Curious about who changed it. Added another sentence just now with citation [12]. --TravelerEditorRealChanger (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@TravelerEditorRealChanger, you can view the page's history here; page histories can be complicated, but there's a quick intro here. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please note: on the article [1] I added a sentence and the editor removed it with the comment "unnecessary". The email says I can contact the editor (Magnolia677) with a provided email link or a provided wiki link. Trying the email link gets me a note saying the editor does not accept email. I see no way to use the wiki link to contact the editor. I am OK with the change, but for that same month, other entries show talk about "investigation" (6/27) and camera recordings (6/28). My sentence presented information about those two things in the case of the incident of June 10, 2021. --TravelerEditorRealChanger (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@TravelerEditorRealChanger: if you want to contact that user, you can do so on their talk page, but I'd recommend taking a discussion about an article to that article's talkpage where others are likely to chime in - you can make a new section on Talk:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2021 to discuss it. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

On 1 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pomona College, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that students at Pomona College are traditionally thrown into a fountain on their birthday? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pomona College. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pomona College), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Sdkb – It would be a great help if you could review the list "United States presidential elections in Arkansas", and provide me with few comments on its FLC page. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Kavyansh.Singh! I remedied the lack of a short description. Is there a particular reason you reached out to me? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb – Not any particular reason; just saw you reviewing other lists at FLC. Thanks for adding short description. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. I can't make any guarantees, as there's a long queue of articles at FLC and all of us reviewing are of course just volunteers, but if I get a chance to do more, I'll stop by. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just a little query. You changed staff to administrative staff, but the number shown are not all administrative staff. The number includes lecturers, tutors and professors. Can you explain the change? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Denisarona! The parameter has been displaying as "administrative staff" for many years, even though it appeared in the wikitext on that page using the alias of "staff". Recently, concerns have been raised about the impreciseness of who is included in "administrative staff", so we're going to add a new variable for |total_staff=, which we'll encourage as an alternative. In preparation for that, I'm working on deprecating the alias |staff= to prevent confusion. The edit I made at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore‎ and other pages changed the wikitext but not the display, so if the information is incorrect, that means either that someone misused the parameter when they added it to the page or that past maintainers of the template inappropriately changed it without updating the affected pages. I hope that helps explain, and please let know if you have additional questions. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm totally in agreement with using Total staff. Hope it succeeds. Denisarona (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

HLW --ABLHACKER (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello --ABLHACKER (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@ABLHACKER: Hello! Do you have a question for me? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, do you really feel that the community needs to weigh in on the papers of record? At first glance, it seems you are just making a point. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, as I noted at the top of the Australian discussion, I'm working on improving the ((Find sources)) module, which currently only includes The New York Times, and has (justifiably imo) drawn complaints that for most non-U.S. articles, that isn't the most appropriate publication of record. The publications of record that we choose for the module will be shown on thousands of talk pages, so I feel that it's important that there is firm community consensus behind their reliability, namely an RSP-greenlisting. That's why I've opened the discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Just so you know, you're swimming upstream a bit at that noticeboard. Regulars are often exasperated when editors bring up sources that aren't involved in a specific dispute. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely getting a strong impression of that haha. I hope that the meta discussion doesn't end up distracting too much from the actual discussion, but if others continue to complain, I might have to reset. I was a little oblique in how I talked about the project, which was since it's still at an early technical stage and I want to save the bigger discussion for once it's ready to deploy, but perhaps that was an error. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing the intention is to have a parameter for the location which will then put in a search link at that location's paper of record? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The current approach is to use the Wikidata item for an article to automatically determine which country it's in, and then choose based on that. ((Talk header)) has more than 500,000 transclusions, a significant percentage of which have associated countries, thus why I'd like to affirm consensus for each of the publications used in the prototype and why we'll be seeking consensus for the selection overall before anything goes live. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool stuff. It's on my watchlist and I'll look out for ways to help. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey there,

I reversed the edit request template because it does not fit within the usual criteria for this process -- straightforward matters that one editor can review and decide by themselves. I prepared this in a format for multi-editor discussion. I'm all in favor of appropriate notifications to relevant projects but I don't want to derail multi-editor discussion. What do you think? BC1278 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@BC1278: Whether you have the COI edit request tag or not is up to you, but Talk:NBC News is not a heavily watched page, so even with the invites, you're not guaranteed to get a response unless you have it or an RfC tag, which is what you'd really need to get a large multi-editor discussion going. But RfCs are required to be brief, which your post is definitely not. You may want to separate your comments into straightforward fixes that can be done via an edit request and more complex issues that require discussion.

Personally, I am going to recuse myself from responding, as I am still too outraged at your employer's egregious conduct to be able to approach the issue dispassionately. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

there is a a spelling mistake "Bronfebrenner" in the reference section but is a hidden cat.

Help

C --Cstapff (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cstapff, thanks for pointing out that typo! I've gone ahead and corrected it. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think those redesigned icons on the Graphics Lab in the "Proposal 1" subsection of the "Good article and featured article topicon redesign" section look good. Where was the proposal, and what happened? DesertPipeline (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I somehow failed to notice the hatnote in the "Proposal 1" section. My mistake; sorry! DesertPipeline (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this, but I am new to Wikipedia. I want to edit a page (Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig) that uses the infobox university. I noticed that you recently edited the page to that infobox, and am hoping you might help point me in the right direction as to how I can go about making changes to the content on the skg page as found in the infobox. PaulRSawa (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @PaulRSawa; it's no bother at all! Yeah, infoboxes can be one of the trickier things to edit for newcomers. To improve the infobox for Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, you can look at the documentation at Template:Infobox university, which lists and explains a bunch of the parameters available for that infobox. For instance, one parameter currently missing from the article is the "students" parameter, which gives the number of students who attend the institution. If you can find that number, just go edit the page and add a line to the infobox code as explained here. For the students parameter, that would look like e.g. |students = 4700. Feel free to let me know if you have any difficulty, and I'll be happy to help. Our coverage of indigenous educational institutions has a long ways to go, so I'm glad to see you working on it! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Re recent "find sources" stuff, just found this, and thought you might find it useful, too: List of academic databases and search engines. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Woah, that has a lot! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb!

I'm a PhD student at UCL, studying the way knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. Would you be happy to talk about your experience as an editor? If you wish to know more about my project, you can look up my userpage, and/or ask questions. Thanks! ElenaFalco (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

hello what do you know about khan sir --The Mysterious India by Aditya Mishraxxxx (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

[2]. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

On 21 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Attention theft, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that your attention can be stolen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Attention theft. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Attention theft), 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you move my sandbox article to public under the title "Mercy Law Resource Centre"? I do not have the option. --HughMLRC (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi HughMLRC! I recommend that you submit the article through the Articles for Creation process. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb. I asked a question at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Template:Sub judice about the Marilyn Manson situation but it hasn't been answered yet. At this point I expect to oppose deletion of the templates, but I am not set on that, and have been holding off to see if further info changes my mind. I'm mentioning it here just in case you haven't noticed the question. Cheers, Nurg (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that comment; I've replied now. Thanks for prompting me! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is there an encyclopedia with users who can anonymously ,arrogantly and irrevocably delete my sandbox ? Isn’t there a more hands-on approach? I protest ! I require a speedy review. I have a published material that was clearly enough to avert whatever useless reason for such erratic behavior from an anonymous user . I use the same name across social media platforms and a dimwit can find proof by just googling my username. I require my user sandbox to restored immediately. Or I require proof of violation of terms of license. I have a right to publish my personal biography without getting kicked out dimwits who seem unqualified. Boufflord (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsolicited user sandbox deletion.

I require a proof that my edit was in violation of terms of deletion and I will present proof of published materials across third party. Do you employ dimwits? Boufflord (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Question from Boufflord (06:52, 30 August 2021)

Good. Writing my own autobiography is strongly discouraged.. it’s not disallowed! Then i would require some proof that my edit (which is why I’m even on here) was deleted speedily. Even after providing information that proves published material across third parties . And again! Who gives them permission to delete my autobiography without my consent! ? Or proof that I violated the terms of agreement? This is injustice! I’m a public figure and any one with google can figure it out. It’s not unlawful to edit my own autobiography if the article is correct to the nth. I demand a copy of the article and it’s my intellectual property. This isn’t a real job you guys have. You’re making life difficult for people who have real jobs. Why can’t you verify the edit and then contact me prior to whatever nonsense action that you want me carry out? Couldn’t you edit the autobiography? I demand a copy of my intellectual property sent to my inbox ! Right away. --Boufflord (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Boufflord—it sounds like you're quite frustrated, which is understandable, but to speak directly to what you said, no, you do not have "a right to publish my personal biography". We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, and if you'd like your biography to be included, you need to demonstrate that it conforms with our policies. Your sandbox page was deleted by Fastily because it appeared you were using Wikipedia as a web host for a personal website, which is not allowed. I can't see the page because it's been deleted (I'm a volunteer who edits because I believe in Wikipedia's mission, not someone "employing" anyone), but if it's a draft biography, here would be my advice. First, read Help:Your first article to understand what our standards for pages are, and Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) to understand what is required for a person to have an article. Then, if you feel the biography meets the notability standards, go to Wikipedia:Undeletion requests and give your reasoning. If the page is restored, you can then use ((subst:submit)) to submit it for review. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I am really sorry about replacing the text. I didn't realize that I was not integrating the text properly. I actually wrote the page myself and upon creating the page, I realized that a page already exists for him. So I just copied all of my text and pasted in the page you had created. I will fix the page right away.HRShami (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, HRShami; much appreciated! I've had one or two instances myself where I've begun creating a page only to realize it already exists. I'm sorry I didn't think to create the redirect from Doug Underwood (academic) where you created the duplicate. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The article atm is essentially entirely about Originalism as it applies to the US constitution, and to be fair much of the most visible legal scholarship is about the US, because that is true of many topics. Regardless of those facts though, Originalism, as in "an interpretative method that interprets based on the original understanding of words/concepts/etc as they were at the time of adoption that American Constitutional Originalism is a subset of" is not unique to the US and is used, by name and with the exact same arguments for and against, in countries all over the world. Australian constitutional interpretation often includes major Originalist analyses for example as their constitution is also over a century old and subject to the same debates. The article is not really representative of the fact that rest of the world has to deal with the same interpretive difficulties and uses the same approaches in their analyses. Khitrir (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(Context for any TPS) Thanks for that info, Khitrir! I'm not a subject expert on Originalism, so it might be worthwhile to start a talk page discussion to see if others want to discuss how we might best cover Originalism outside of the U.S. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

On 2 February 2021, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 178#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. On 12 April 2021, you closed it, finding consensus for a trial of WP:PENDING protection.

After that trial, on 26 June 2021 I opened an RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#RFC: Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. On 30 August 2021, Jc37 (courtesy ping) closed it, finding consensus for a 30-day trial of auto-semi-protection.

Can you advise on how to get that second trial underway?

(I only fight vandalism if I chance to fall across it; though I don't overlook the opportunity. However, a good number of experienced editors put thought and effort into setting out reasoned arguments in those discussions, and it would seem a pity to let the matter drift into limbo.) Best, Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Narky Blert, and thanks for the note! After my April close, a discussion was begun at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/Archive_14#Pending_changes_TFA_trial, and Anomie had their bot perform the protection. I'd suggest opening a quick discussion at WT:TFA noting the new close, and perhaps Anomie might be able to help with this trial as well. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Most helpful, thank you very much! I have posted at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Semi-protection of TFA. Narky Blert (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Good morning! I would like to update the headshot picture for our bosses Wiki page. How do we do that? --Consultedit (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Consultedit! Well, the first step is taking a new headshot :) After that, you'll want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, our image repository. It's important for copyright reasons that the photographer themselves do this, as they are the one who holds the copyright to their work unless they're released it. Once you've done that, let me know the name of the file, and I'll be happy to update the picture for you (assuming it's better than what we have currently). You shouldn't edit the article directly because of the conflict of interest. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard McKirahan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I need to hit the studio --Lil Babie (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lil Babie, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? I don't understand your comment. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I found you in wikipedia and noticed lots of experience in editing wikipedia for a long time. I have a request to create a wikipedia article about him Mohammed Shanooj. As a music listener and fan of him, i tried to write about him by collecting datas from several resources. But all got rejected by users saying that "written not in neutral point of view" , "written for living people of musician, singer, composer" and also "written like promotional or advertisement" even in Mainspace Article and Draft too. Can you help me to Publish the article about him? I will start new draft and can you complete the finishing point by moving from draft to Mainspace! Please Reply as kind... Thank you Welcome 103.05.23 (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Welcome 103.05.23—the article was deleted because it did not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Please review Help:Your first article, paying particular attention to notability guidelines, in this case WP:NMUSIC. If Shanooj does not meet the guidelines, we will not publish an article about him. Regards, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, I completed about 200 short descriptions for the good articles. Here is my history. Adhiven123 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Adhiven123, left you a barnstar! I see joining the collaboration was some of your first edits, too—welcome, and I hope you continue to find areas to edit! Feel free to reach out anytime if you have questions ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, could you help me creating a Central Discussion for "Policies and Guidelines"?

Please take a look here: Wikipedia_talk:Protection policy

My objective for each page:

• either try to standardize the wording by using one term ("editor" most of the time),
• or publish "contributor=editor=Wikipedian"

My only aim is to improve readability, and yes, some form of standardization is sometimes necessary. As stated in my post: "contributor" and "editor" are not synonyms, and until my recent contributions, there were virtually no mention at all on Wikipedia that a contributor is an editor (and vice-versa), not to mention Wikipedians... — Antoine Legrand (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I broadly agree with JohnFromPinckney that the terms "editor" and "contributor", as used on Wikipedia, are synonymous; that's it's not a problem to have some language variation; and that if an editor's English skills are so poor they get confused by this, they shouldn't be editing here. If you want to copy edit project pages to improve their readability, fine, so long as no one objects. But the community's tolerance for bold (i.e. not backed by a talk page discussion with consensus) editing runs out quickly when it comes to mass edits, so if anyone objects, stop and discuss the matter in a single centralized location to avoid talk forks. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "single centralized location"? I was asking you to help me create a Central Discussion, as suggested by another editor. Could you provide me with further details? Thank you for your help — Antoine Legrand (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"Single centralized location" just means you hold the discussion in one place, not in a whole bunch of places (as has been happening a bit so far). You could try Wikipedia talk:Project namespace. Keep your proposal concise, and list a particular outcome you want (if it's a rule, be prepared for WP:CREEP objections). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, could you help me creating a "Please see" for "Template:Essay" on "Wikipedia:Wikipedian" Talk page ? Thank you. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Antoine Legrand, the code you want is ((subst:Please see|wikilink to discussion)). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you Joel Fagliano? LOL

Sourced my material, so why do you keep deleting it.

Shades of plagiarist crossword editor Timothy Parker editing his own page to remove all the bad stuff that kept getting reposted, sources in 2016. LOL.

Funny how The Times went after Timothy (a Black man) for this, when "it is happening again...."

Since you keep deleting sourced content (what more do you need?), notifying others of this Wiki edit war, by Joel, Will, ...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:2a01:b5a4:612e:76fb:4862:2216 (talk • contribs)

Hello IP. Please do not edit war to add non-neutral, inadequately sourced information to a biography of a living person, or you will be blocked. You can raise suggestions for the article at its talk page. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Motley Coffeehouse, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sdkb,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Sdkb/sandbox/early drafts

 – Editors were commenting on this draft. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Plural of company?

A related question is what to do with the plural of "company" or any other noun with a non-"just add s" plural. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, if we went with option 2, this would work:

| label12    = ((#if:(({companies|))}|Companies|Company))

| data12     = (({companies|(({company|))))))

GhostInTheMachine did suggest at the VPT thread creating a ((One or many)) template, which might help with tracking categories or errors if both |company= and |companies= are used but wouldn't really simplify the code much. I'm okay with the infobox templates themselves having more complicated code, as those are the realm of template specialists who (should) know what they're doing, so long as the actual use of infoboxes on article pages remains simple. Overall, if I'm understanding your question right, I think this is more a technical question for addressing after we settle the broader tradeoffs question of the approach we want to take. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for option 2, we'd pretty much have to hard-code the singular/plural, but that doesn't matter for a label. We already take that approach for ENGVAR issues like label66 = ((#if:(({organisation|))}|organisation|organization)), although the singular/plural switch would double the testing for labels that are subject to ENGVAR. It's not a big deal.

I think we should present all three options, although it needs to be made clear that the second option precludes fetching the data from Wikidata if the current template handling of the fields is to be preserved.

The third option would quite probably need the detection of singular/plural to be implemented in a Lua module. I've created a solution for that for unit names, so I'll put some thought into how it might be done for the entire English language --RexxS (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess my question was a roundabout way of saying that Option 1 is simply incompatible with some nouns, and might need some adjustment to be a viable option for the RFC. Also, if you are looking for conflicting parameters, Module:Check for clobbered parameters already exists for that purpose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, oh, your question makes more sense now that I know you had option 1 in mind. That's certainly an issue and something to potentially bring up in the RfC. I expect that to the extent option 1 receives support, it will mostly be for retaining it at templates that already use it. The case for it in the case of new templates where there's no potentially messy history to clean up is a lot weaker. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

option 2a: allow user edits, but find possible errors with tracking category

I think there's an option 2a, where you have option 2, but have a tracking category that uses a conservative version of ((detect singular)) to find possible plurals when the singular label is used or when wikidata is imported. I am suggesting this instead of 3, because I'm not sure we can ever get ((detect singular)) to work at a high enough reliability to compute the label automatically. — hike395 (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hike395, hmm, that's intriguing. Having the ability to find potential errors is definitely something that would be good to have. What would it look like code-wise? I ask mainly since I'm hoping to keep the RfC as simple as possible and wondering whether that's something that needs to be taken on now, or whether we could work it out as part of implementation if option 2 prevails. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

To find where a template is being used, click on What links here and then filter as in this link. ((detect singular)) is used in ((infobox settlement)) and ((Infobox television)) at this writing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

((Infobox settlement)) approximately implements option 2a already. The code would look something like

|label45=((#if:(({thing|))}|((#if:((detect singular|(({thing))))}(({singular_thing|))}|Thing|Thing(s)))|Things))

|data45=((#if:(({thing|))}|(({thing))}((#if:((detect singular|(({thing))))}(({singular_thing|))}||[[:Category:Tracking category]]))|(({things|))))}

Perhaps this is simply part of option 2? It's different because you shouldn't need to specify ask for Thing(s): instead, you would mark false negatives as |singular_thing=1. — hike395 (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is obvious, but I wanted to point out to RexxS that this would easily work with Wikidata import (which would slip into the code as a default for |thing=). — hike395 (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hike395: Yes, I had hoped it was obvious from my comment that it was only the second option that can't work with Wikidata. The third option still depends on a functional ((detect singular)). It could be improved by counting commas only when outside of a link, and looking specifically for "unbulleted list", but it would still get some wrong. Actually, if it drew the data from Wikidata, I could append a marker inside an html hidden comment to the returned value like this: Returned value<!--3-->, where the number indicated how many items are in the returned value, and that could be tested in the template with 100% accuracy. --RexxS (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hike395, hmm, that demo code is starting to get rather complex. Would it be possible to move it inside a ((One or many)) template? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sort of. I can do it in two templates (maybe a super-expert can figure out how to do it in 1):

|label45=((OneOrManyLabel|Thing|Things|Thing(s)|(({thing|))}|(({things|))}|(({singular_thing|))))}

|data45=((OneOrManyData|(({thing|))}|(({things|))}|(({singular_thing|))}|Tracking category name))

These two templates are now written at User:Hike395/OneOrManyLabel and User:Hike395/OneOrManyData, and are currently tested at User:Hike395/sandbox. — hike395 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hike395, okay...I have the general gist but I'm not entirely sure I understand well enough to know how to incorporate this into the RfC in a way that'll make it simple enough for non-techy editors to easily understand. (Or does it achieve enough of what we want that we can just forgo the RfC and move to whatever the next step would be?) Feel free to edit the draft RfC if you want, but I'm a little worried it'll be confusing for some even as is, so I'd prefer not to add further complexity if we can avoid it. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to explain 2a, lmk if you think it's unclear. I suspect we either need a global RfC, or just go through infoboxes one at a time to bring up the issue. — hike395 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hike395, thanks for adding that. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it a little, but the explanation there helps. Would we need to add a |singular_thing= and |plural_thing= (for times when a plural thing is falsely detected as singular) to every possibly plural line on an infobox template? Given that every new parameter complicates documentation (including TemplateData), Module:Check for unknown parameters, etc., it seems like a massive increase in complexity.

And I think a global RfC would be preferable, as this is pretty much the same issue wherever it pops up (the main variation being what the status quo is, and people can take that into account as they !vote if they want). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: A few things to note:

• I think option 2 only needs |thing= and |things=. Humans knows when a data value is singular or plural, so |thing(s)= would never be used (AFAICT).
• Option 1 would also only need one parameter: |thing=. If complexity of templates are a concern, then Option 1 looks really good.
• Option 2a only requires 3 parameters: |thing=, |things=, and |singular_thing=. |things= already covers the case when the data value is plural. The sole purpose of having |singular_thing= is to override the automatic detection. It's never required, but if an editor wants to override the automatic detection, they set it to 1.
• The proposed option 2 has 3 parameters, the same complexity as 2a.
• Module:Check for unknown parameters accepts regular expressions, so the complexity can perhaps be reduced.

— hike395 (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

How about merging the label and data templates from the above:

((OneOrManyLabelAndData|row=45|Thing|Things|Thing(s)|(({thing|))}|(({things|))}|(({singular_thing|))}|Tracking category name))

This would output both label and data rows (hence the 45 as the first parameter) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 21:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GhostInTheMachine, that's moving toward something cleaner! And hike395, sorry I forgot to reply to you above—I added a footnote to explain that in option 2, |thing(s)= would only ever be used as a stopgap measure for templates that currently use option 1; gnomers would gradually replace all the instances of "thing(s)" with "thing" or "things", and then "thing(s)" would be removed. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I made a couple of tweaks in the sandbox version to restrict tracking to articles only. I also changed the conflicting parameter check - it was not allowing affiliations with athletics_affiliations, but affiliations is actually an alias now for affiliation. If this looks good to you, can you make the change. Thanks. MB 22:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

MB,  Done. The categories are named "pages" rather than "articles", but we could clarify on the category pages themselves that they'll now be just articles. If someone reverts, note that you can also use AWB's filtering option to get a list of only articles. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

^^ Hi there! I am new here and don't understand how to do anything.. Can you please help me? --JxngkookiesGF (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@JxngkookiesGF: Welcome! I'll leave a note for you on your talk page with links to helpful resources. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 13:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop your disruptive editing. You have repeatedly abused templates, misquoted other editors, added inaccurate nutshell descriptions to essays you have cited in content disputes in preference to genuine policies, and have been generally argumentative and uncollaborative in your interactions with other users. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The non-admin closure clearly states that "the sentence should be updated as more reliable details about the story and its impacts continue to develop.", which is what I did. There was clearly no genuine consensus in the RfC to add your misinterpreted WP:MANDY version to the article. I will be disputing the non-admin close. In the meantime, stop the edit warring. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: This template comment is completely unnecessary. ––FormalDude talk 01:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would never have posted such a thing. But considering my interactions with this user these past two months, I stand by my comment, and believe all my statements here to be accurate and appropriate. I could hunt my watchlist for diffs, if anyone's interested... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I don't need diffs, I read the whole discussion at the RfC as well as the discussion that prompted it. It actually made me believe there is valid reason for someone to open an ANI on your disruptive behavior. I was and still am considering doing it myself. Please slow your roll, there's two sides to every dispute, and you are casting aspersions on other editors conduct simply because they don't agree with you. ––FormalDude talk 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Context for anyone following along: I began an RfC a month ago proposing that we mention the sexual abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson in the lead of that article. Homeostasis07, the top editor of the page, argued strenuously against it, but following a CR listing the RfC was recently closed with Consensus to add one sentence along the lines of "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.". Homeostasis then modified the addition to give more weight to Manson's denials, I reverted a single time, and Homeostasis dropped me the above note. I would advise them to consider finding other topic areas to edit in which they are less invested. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: FormalDude has slightly modified their close in a way that gives some latitude for Manson's denial to be included in the lead. I think that's a fair reading of consensus and hope that will allow us to put the issue to rest. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor who has reviewed the issue (having been the one to close the RfC in question), I can say the Sdkb's summary here is fully accurate. The only part they did not mention is that Homeostasis has been edit warring since late August with multiple editors at Marilyn Manson. ––FormalDude talk 02:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to create a profile wiki page for my Grandfather, it is to honor him as he recently passed away. The edit page option isn't allowing me to add any photos of him or create a profile as you would see in other on wiki. Any help would be much appreciated he is a known person, Jim Snook he was well loved and it would mean the world to his survivng wife and children to have his story out there --RockyPointSnooks (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@RockyPointSnooks: hi - I'm sorry for your loss of your grandfather. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a memorial site, and the standards for inclusion are notability. Are there multiple reliable independent sources (such as newspaper articles, books, etc) discussing your grandfather and his works? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, he is a notable character. I will include some notations here : https://obits.oregonlive.com/us/obituaries/oregon/name/james-snook-obituary?pid=200207798

https://www.newspapers.com/search#query=%22Jim+Snook+cartoons%22

Question from RockyPointSnooks on User:RockyPointSnooks/sandbox (00:57, 24 September 2021)

I am aware that this is not a memorial site, he is a well known artists, he has been mentioned in news papers, interviewed at art shows, he has had many featured paintings in art shows in the area. I have clippings of his mentions over the years. He was a notable member of the community. --RockyPointSnooks (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi RockyPointSnooks—I want to offer my condolences as well for your loss. My suggestion, though, would be to at least wait before trying to submit an article. Writing your first Wikipedia article is a difficult task, and I wouldn't want you to have to deal with your initial attempts being declined while you're still mourning. Best wishes, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how a consensus can be declared with an equal number of people in favor and opposed. Also, there was no objection to moving the article to the simpler title Sewanee. I request you to undo your discussion closure, and perhaps to relist it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @BarrelProof; thanks for reaching out. Reading through the discussion again, I think it's more of a no consensus, so I'll revert my close and leave it open.

To give you a little further explanation, in my evaluation of the discussion, the main support argument was WP:COMMONNAME and the main oppose argument was WP:NATURAL, both part of the article titles policy. I gave a little more weight to the opposes, as natural disambiguation is done even in cases where there is a more common name, so I read that when I closed as weak consensus not to move. Regarding the alternative of moving the page to Sewanee, the discussion participants apart from GreaterPonce seemed pretty ambivalent (not opposed but not supporting either), so I would read that as no consensus. In order to get the move, you'll need affirmative consensus, so it may make most sense to let the RM be closed as no consensus and then start a new one specifically proposing the move to Sewanee. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I have created a draft. I want to add that draft information on another page. How do I do that? --MrA2121 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@MrA2121, could you clarify what you mean by "add that draft information on another page"? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

In the wikipedia page named "Shiraz City Of Iran", there is a section named "Famous People". Inside that section, there is another subsection named "Poets and Authors". In that, there is a name "Firoozeh Roohibakhsh". But it is in red because a Wikipedia Page of her name doesn't exist. I have read her books and want to write about her. How do I do that? MrA2121 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@MrA2121, ah, thanks for clarifying. It looks like you've already started a draft page for her at Draft:Firoozeh Roohibakhsh. The next step is to finish the draft. See Help:Your first article for instructions on that. The most important thing you need to do is to demonstrate, through the sources you add, that she meets the biographical notability standard. Once you're ready, add ((subst:submit)) to the top of the page and click publish. Another editor will come along to review it, and if it's accepted, it'll be moved to Firoozeh Roohibakhsh. At that point, the link at Shiraz, Iran will automatically turn blue and point to her page. Does that help answer your question? Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. If you take a look at a recent SdkbBot edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_command_and_control&diff=1046066322&oldid=1045516767&diffmode=visual, you'll see that it removed a pair of square brackets around "Revised" in a book title.

This is an error. The book title contains "[Revised]", i.e., with brackets, in the title. Reference 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_command_and_control#cite_note-Handbook_2-2, shows it correctly, as does the Web page to which it points, https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm//NMHB2020rev/chapters/chapter2.html, where "[REVISED]" appears in the upper left of the page along with the rest of the title.

Unfortunately, it is not practical to revert SdkbBot's erroneous error, but I have taken the liberty of restoring the square brackets in the hope that they will not again be improperly removed. Thank you for your attention to this issue, and best regards! Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Upon editing, I see that SdkbBot actually added square brackets, which not only removed them from "Revised" as read, but also wikilinked the word. This seems doubly incorrect to me. Anyway, I have restored the word to the status quo ante. Note that a wikilinked Revised redirects to the disambiguation page for Revise. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Larrykoen! The change the bot made there was part of the WP:GENFIX set, a group of automated changes that are supposed to be uncontroversial and are made regularly by both human editors and bots using AutoWikiBrowser. It looks like the revision just before my bot got to it had an erroneous double bracket, i.e. The current Nuclear Matters Handbook 2020 [Revised]] defines it, so that triggered the FixUnbalancedBrackets GENFIX task, because the program thought that there was an intended link just missing one of the opening brackets. With the way you've corrected it now, there should be no further issue. If you do encounter any further issues, you should report them here, as my bot likely won't be the only editor coming by the page to make GENFIXes. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! The bad double "]]" (hoping nobody notices this odd construction) was my error that I fixed shortly thereafter. Perhaps the bot scheduled it after noticing the error but before noticing my fix. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for declaring a preferred date format on several articles, for example here and here. Are you using one of AWB's built-in functions to do this? If not, would you be able to add |date=September 2021 to your find-and-replace statement? That would save the bot from having to do it, doubling up on the edit load. Of course, you'll have to update it every month. Brainstorming: perhaps AWB will let you use ((subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME)) ((subst:CURRENTYEAR)) instead. Thanks! – voidxor 19:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Voidxor! I started with this PetScan to get this list, and I then used the AWB prepend feature (with 1 new line and "sort metadata after" checked) to start going through the list. I did consider the date parameter, which it'd be easy to add in the way you suggested, but I'm not entirely sure if I should. According to the documentation, |date= signifies the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and fixed any found. I haven't been doing that full check, so idk if I should be adding a date. I'm not sure if it's corrected in the GENFIX set or if it's corrected when AnomieBOT comes along after. Would you (or any of my other friendly stalkers) know the best way to approach this?

Also, to forecast where I'm going with this, I'm planning to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers soon seeking consensus for a bot task to add the mdy dates tag to a bunch of articles with clear strong ties to the United States. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point about checking the article for consistency. I too commonly add engvar and dates tags and recently read that documentation myself. My takeaway was that the date the tag is added is essentially day one, and perhaps it should be periodically checked for consistency from there. I take it the intent for that date parameter—as with maintenance tags—is so that interested Wikipedians can focus on fixing the oldest ones first. However, the articles you are tagging wouldn't have been in the "check me for date consistency" queue for longer than the ((Use mdy dates)) tag has been present.

Moreover, if you don't date it, the bot will. So you might as well, which is why the template documentation mentions suggests ((subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME)) ((subst:CURRENTYEAR)). – voidxor 20:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That definitely makes sense as one way to look at it. I just ran a test/looked through AnomieBOT's contributions, and it appears that there's currently no automatic correction, so I've opened a discussion at WT:AWB to try to get some more input. For now, if I continue with the AWB run, I'll include the date parameter. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You added numerous "alt text" captions to images on Donald Trump, beginning with this one. What is the purpose of these entries? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice the now-RevDel'ed discussion on your talk page yesterday. I don't agree with the IP's allegations, and certainly won't partake in any of the "outing" they were attempting. But in the midst of their mess, the IP did raise a substantial issue pertaining to Conflict of Interest. Your response that you had "never met or contacted" this person was not, semantically, an exact denial of what the IP was accusing you of. So... do you have an undisclosed connection to that person? Furthermore, you do identify yourself as a professional journalist on your user page. As such, have you ever sourced your own published content while editing this website? These are substantive issues which need to be addressed in a serious manner. All users must indeed disclose any potential CoI to the appropriate venue. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, I gather that you remain very disappointed by the Manson RfC outcome (see also above), but badgering me by picking up the now-blocked IP's amusingly inept attempt at outing is not a good look for you. In case never met or contacted somehow didn't make it clear, I have no COI with the person, and I abide by WP:SELFCITE. I will regard any further posts or replies from you on my talk page as a violation of WP:HOUND and will take appropriate action. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 06:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, FormalDude; I replied there. Always sad when things have to escalate to ANI, but I appreciate that you made the effort to present the situation once it became necessary, and hopefully it'll prevent further disruption. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello --Shorab boy (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shorab boy; welcome to Wikipedia! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The 5 FACs at Talk:Jill Valentine. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, wow, that's a lot of FAC attempts! Is this in reply to something particular or just sharing? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm not inclined to go digging through all the nominator's past contributions, but if you feel they've been disruptive in that area, it'd be something relevant to note at the ANI thread. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The article Pomona College you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pomona College for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HAL333 -- HAL333 (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	My attention was stolen... Clever! Thanks for all you do around here. It makes a difference Eddie891 Talk Work 22:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Got me too! Wonder how successful that hook is gonna be. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both! I have high hopes for it, but we'll see what the numbers say when they come out! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

10,000 views. I'll take it, especially given it was in a middle slot! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Micro-Face, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aimee Bahng, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I just saw that you've made some helpful contributions to the Zydeco page and wanted to thank you. I've been working on the Zydeco page as an ongoing project for the last couple of months, and have found myself hoping that we could get a more active community involved in cleaning up the page, doing some copy editing, cutting back some portions, and adding to others. If you're planning to continue working on the page, I'd love to share with you some of my thoughts for long-term edits that could be done, as well as hear some of your ideas. Could be fun to mobilize the community again, as the page has been pretty quiet for some time.

Anyway, that is all. Just wanted to let you know it was exciting to see activity on the edit history and let you know I found your edits super helpful.

JQGRAY (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @JQGRAY! I'm not planning anything long-term for the zydeco page, but I enjoyed your WCNA presentation yesterday and figured I'd stop by the article. My main thought on it is that it'd be very nice to have some actual samples of zydeco music on it, if any freely licensed ones can be found. I raised that point a bit more generally here. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Skdb! I am glad you liked the presentation -- I had a great time there. I thought everybody's questions were super interesting, too.

Really good idea to add audio. I can't believe I hadn't already thought of that -- I've spent some time reworking the characteristics section to make it more descriptive (rather than just listing related genres), but I've found that words can only go so far. Adding audio would be great.

I've been struggling to find any public domain zydeco -- so far only finding Cajun music. Do you know of any good resources I can use for this? I don't know much about the protocol for adding audio to a Wikipedia article, but I could also see it being fun to reach out to someone directly to see if they can contribute a recording. I've got some friends and family who play so I could see if they'd be willing. Again though, I don't know the ins and outs of audio on Wikipedia. The only requirement is that it's public domain, right? Or is there a notability threshold as well? In the meantime, I'll keep searching archives.

Thank you again for your edits on the page -- those were great, and the U.S.A/U.S. one was actually something I hadn't noticed, so I'm really glad you spotted that. Also, your talk post about this topic is right on the money. So many good public domain recordings out there -- seems like a crime to use MIDI when you could use real archival audio!

Thanks again.

JQGRAY (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

JQGRAY, so to add a piece of zydeco music to the article, first you'll want to upload it to Commons, and then you can just insert it just like you would an image. There's no notability requirement, just the licensing requirement. Having friends/family upload something they've recorded themselves might solve that issue, but you still need to check that the tune is free, not just the recording. I'm not a copyright specialist, so I would ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to hear from someone who would know better. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

On 12 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neurocracy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the browser game Neurocracy, players explore a fictional successor to Wikipedia launched in 2049? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neurocracy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Neurocracy), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Your hook reached 15,316 views (638 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2021—nice job! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, thanks! I believe it also qualifies (just barely) for WP:DYK/TOP as a non-lead hook. I guess readers liked the self-reference haha. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

[3].--Moxy- 00:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I'll address. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

On 16 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paddy Moloney, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, we shouldn't be listing her husband as a suspect in the lead, that is way too undue prominence for something that has not been proved. He's being questioned, he's not been charged or found guilty of anything yet, and so is inappropriate for the lead. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(Edit for context) @Joseph2302, that's reasonable. I feel like we ought to at least mention that she was found stabbed rather than entirely omitting the manner of death, but given that the husband has already been arrested, we can probably just wait and we'll have something more definitive soon. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

On 17 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article R. Nelson Smith, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that chemist R. Nelson Smith replaced his colleague's desk chair with a porcelain toilet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/R. Nelson Smith. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, R. Nelson Smith), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

hello i would like to know what topics are popular here i am quite new here and i would like to help answer questions --Villaindeku2009 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Villaindeku2009! See Wikipedia:Top 25 Report for a list of popular topics. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

thank you very much --Villaindeku2009 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sdkb,

Thank you so much.[4] I left Wikipedia for a while because the project seemed too bureaucratic and I really felt lonely working on Wikipedia. Yeah, I do would like to see the page Jennifer Doudna achieve the "good article". Ber31 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ber31, your work is definitely seen (both by editors and by about 30,000 readers a month)! If you'd like to nominate the article for good article status, you can do that, per the instructions, by placing ((subst:GAN|subtopic=Biology and medicine)) at the top of Talk:Jennifer Doudna. Sometime in the next few months, a reviewer will come along and give suggestions for you to implement, and if those are adequately handled it'll pass. You'll then have an opportunity to submit a fact from the page to appear on the Main page's "Did you know" section if you want. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Sdkb! Ber31 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re this thread, have you thought about adding ((use mdy dates)) to transcluded templates like ((Elections in Michigan sidebar)), which has 263 transclusions, instead of to 263 articles? (Other examples: ((Infobox U.S. county)) (3,000 transclusions), possibly ((Infobox road/maint/USA)) (13,000 transclusions).) I don't know if that would accomplish all of the same goals (I looked on the template documentation and talk pages and did not see anything either way), but it sure would be easier than tagging a quarter million articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey95! The documentation says not to use any redirects, as that might mess up bots. I imagine tagging templates instead of articles directly would cause similar issues. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I imagine too, but it might be worth asking on the talk page. Transcluding the template would get you consistent date formatting and a tracking category in each article; I don't know what else bots look for. Also, if that report you are asking for does not work out, you could get a petscan report of all articles containing ((Infobox road/maint/USA)), ((Infobox U.S. county)), ((Infobox NRHP)), etc. That should get you at least half of the target articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be a possible alternative. But based on the, uh, passionate views some editors are expressing at the MOS thread, I'm not sure it'll be possible to get consensus for any sort of automation at all. It's disappointing, given how much effort it could save us. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like petscan is your new best friend, in that case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

hi! i'm editing the Federal Employers Liability Act page. I've been able to find a series of newspaper articles that provide citation to information already added, but I'm accessing these papers through my university's proxy through NewsBank. Is there a way to cite a URL for these, or is simply citing the physical paper fine? --FritzPape (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @FritzPape! Adding sources for previously unsourced information in articles is fantastic—we need so much more of that! I'm not personally very familiar with NewsBank, but most databases like it have some way to create a permanent link (aka a persistent link, durable URL, stable URL, etc.). There appear to be some instructions for that for NewsBank here; maybe that will work? The most important thing is to make clear where you got the information from, so add a URL if you can, even if it's a proxy (someone else will hopefully come along to fix it later), or if you can't save the edit that way, give the newspaper/date/page number. Thanks for your help improving the article! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Re these two edits: it's very bad form to leave a reply to a discussion and then add an archive box, forcing your word to be the last word of the conversation. You can reply, or you can archive, but don't do both. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein, if you have something else to add to the discussion, feel free. You are clearly passionate about the issue. I withdrew the proposal to avoid taxing the community's energy once it became clear it was not going anywhere. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm here to brag. Remember the (somewhat mediocre) collage I made on the arts? I've finally settled on a wayyyy better one on the History of music article, which I feel you might appreciate. The article itself is so taxing to write, I found myself more than happy to take a break and look for images for the collage. Where are you with your Pomona College work, by the way—are you feeling better about another go at FAC?

Also I'm happy to try and take List of presidents of the United States with you to FLC (maybe later this year?). I recall you had put it up for PR some time ago, and I agree it should be an FL by now. I had talked to Coemgenus about it, and he said I was welcome to take any ideas from his sandbox draft of the list. Aza24 (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aza24; nice to hear from you, and you're always welcome to brag! I love the images in that collage!

For Pomona, I'm quite close to bringing it back to FAC. I just wrapped up a peer review, where I was fortunate to receive some very thorough feedback from Zetana and others. One of the changes that came from it was adding an interactive map of the campus so as to not have to list out so many buildings in the prose. I'm working to resolve two technical bugs with that, after which I'll open the next FAC. It may still be a difficult process—the scarcity of quality colleges articles means that different editors have different, sometimes contradictory ideas of what they need to include/exclude—but I hope the article is as prepared as it can be.

I'm happy to help out with the U.S. presidents list! Given that it's in pretty good shape presently, hopefully it won't be too big a lift. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This is all lovely to hear! The map is a great idea, and I hope the issues are resolvable. I will be sure to leave some thoughts at the FAC when you get it initiated. Good to hear that you are still interested in the President's list. I'll write a note to reach out in December or something, where I'd have more time to pick up something new (assuming that you are free then too!). Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great; thanks! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Context: I made this close of this discussion, which was promptly reverted by EEng. I've merged threads below. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

(Original heading: Mercifully closed)

Just as I was posting in the ANI where I was mentioned multiple times. In any event, it is still readable. Cheers. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(Original heading: Your close at ANI)

EEng, I made the close as an uninvolved editor to help facilitate further follow-up resolution efforts, not to cut off discussion, as I already explained to you at ANI. Commenting here in addition to the thread is a talk fork, so please make further comments at the thread. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I cannot say I know you're joking in saying that. I can only say I hope you're joking. EEng 05:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ditto here [5]. EEng 18:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tell me why you reverted my edit at the Village Pump. You must see that I first tried bringing this issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Model S. Then Wbm1058 suggested that when I have difficult technical issues that I need help with, WP:Village pump (technical) is the proper forum in which to seek solutions, not by starting a discussion over whether to delete an article that I really don't think should be deleted. So, I exactly followed Wbm1058's suggestion. I cannot understand why you asked me to take this to the help desk. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh, you posted at the proposals village pump (VPR), not the technical village pump (VPT). VPR is not the place to seek help for issues with a particular article; it's for discussions that have a widespread impact across many articles. If your issue is truly technical, you can post at VPT, although if you do so, I would recommend articulating your problem more clearly (I don't know what you're referring to by "table"). Given the current thread expressing concerns about your competency, I would suggest proceeding cautiously. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the nineteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

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

Structured tasks

• "Add a link" is the team's first structured task. It uses machine-learning to suggest wikilinks as easy edits for newcomers. It was deployed in May 2021 on four Wikipedias and then in July on eight more Wikipedias after we evaluated the initial results. So far, we've seen a high level of engagement from newcomers. Communities that have the feature suggested valuable ideas for improvement. We'll work on improvements and then contact more communities to deploy it.
• "Add an image" is the team's second structured task, currently in development. It is an editing task that suggests Commons images for unillustrated Wikipedia articles. We have conducted many community discussions and tests. Then, we've decided to build a first prototype. We'll first deploy it only to our pilot Wikipedias, to learn whether newcomers can be successful with the task. The project page contains links to interactive prototypes. We are very interested to hear your thoughts on this idea as we build and test the early versions. These prototypes have already been tested by newcomers, in English and Spanish.

News for mentors

• The Mentor dashboard is available at our pilot wikis: Arabic, Czech, and Bengali Wikipedias. It will soon be available at a few more volunteering wikis, as a test. [6]
• At wikis where the mentor dashboard is deployed, a new filter is available for mentors. Mentors can monitor their mentees' activity in Watchlist and RecentChanges, so they can help support their mentees' work. For privacy reasons, this filter can't be accessed by someone else than the mentor itself. This filter only filters mentees assigned to the mentor. This filter is not visible for people who are not listed as mentors [7]

Community configuration

• Communities now have the ability to configure how Growth features behave on their own wikis. At Special:EditGrowthConfig, community members can add a list of volunteer mentors, alter the templates used for suggested edits, update help links, and more. This special page is editable by administrators and interface admins.

Scaling

• We are proud to announce that all Wikipedias now have the Growth features! Thank you to all the community members who helped the team build the features and bring them to their wikis. The only exception is Chinese Wikipedia (zh), for technical reasons. [8]
• The wikis that have Growth features deployed have been part of A/B testing since deployment, in which some newcomers did not receive the new features. Now, all of the newcomers on 280 of the smallest of those Wikipedias have the features. [9][10]
• A test is undergoing at English Wikipedia: 25% of newcomers receive the Growth features. The results from this test will be part of a discussion of how to proceed on that wiki.
• Now that Growth features are available at Wikipedia, the Growth team considers to extend them to other projects. Some Wikisource users have expressed some interest in getting Growth features. There is currently a discussion about implementing them on Wikisource.

News for communities

• Do you have questions about the Growth features? This translatable FAQ contains answers to the most common questions about the Growth team work.
• The Growth features were recently used in a test amongst Latin American donors to give donors the opportunity to learn to edit. You can see the results here.
• Interface translations are important for newcomers. Please help for your language, by translating or copyediting interface translations for the Growth features.
• Help:GettingStarted was a feature developed in 2013, which directed newcomers to articles that needed editing. We recently removed this feature from all wikis, because it has been replaced by the Growth features.

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

18:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, this just occurred to me, and I don't know if you've considered this, but perhaps reaching out to an editor who deals with removing and/or editing promotionally written content might help address the issues at the first FAC, beyond what I said at the PR. I don't know where you'd look (maybe at COIN talk, or asking someone else who would know) but maybe it might help on that regard. I'd bet whoever would be willing would also appreciate reading an actual article instead of marketing nonsense. Zetana (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm always open to additional feedback, but given how many thorough comments the article has already gotten from you/HAL333/others, I hope it's prepared enough to take back to FAC. As I mentioned to Aza24 above, I think some level of scrutiny around promotionalism is inevitable, just because editors have differing, sometimes contradictory standards about what constitutes boosterism (see e.g. the contentiousness of the WP:HIGHEREDREP RfC) and there are so few college FAs left to look to as models. If !voters have concerns, I hope it'll be possible to address them through further edits or discussion. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. Zetana (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

On 29 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Page, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ralph Page once called a contra dance for more than 4000 people in Tokyo, despite not knowing Japanese? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ralph Page. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ralph Page), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

	A.C.'s Book Stack of Unreadability
	Thank you for trying to move things along in the recent ANI thread. I'm sad your close was reverted as the thread has basically multiplied in size and has become near unreadable. Your attempt at trying to move discussion to appropriate channels and reducing the threshold for new voices to get in has been noted by me and probably others as well. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Much thanks, A._C._Santacruz! I hope the community will ultimately find some resolution to the issue. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted your RfD nomination of General education because it is not a redirect. If you think the disambiguation page shouldn't exist, then you want to nominate it at AfD, if you think the disambiguation page should exist but not at the base title you want RM. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, thanks for the note. I looked through the guidance at RfD and didn't find any instructions on how to handle disambiguation pages that should become redirects; it might be a good idea to add that. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

On 5 November 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Booker Prize, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 20:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jean Walton 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Sdkb/sandbox/Vision for a better Article Wizard § Feedback from Wakelamp

 – ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Jean Walton you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jean Walton for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:Efn Chinese name § Recent edits

 – ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Aha! It appears my addition has passed your funny criteria. I would also like to thank you for having soul; it's rare to see a user older than 10 years that also go out of their way to crack a smile rather than doing anything useful. We need more people like you. Panini!^🥪 16:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Panini! Doing anything useful is very overrated ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning Talk:Amastra subsoror. I read the article and added two "Taxa named by" categories to Amastra subsoror (or perhaps added that article to two categories). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eastmain, nice to see! I find it interesting to look at articles like that when trying to answer the question of what we'd want Wikipedia to look like in a theoretical "complete" state. On a less serious note, if you missed it, my connection to that article also involves this ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

On 22 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Money Musk, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Jefferson and Henry Ford both took an interest in the folk tune and contra dance "Money Musk" (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Money Musk. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Money Musk), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb. We've interacted a few times before at Talk:TikTok, and I was wondering if you could spare some time for this topic once more. Several weeks ago I put forth a proposal for restructuring the TikTok article to comply better with MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT. I had been discussing there with User:SMcCandlish, who said he largely concurs with the proposal, but currently has real-life obligations that are limiting his ability to vet the proposal sufficiently before implementing it.

Do you think you could pick up where SMcCandlish left off and take a look? Note that I've updated my draft to reflect the changes made to the article since I posted the proposal in late September, as well as to incorporate some of SMcCandlish's suggestions (like changing "Impact" to "Society").

Thanks in advance! Bkenny44 (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bkenny44, thanks for your suggestions to the article and for respecting the paid editing rules. I don't currently have the capacity to look through them, but as SMcCandlish doesn't seem to have gotten to it in the past month, you're welcome to add a ((Request edit)) tag and it'll be answered in due time. Best, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I didn't use ((Request edit)) because my understanding is that the template is inappropriate for more complex discussions where it's proper to reach consensus first. I appreciate the advice. Bkenny44 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello mam/sir, if I may ask how to edit a page --Indiphile99 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indiphile99: See Help:Introduction. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 14:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello sorry to interupt you i would like to ask you something. I tried to sumbit my article but the page where asian months guides me doesnt work it says error 500 do you know what can i do Georgekagian (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Georgekagian! Hmm, it's hard to tell without knowing exactly what you did and what the error said, but normally when you get something like that it's a server issue or internet connectivity issue. I'd try again in half an hour or so and see if it's gone away by then. If it still doesn't work, you can try asking at the Teahouse or technical pump with a precise description of what you did and what you encountered. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

On 25 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jean Walton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jean Walton stopped the Pomona College football team from forcibly weighing and measuring the proportions of first-year women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Walton. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jean Walton), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)