User talk:Sdkb

Your GA nomination of Pomona College

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)

Question from TravelerEditorRealChanger on List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2021 (13:23, 27 July 2021)

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)

Question from TravelerEditorRealChanger (21:53, 27 July 2021)

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)

Question from TravelerEditorRealChanger (22:18, 27 July 2021)

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)

Question from TravelerEditorRealChanger on User talk:TravelerEditorRealChanger (00:22, 30 July 2021)

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)

DYK for Pomona College

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)

FLC review request

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)

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore‎

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)

Questions from ABLHACKER on Phishing (07:38, 12 August 2021)

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)

RSN

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)

NBC News Talk

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)

Question from Cstapff on Ecological systems theory (01:10, 14 August 2021)

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)

Why did the "Good article and featured article topicon redesign" proposal fail?

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)

Question about an infobox

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)

List of academic db's

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)

Talking about your experience on Wikipedia

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)

Question from The Mysterious India by Aditya Mishraxxxx (10:53, 20 August 2021)

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)

DYK for Attention theft

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Question from HughMLRC (08:57, 25 August 2021)

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)

Template:Sub judice

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)

Protest against sandbox deletion. Do you delete everything? My sandbox is gone

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)

Short-term protection of TFA - help requested

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)

Doug Underwood

Note: Follow-up from Talk:Doug_Underwood_(journalist)#Merge

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)

Originalism Globalization

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)

Question from Consultedit (15:31, 2 September 2021)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

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)

Question from Lil Babie (01:23, 4 September 2021)

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)

Need Help For Creating Article Mohammed Shanooj

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)

Completing short descriptions for good articles

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)

contributor=editor=Wikipedian

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)

Hey Joel

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)

Concern regarding Draft:Motley Coffeehouse

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)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

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)

infobox university

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)

Question from JxngkookiesGF (09:43, 21 September 2021)

^^ 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)

EDIT WARRING NOTICE

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)

Question from RockyPointSnooks on User:RockyPointSnooks/sandbox (18:07, 23 September 2021)

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)

Closure of RM at Talk:Sewanee: The University of the South

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)

Question from MrA2121 on Wikipedia:New user landing page (19:38, 24 September 2021)

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)

An error by SdkbBot

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)

Date parameter when tagging {{Use mdy dates}}

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)

Editors must disclose any potential CoI

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)

Notice of ANI

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)

Question from Shorab boy (16:05, 27 September 2021)

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)

Alt captions on Donald Trump

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)

You may want to check out...

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)

Concern regarding Draft:Micro-Face

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)

Concern regarding Draft:Aimee Bahng

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)

Zydeco

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)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

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

DYK for Neurocracy

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Sociology Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to sociology topics. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 08:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Vikipolimer! Always glad to know someone else actually reads those articles haha {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hahah Lol @Sdkb I just started writing articles about sociology too, after eight years of education, I think I can do that. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 08:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb Btw I have just done the Sociology of small groups you may check it for grammar issues :) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 12:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb Can you review this article if you have time :) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 14:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Another bad move

[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)

Jennifer Doudna

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)

ITN recognition for Paddy Moloney

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)

Agnes Tirop

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)

DYK for R. Nelson Smith

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)

Question from Villaindeku2009 (17:53, 18 October 2021)

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)

Adding use mdy dates tags to 180,000 articles

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)

Question from FritzPape (17:26, 21 October 2021)

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)

Reply or archive, not both

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)

Bragging and check in

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)

November 2021 backlog drive

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)

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)

Your close at ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You shouldn't cut off discussion while others are actively commenting, unless things are becoming actively destructive or clearly a waste of time. EEng 01:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.