User talk:Abductive

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
40		Springer (orca) (talk)	Add sources
8		Fatima Movement of Priests (talk)	Add sources
173		Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 (talk)	Add sources
79		Umar ibn Sa'd (talk)	Add sources
20		Laura Veccia Vaglieri (talk)	Add sources
169		SafeMoon (talk)	Add sources
410		Adam Kadmon (talk)	Cleanup
263		Sharron Davies (talk)	Cleanup
8,528		Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (talk)	Cleanup
65,405		Gaza–Israel conflict (talk)	Expand
8,916		Lior Asulin (talk)	Expand
8,069		Re'im (talk)	Expand
15		Murugan Temple of North America (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,424		Zoroaster (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
15,730		2014 Gaza War (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
9,814		Be'eri massacre (talk)	Merge
4,882		Thirty-seventh government of Israel (talk)	Merge
4,651		Israeli war cabinet (talk)	Merge
20		Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation (talk)	Wikify
1,239		NASCAR Cup Series (talk)	Wikify
32		Nik Ranieri (talk)	Wikify
19		History of cheesemaking in Wisconsin (talk)	Orphan
2		Japanese–Portuguese conflicts (talk)	Orphan
4		Roger Malik (talk)	Orphan
58		Malva parviflora (talk)	Stub
879		Osama Mazini (talk)	Stub
6		Valerie Tarazi (talk)	Stub
6		Joya Landis (talk)	Stub
2		Kusuga Komolong (talk)	Stub
64		Buxus microphylla (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Whitespace in bullet lst

Can you please avoid removing the whitespace between the asterisk and the text in bullet lists as you did here? Apart from being completely pointless, it is unhelpful because it makes the source code harder to read, and more dissimilar from the rendered text. There is probably a reason why all code examples at MOS:INDENTMIX include a whitespace after the '*'. I also notice that further down, you actually added whitespace to Cite Web templates, presumably to improve readibility, which I agree is a good idea, so why not apply the same principle to bullet lists as well? Regards --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, to me it makes it easier to read, and many pages have a mix of spaces and no-spaces before the asterisks, but sure, I can leave the spaces. Abductive (reasoning) 17:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Not going to primary sources, such as tweets, for reactions

Hi there! I saw your post talking about not using primary sources for reactions from world leaders. I would be interested in your reasoning! Thinking it might be either not looking for a personal reaction, but a national one, or perhaps that tweets might later be deleted. I'm always up to learn a thing or two! 2600:4041:43C4:ED00:8966:1BFB:C7FA:6892 (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If a tweet is a mundane expression of condolences, it is not encyclopedic. Sure, if a politician's tweet says something impactful, it could be referenced, but then one expects analysis and commentary by secondary sources—and it is those sources that should be used. Abductive (reasoning) 21:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Useless "semantic scholar" IDs

Citation bot's edit summary in special:diff/1181044214 claims that you "suggested" this edit. The only thing there is the addition of a Semantic Scholar link which is pure spam: its only content is a link to the publisher site which was already linked from the page. Can you please not "suggest" such additions in the future? Frankly Citation Bot should stop spamming Semantic Scholar links in general; at least 90% of them are worthless. –jacobolus (t) 15:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand that these changes that bot makes are not appreciated by some users. However I have no way to know in advance which article in a batch will be changed by the bot in any particular way. This is something best brought up on the bot's talk page. One could request that if the only change that it finds is the addition of one of those links, the bot could be programmed to not make the change. Abductive (reasoning) 16:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

So when it says "suggested by Abductive" what does that mean then, if you didn't make the suggestion? –jacobolus (t) 17:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Citation bot has a batch option in which a user can request thousands of articles at a time. At present I and many other users are making such requests. Citation bot is looking at perhaps 10,000 articles a day and finding something to change about 3000 times a day. Abductive (reasoning) 17:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the purpose of that? The human is not meaningfully involved in the process. It sounds like some kind of bureaucratic workaround to evade existing policy rules or something. In my opinion if humans' names are going to be attached they should take responsibility for the edits. –jacobolus (t) 17:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The bot operators are pretty responsive on the bot's talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you should attach your name to thousands of bot edits which you had nothing personally to do with. What's the point of that? –jacobolus (t) 18:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Outside of my control. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly not out of your control that you are "suggesting" these X,000 edits per day or whatever, and attaching your name to them. I just don't understand why you are doing that, if they otherwise have nothing to do with you. –jacobolus (t) 18:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting the bot to do what it does in order to improve Wikipedia. The bot is automatic and so far has done 4,478,902 edits. Any concerns about the bot's behavior are best brought up on the bot's talk page, so that a bot-wide correction can be made should consensus be reached there. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I just don't understand why human editors are "requesting" this of the bot, if the request has no practical effect on the outcome. Why does the bot need your request? What's the point of attaching your name to these edits? –jacobolus (t) 18:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

These are questions best asked on the bot's talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 21:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The bot page says "Can run in a continuous mode that automatically revisits articles, but currently used on specific articles whenever requested by a user." And the discussion on the linked usage page seems to describe invocation on specific pages. But what you are talking about here is not you making a request about a specific page, but rather you signing off on the bot making thousands of edits, which is not from what I can tell discussed anywhere on the bot's page. Is there some place where you were granted the authority to activate the bot in such an indiscriminate way / where this style of "request" is described? Shouldn't you, as the "requester", be willing to take responsibility for the bot's actions? If not, why are you signing your name on the edits? I still don't get it. –jacobolus (t) 00:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I believe that the present situation accrued as a result of the early history of the development of the bot, and if you ask on the bot's talk page, it may be possible to effect a change. Abductive (reasoning) 03:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm not trying to give you a hard time here. I'm just honestly kind of confused. I'll stop spamming your talking page now though. :-) –jacobolus (t) 04:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

About 1,400,000 bytes additional on Wikipedia:Sandbox

Sorry, but I have to revert your edit because it's too laggy. But can I ask you a question pls, how long does it take you to make this? ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

How long to appear once I hit 'Submit'? Or how long to make the spreadsheet? It took maybe 30 seconds to show in the Sandbox. It took me about 40 minutes to build the spreadsheet including collecting the datasets. Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You're truly a great master. But can I copy these contents then paste it to my subpage? ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)