User talk:Sdkb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vital article talk banner discussion[edit]

Hi Sdkb. I have some concerns and queries about the current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vital_Articles#TfD_follow-up:_Fate_of_the_vital_article_talk_banner. As this is a discussion which has a wide impact to the project, and which has a suggestion which is essentially against the interests of the Vital Articles project, it seems it would be more appropriate / more neutral to hold the discussion in a place other than the talkpage of the Vital Articles project. Yes, they should be informed, but holding the discussion there, and simply pinging selected others is not giving the discussion the wide and neutral audience it should have (ie, those who are not in the Vital Article project or who have not taken part in previous discussions are less likely to find it). Also, the set up of the templates gives the appearance that option 2 (placing within) is removing Vital Articles, as in the second version it cannot be seen unless the template is clicked; and then when it is clicked, the importance rating is not shown. This might lead people to vote against it as it appears to treat Vital Articles as lesser than other projects rather than equal to. Also, and this is more a query than a concern, I am not familiar with the version of {{WikiProject banner shell}} that is being used in the discussion. The version I am familiar with is this one,

which shows the level and the class of Vital Articles (I do think, though, that more work needs to be done on the Vital article template to make it fit more neatly into the banner in the same way as the other project banners). Where did you find the version of WikiProject banner shell that you are using? I kinda like it, but am not familiar with it. SilkTork (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SilkTork; good questions! I think you have a point re the venue, and I'll keep that in mind for future proposals. For this one, in addition to the pings to the many prior discussion participants, I also notified several projects/templates that seemed relevant, and I'd be happy to send out additional invites if there are any relevant places I missed. Many of those have more watchers than the vital articles talk page, and overall the discussion participants so far seem to be mostly editors from the TfD (which itself had a very wide audience since it was advertised at every transclusion of {{Talk header}}).
Regarding the mockups, I used the collapsed layout as most vital articles are "big" articles that have many projects and will therefore have autocollapsed talk banners. Headbomb had the same query about why the level rating is not included in a parenthetical the same as importance ratings at traditional projects. I left that out because I'm not sure it's technically feasible given how {{WPBannerMeta}} is set up. Level ratings are different than project importance ratings (in both meaning and function, but function is the relevant part here), and my past experience has been that it's a pretty rigid template that might not be able to accommodate them without a major reworking that editors there might oppose.
To your last query, there has been recent discussion on converting {{Vital article}} to use WPBannerMeta, which would make it look/behave more similarly to traditional project banners. Most "place within" !voters seemed to be seeking that outcome, so I thought it only fair to them to show that in the mockup. (N.b. I intentionally used could in what [option] could look like to communicate that the mockups are not set in stone.) I created the version of {{Vital article}} used in the mockup from scratch via Special:ExpandTemplates, so there's no functioning version yet, but it could be pretty easily created by modifying the current sandbox version, which features a rough implementation of WPBannerMeta.
I hope that all helps clarify! Happy to answer any other questions you have. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sdkb. Has there been any progress in working out how to implement this merge? I ask because it has been pointed out that {{vital article}} is not correctly inheriting the class when placed inside the banner shell. I can fix this, but don't want to spend too much time on it, if a new version will be imminently available. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And ... regarding the display of the level that you are discussing above, that was added quickly by me as a rough and ready solution. It can certainly be reformatted/tweaked if there is agreement on what it should look like. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MSGJ! The template is currently in the holding cell following the successful merge proposal and follow-up. That process is backlogged, unfortunately, but it'll be taken up eventually, and you might be able to prod it along a bit by commenting there. It's not something I'm personally involved in, though. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 13:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it cannot be merged unless there is some agreement on how to do the merge. The most recent discussion made some progress but ultimately stalled — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have plans for Template:User's RfA?[edit]

{{User's RfA}} has no transclusions, which usually leads to deletion. Did you have a plan to use this template somewhere? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonesey95; thanks for checking in! The plan for that template was to use it in {{Happy Adminship}} so that it would link to the RfA. If I recall correctly, I couldn't get it to substitute properly because it required checking categories. I or someone else might figure out a way to adjust the code to make it viable in the future, so I would oppose deletion per the and has no likelihood of being used part of WP:TFD#REASONS. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's really nice to see a message such as this @Jonesey95. Many times I have had stuff nominated at TfD and the nominator did not even bother to drop in and ask what the purpose is or what the future plans were, which always seems discourteous. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not always this nice. You caught me on a good day. When a template has been created somewhat recently by an editor I know to be mostly competent (I put myself in this category, with "mostly" as a very deliberately chosen word), I'll try to drop a note. If the template is ancient and unused, or recent and created by someone with just a few contributions, I usually send it straight to TFD. [ETA: The problem with courtesy is that unlike holding the door open for someone at the supermarket entrance, it can take a ton of time here on WP. There is so much garbage to clean up that sometimes the only way through it is to mass-process stuff in a cold, cruel manner and miss the one bit of useful creative work that was in the dross heap. I am always happy to withdraw a TFD or other deletion nomination for stuff that is useful.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: I was skimming this about something else, and my eye got caught by mass-process stuff in a cold, cruel manner. I think I understand why you often see no better option, but I encountered a pretty prolific editor who also created an IMO harmful template. I succeeded to (kindly) show the author why I think it to be harmful, and he accepted the arguments and removed it himself (no TFD process needed). The expected advantage is he hopefully both gets a bit wiser, and stays prolific with (hopefully) good edits (and possibly future good templates too). I am glad to see you did something like that (in no cold, cruel manner) too here, and so I wish you a lot of (at least) similarly good days ;-) Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I try to be kind at least once a month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mop reserved in your name[edit]

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

You'd do awesome, Sdkb. I really think you would. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were for a long time. You'd do fine. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 21:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I hate to repeat the cliché, but I could've sworn you were one already. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No clichés here. I know you're not one but just... get a mop, saves us all beating down your door :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 21:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 from me. I think you'd pass! Although maybe mentione your featured article, featured list, and good article on your main userpage. Took me a couple minutes of digging to find them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, noted and adopted. A good selection of service across the projects. Remember when people use the auld cliche 'I thought you were already', that's cretinous compared to supports such as Zuppybonzo and Novem. Guaranteed support here. ——Serial 00:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Why not? 🙂 Maliner (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you do plan on running, drop me an email. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. – SJ + 16:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support. History6042 (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 100%. — Frostly (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest we stop piling on? This user would obviously pass RfA.[FBDB] QueenofHearts 04:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts.Otherwise the bureaucrat needs to come here and grant him administrator privileges. Lol. Maliner (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for leaving this kind note, Clover, and to everyone for adding on their generous words! I take it all to heart (and hopefully not to head) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Indiphile99 on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (13:49, 30 December 2023)[edit]

Hello, how can I start a page? --Indiphile99 (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Indiphile99! See Help:Your first article. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent closure of highly controversial RFC[edit]

This seems a very premature closure, and one that suggests a lack of familiarity with the arguments on both sides. The discussion has become so complicated that I'm not sure anyone really knows which RFC you are closing. Please re-open this and leave closure to an independent administrator, as has I think already been requested. Deb (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb, the RfC was open for two and a half months, with 219 comments and a listing at WP:Closure requests for 19 days, so I have to disagree with your characterization that a close was very premature. I provided a thorough closing rationale, and you are welcome to ask for clarification on anything unclear. You are also welcome to appeal the result at WP:AN.
I do have to warn you that your conduct here — in which you reverted another editor implementing the close with the summary this is nonsense, then doubled down on their talk page (There has been no decision and no result., etc.) — falls below the expected standard. The nature of the consensus system means that discussions do not always go the way one might hope, but all editors are expected to abide by outcomes or challenge them through appropriate channels. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You closed it on the day that two late votes came in that changed the apparent consensus. I'm assuming good faith on your part, but can you see how that editing pattern might look a little dodgy? Deb (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I closed it when I came across it. With participation from 66 different editors, I did not find the final two !votes particularly determinative. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You commented yourself that it was a very close thing and yet you chose to close it just at that moment. If you didn't "find the final two !votes particularly determinative", perhaps you should not have called it in their favour. Deb (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Deb: If you disagree with the closure of an RfC and the closer stands by it, the correct venue to appeal is WP:AN, not to obliquely accuse the closer of "dodgy" behavior. Comments like those above and this one border on casting aspersions, and I'm saying that with uninvolved-admin hat on. Nothing seems procedurally improper here, so the only question is whether the close was a correct reading of consensus, and that can be decided at AN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 17:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin, I wasn't addressing you. I'm trying to give advice to someone who I believe has not thought through the consequences of his/her actions, I made a point of saying that I was assuming good faith. The problem seems to me to be very obvious, and I'm surprised you can't see it. Deb (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware you are not addressing me. I stumbled on this discussion, saw one editor casting aspersions against another, and saw this as a good opportunity to intervene before things go in a bad direction. You can say you are assuming good faith, but that is not consistent with the rest of what you're saying, which strongly implies that Sdkb strategically closed the RfC at a time that would favor the side you opposed—the exact opposite of an assumption of good faith. Now you are patronizing Sdkb based merely on your disagreement with them (has not thought through the consequences of his/her actions). So I will say again, if you object to an RfC's close and the closer declines to reconsider, the next step is WP:AN. The approach you are currently taking is below the standard I would expect of an administrator. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Deb (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Request for closure review (image collages in year articles). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essays[edit]

 – {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photomontage RfC[edit]

I am concerned that, during the RfC on the removal of photomontages from Wikipedia, both attempts at another RfC for the removal of decade images were deleted. At least, that’s the way I see it. DementiaGaming (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this, that was closed as a discussion fork, not deleted. I commented on that here and don't have anything further to add currently. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Timplin (21:35, 18 January 2024)[edit]

are you real --Timplin (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Xiao Guangyan.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Xiao Guangyan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like my non-free image was replaced by a probable copyvio.  Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The license issues have now been resolved, so using the new free image and letting this one get deleted. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh oh, you got bug puzzled[edit]

Good Bug
Whoops! Just Bug Puzzle this way. You accidentally assisted in cicada solving-adjacent efforts. This makes you an honorary solver! Thank you for your assistance today, as information you provided me today will aide in not only our documentation efforts, but also providing factual information about Cicada to a wider audience.

Sincerely, The CicadaSolvers mod and wikia team Ctvrty (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from KiwipediaZea (03:00, 24 January 2024)[edit]

Hello, I want to edit the article named "Herbie", the sentient 1963 Volkswagen Beetle, but i can't edit the article's grammar problems without some helpful tools. Can tools like Grammarly be used to fix grammar errors in articles? I know that Grammarly may be incorrect sometimes. --KiwipediaZea (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KiwipediaZea! See WP:GRAMMARLY. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I type in American English. I have looked at the essay and I understand that Grammarly is an violation and should be not used. Am I still able to use tools to find grammar errors that fix errors in American English and not violate WP:ENGVAR and WP:TPO while the tools are other than Grammarly? I also want the tools to not cause syntax errors in the source editor. Not to mention, I type in the visual editor. KiwipediaZea (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KiwipediaZea, you could always try copying text from Wikipedia into Grammarly and see what it suggests. If any of the suggestions are good, then you could make them in the article (by implementing them yourself, not by copying and pasting back). But you need to evaluate them independently yourself, since Grammarly is just a tool, and it can (and often does) get things wrong. You are ultimately responsible for the edits you make. If you do not trust yourself to judge whether the edits Grammarly suggests are improvements or not (which is the sense I get from i can't edit the article's grammar problems without some helpful tools), then copy editing may not be the best task for you. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still know that you said Grammarly can cause syntax errors, violation of the use of national varieties of the English language on Wikipedia and Talk page guidelines. So, I was thinking maybe I could find alternatives of Grammarly that are in my variation of American English. But there can still be occurrences of syntax errors and possibly an violation of the Talk page guidelines (as said earlier). Instead of copying and pasting, I should type in the corrected grammar mistakes in the source editor in order to possibly prevent a accidental creation of one or multiple syntax errors in the source editor. It would also take me some time to comprehend on what is going on in the source editor. What do you think of this? KiwipediaZea (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that the variation of English has to do with the article, not with your personal usage. But apart from that, it sounds like something you could at least try. Just go slowly at first and pay attention to any edits that get reverted to understand why. The copy editors guild might be able to assist further. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info request for debugging[edit]

On Template:Skip to top and bottom that's surprised me because it's showed correct on me. If you give info about your browser, i can try to fix that problem (i assume you purged the page / cleaned the cache before reverting). Thanks for your attention. RuzDD (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was using mobile Chrome for Android when the issue came up. The buttons were both within the footprint of where the left button would normally be. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and i can't found a solution in TemplateStyles level but looks like removing the .content a > img, .content noscript > img {max-width: 100% !important;height: auto !important;} from that page will fix the problem. RuzDD (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, while i was used all of the purging shortcuts and longcuts, i felt like i was seeing an older TemplateStyles revision... If my feeling was right, there's may be a chance for removing this problem at the TemplateStyles level. If my feeling was wrong, the easiest solution is probably removing the first !important from the ruleset i was writed in the previous message. RuzDD (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling was right, looks like i solved that problem. Like all others, that change may produce some cachebugs (these will resolve after purging so not a problem). RuzDD (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up and working through the issue! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 14:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Shou-yi[edit]

hi! i'm just curious. how did you come to know about this person? RZuo (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Chen Shou-yi
Hi RZuo! I don't remember precisely, as I created that article a few years ago. But Chen taught at Pomona College, and people affiliated with Pomona is one of my content focus areas. (I find it interesting to choose a small group and see how comprehensively it's possible to document it on Wikipedia — it reveals a bunch about where our knowledge gaps are.) Hope you enjoyed reading it! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 14:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thx a lot for creating the article on my fellow cantonese countryman. it's so sad that i've never read or heard about him until a few days ago by chance. RZuo (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Razia68 (07:55, 30 January 2024)[edit]

Hi,

How to create bibllography of an author? --Razia68 (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Razia68! Help:REFSTART or WP: BIBLIOGRAPHY may have what you're looking for. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 12:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Society" is now a Good Article[edit]

@Sdkb Hey, I just wanted to let you know that Society, a Level-1 Vital Article, has just been promoted to GA status, so some barnstar rewards can be handed out. — Alex26337 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; always nice to see, and congrats (and big kudos to @Ganesha811 as the reviewer as well)! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes of WikiProject userboxes[edit]

Hello Sdkb, I reverted all of your changes done to the WikiProject userboxes, or at least the ones I have on my watch as I do not agree with your changes. Please do not perform mass changes just because it was agreed upon to change the wording of one WikiProject userbox. Let members of those WikiProjects deal with the changes on their own consensus. Jerium (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jerium! The CfD referenced in my edit summaries found consensus to rename the associated categories for all WikiProjects. The same rationale (of wanting to avoid creating a barrier to entry for newcomers by implying that there is any kind of approval process to join) applies to userboxes, so your perspective seems to be a minority viewpoint. I don't personally have any major issue with you exempting the nine templates you reverted from the broader change (although others might). If you feel that the broader change should not be carried out, then you should articulate why the considerations (and thereby consensus) would be different for userboxes than they were for the categories. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 09:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion you referenced to change wording is hardly a universal consensus throughout Wikipedia, nor does it involve the entirety of current active editors or a major amount. I advise caution with assuming a universal consensus based on the individual consensus of just one WikiProject userbox, which is why I suggest having members of those WikiProjects handle the wording according to their consensus. Obviously, I don’t agree with the change, and the WikiProject userboxes I made are more newer and are unlikely to receive attention compared to long-term userboxes. Jerium (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pristinebutterfly (12:37, 2 February 2024)[edit]

How do I create a table? --Pristinebutterfly (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pristinebutterfly! There's a guide at Help:Introduction to tables with VisualEditor/1. I recommend using VisualEditor for them, as it's a lot easier. Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}}talk 14:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

@Theleekycauldron: @The Earwig: @L235:

I'm going to do something rather unusual here. I've noted the development of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb. I wanted to give all of you a heads up that I intend to oppose this RfA. There's no bad blood here, and I don't view you, Sdkb, as a bad person or a bad presence on the project. My concerns have to do with the your stance on non-free content on the project. The discussion here along with other posts lead me to feel that the stance is "If it's legal, it's ok". It's not, never has been, and never will be. We have had a lot (and I do mean a LOT) of difficulty in enforcing the WP:NFC policy over the years, and having another administrator who stands essentially against it (or has an interpretation that would liberally allow it; same difference) would dramatically undermine our efforts. I can't support that. Thus, barring a serious commitment to the free content mission of the project, I'll be opposing. I want to clarify; I am NOT telling you to not run. That would be very much out of line. I'm just trying to give you a heads up. It's always a guessing game before running an RfA as to how the responding public will react.

To the nominators here pinged; it's incumbent on you as nominators to do a thorough review of a candidate in all respects. I'm not saying any of you have come up short. Far from it. I am seeing some bumps in the road with comments on this talk page and elsewhere. A good nominator must carefully review these, try to identify trends, discuss those those trends with the candidate, and figure out a plan. There is a lot of good work here. Highlighting it is important. But, digging deep to find problems is part of the process as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's gracious of you to leave me a note letting me know in advance, @Hammersoft; there's no bad blood here either. While I wouldn't characterize my stance that way, it's clear from the non-free images in search results discussion you linked that you and I have differing views on how the NFC policy should be reformed. What I can promise you is that I understand the difference between pushing for reform and ignoring consensus, and that as an admin I will enforce NFC (and any other policy) as it is presently written and understood, not how I personally wish it were written.
We do intend to proceed with the RfA, and I'm more than happy to continue engaging with this topic as a question there. I hope to win your support — if not during the RfA itself, then at some point in the future. Best wishes, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a great response Sdkb, in particular What I can promise you is that I understand the difference between pushing for reform and ignoring consensus, and that as an admin I will enforce NFC (and any other policy) as it is presently written and understood, not how I personally wish it were written. (formatting removed). @Hammersoft I think it's a really unfair statement to suggest that the nominators failed to do a thorough review. Why is Sdkb having a position that a majority (but not consensus) of editors agreeing with a problem? And to the extent it is a problem - just by posting here you've made it into one even if it wouldn't have been for anyone else - how do you know that they didn't know about the stance. For instance in the last RfA that I ran, none of the concerns (at least none of them prior to criticism around answers at the RfA itself) were a surprise to me. I just decided that I shouldn't only be trying to nominate perfect people. Just because you're not aware of a plan doesn't mean there isn't one and suggesting otherwise is unfair to the nominators and the candidate. But all of this pales into just how bizzare it is to decide that a stance which a majority (but not consensus) of enwiki editors agree with is so disqualifying that someone should not be an admin for holding it and to merit a lecture to nominators. Good grief. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep, I didn't suggest the nominators didn't do a thorough review. I didn't suggest there wasn't a plan. You're reading nefarious beliefs into a statement that frankly just aren't there. To put it bluntly, you are attacking me without an ounce of WP:AGF. Seriously? Try re-reading it with out the blatant animosity you seem to be showing here. If I had some beef with Sdkb or the nominators, I wouldn't have come here and posted this. My comments at the future RfA would have had a hell of a lot more gravity if Sdkb and the nominators had not had a chance to see it before I posted it. I was trying to be helpful to the nominators. That's all. If you want to WP:ABF, that's your business. But, I'm not going to sit here and take it. The problem isn't me. Christ, I didn't have to say anything here. I could have not posted this to begin with. I did this out of kindness, not out of retribution. I did this out of a belief it would do some good, not out of some ...as you say "bizarre"... belief that I could do some bad here. Wow. I mean utter and complete wow. You are way out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft: You're right that you didn't suggest the nominators didn't do a thorough review. You even said Far from it. So I shouldn't have written that. You did feel it appropriate to tell two experienced nominators how to be nominators which I will apply good faith towards and chalk up to obliviousness at how it comes off because of your desire to help them be good nominators. And you did that because you decided that a stance which a majority (but not consensus) of enwiki editors agree with is so disqualifying that someone should not be an admin for holding it. That is the bizarre part. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep, frankly I was completely astonished at your response. It was so out of character I had serious doubts it was coming from you. That, combined with another set of out of character posts by you really had me beginning to believe your account was compromised. I was seriously astonished. I appreciate you walking it back. The last part; that's an interpretation that wasn't intended either. That a majority of editors don't believe in the free content mission of the project is of great concern to me given it's the very reason we exist, but that wasn't my point. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again for suggesting something which you had gone to pains to disclaim. I will be more careful in the future. But I am not interpreting anything when I say that you believe a position held by a majority of the community is disqualifying to adminship. That was the entire point of this message - you wanted Skdb to know that you intended to oppose them because of that belief so he could factor that into whether or not he ran. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Barkeep, yes you are. I never said that. I never said to factor that into whether or not Sdkb should run. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Sdkb has answered any concerns someone might have had with regards to how their position would affect their decisions as an admin in executing their admin duties should they be granted admin privs (which I think is highly likely when the RfA concludes). My concerns are not about that. I did say that having an administrator that stands essentially against WP:NFC would dramatically undermine our efforts. That says nothing about their administrative actions. I still stand by that. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You offered no advice, merely a factor to consider in what appears a genuine desire to be helpful. You said ... I intend to oppose this RfA. and It's always a guessing game before running an RfA as to how the responding public will react. What you also said is you weren't telling skdb not to run. Which I never wrote so now you need to read what I wrote more carefully. But telling him how the public will respond, rather than how you will respond seems to pretty clearly trying to help Skdb make good decisions about RfA,the set of which would include whether to run or not if this is how the public will respond. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...so he could factor that into whether or not he ran" Seems pretty clear to me. Whatever. This conversation is pointless now. It's all moot; as noted below the elephant walked away. Have a nice day! --Hammersoft (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And while talking about the nature of things, the elephant wandered off. I wasn't expecting the RfA to launch today. That's ok. Sdkb, I'm sure you and I will end up in discussion in the future on the nature of WP:NFC. I do sincerely hope you reverse course and understand how critically important the free content mission is to the very existence of this project. Best of luck, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagreed with Sdkb's views in the discussion you link (and even the opening of the RfC, so soon after the previous one based on a WMF comment). Nonetheless, I strongly believe that Sdkb is able to separate opinion from current policy and enforce NFC as it is. Their reply here is excellent. It would be tough to find an admin who agrees with all existing policy and I might even argue that such a hypothetical admin lacks critical thinking skills. — Bilorv (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFfA Love[edit]

Starting this as it will likely be dogpiled by others very soon. Best of luck on your nomination! They are well-deserved and I have no doubt you will do good work with them in possession. I've been thinking about asking you an optional question relating to humor on Wikipedia. Maybe, if I can word my thoughts right. Also, thanks for the shirt! I have never worn it. Panini! 🥪 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Panini! And yes, I'd be happy to share some of my thoughts about humor on Wikipedia at the RfA if you decide to ask about it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA as well[edit]

I didn't think you'd ever do it, but am thrilled that you are! We will have to catch up some time soon, but I'll leave you to your RFA questions for the moment. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck on your RFA, and I hope you get a lot of good use out of Template:Refideas editnotice. :) BOZ (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BOZ! I came across it at Monkey selfie copyright dispute and thanked you since I was glad to see it! I did notice that the normal "Page notice" and "Group notice" links don't appear for me when editing that page; I'm planning to investigate that once I have a little more time. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Aza, and yes, absolutely! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Hi Sdkb, I just left you a question at your RFA. You are under no pressure to answer at all (I've already !voted support), but it gives you the opportunity to respond to your oppose should you wish to. If you don't want to respond, that's fine, but at least you can, without being accused of badgering the opposer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer on the question, and congratulations on picking up the mop! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
Hi! Couple things, but as to why i'm giving you this, it's thanks to your great editing and interactions!

1. I like the new signature. I can't pin exactly why, but the font and shape reminds me of old computers. 2. I hope your RfA passes, as you deserve it. Babysharkboss2!! Killer Queen 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Babysharkboss2! Sdkbtalk 22:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your new signature looks very nice![edit]

I'm loving the new signature! Good luck in your RfA! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 02:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely! Also, could you update WP:Signature tutorial#Real-life examples? I see that your entry there is outdated and everyone would love the new look. Good luck! 2003 LN6 05:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! I'm going to leave the old one in the gallery, as that style is more up for grabs now that I'm no longer using it. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats![edit]

Congrats on your successful RfA! SWinxy (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SWinxy! Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you are now an administrator![edit]

Hello Sdkb, I am pleased to report that I have closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with the toolkit, and please let me know if you have any questions. Welcome to the admin corps. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @28bytes! I offer my deep gratitude to everyone in the community who participated in the RfA and entrusted me with the mop. (I will have limited availability this weekend as I am traveling, but after that I will be available for janitorial duties, and will work on a debrief.)
Warmly,
Sdkbtalk 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Sdkb! I wish I was more up-to-date on all of the RfAs that have happened recently and I'm sorry for not offering you my vote of support. Good luck with the job and responsibilities and don't ever hesitate to come to another administrator if you have any questions. I've been doing this for 8 years and I still ask for advice. It's just wise to get a second opinion if you aren't sure how to handle a situation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thanks; I will certainly reach out with any questions that come up! Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Few Wikipedians have been more suited for the mop than you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's really kind of you, Ganesha811; thanks! Sdkbtalk 04:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you![edit]

Congrats on the successful RfA and good luck with the tools. Prodraxis (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Prodraxis! Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More baking and exclamation marks for you![edit]

May I join the hordes congratulating you for a successful RfA? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly And woah, those look tasty! Sdkbtalk 04:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the corps[edit]

The admin baton
Congratulations on becoming the newest admin! I'm passing this baton along to you; please take care to hold it closely in your care until it is your time to hand off the baton. — The Night Watch (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here.[edit]

Here's your shirt. I suggest just buying one from Wikipedia because these stupid things fall apart in the wash. But, Jimmy just had to accidentally buy 1000 of these instead of the one test shirt, so here we are in 2024 still trying to get rid of them. Panini! 🥪 01:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know of at least one option for dumping a thousand spare shirts Sdkbtalk 04:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats![edit]

Some champagne for your successful RfA!
Congratulations on becoming an admin! I always thought you would be a great candidate and I hope to see you around making Wikipedia a better place. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HistoryTheorist! Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Congratulations! Heads-up, the contrast in your signature is also off under the thing that I use to highlight admins(/superusers?). People (including me) might apprecitate it if you are able to find a combination that works with and without the blue that the script overlays. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Maliner (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both! And thanks for flagging the concern with the script, Usedtobecool. When I designed my new signature, I wanted it to look similar enough to my old one to help others remember my identity, and with that goal in mind removing the blue background would unfortunately be difficult. Testing out the script, it looks like it highlights the "talk" part of my signature in blue but doesn't do anything with the "Sdkb" part (let me know if it's working differently for you), which seems like the desirable behavior in the situation. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 21:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see your username highlighted, white text on [light teal(?)] (close to RGB 150, 250, 250). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you tested on your userpage. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the transition period, this may work: Sdkbuser / talk. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was my own customization getting in the way. That contrast is unfortunate. But ultimately, it's the responsibility of user scripts to play nicely with otherwise accessibility-compliant signatures and to not introduce accessibility issues, rather than vice versa. If it bothers you, I'd suggest making a suggestion to the maintainer of the script (or, even better, to code it yourself if you can) to have the script recolor text being highlighted when it would otherwise result in an insufficient contrast. Best, Sdkbtalk 06:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But of course you have no policy obligation to accommodate editors who use optional features. As I said, it's something I might have appreciated, and potentially others, but ultimately, it is no more than an inconvinience to specifically me. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Followed up here, as it looks like @Theopolisme hasn't been active since 2019. Sdkbtalk 17:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Congrats on your successful RfA... Take these while you figure out what to do with them extra buttons (...with caution of course). Cheers! Volten001 04:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Volten001! Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

Sorry for missing the RfA, but glad you got in, and congrats! DFlhb (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks! Sdkbtalk 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I also missed it, but I knew you'd pass! Congrats on the mop. Also, very cool new signature. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FormalDude! Sdkbtalk 01:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject YouTube subscriber counts[edit]

Hi, I wanted to call your attention to this discussion I started in WikiProject YouTube. Your 2 cents would be helpful as it is a continuation of a previous discussion started by you last year. Mokadoshi (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reopening this, @Mokadoshi! I left some thoughts there; fingers crossed that we get the automatic subscriber count updates truly rolled out this time. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request on draft Signpost op-ed on social apps/younger audiences[edit]

Hi! I'm working on an op-ed for the Signpost (gist: there's been a lot of attention on AI over the last year, but not as much attention on the other important socio-technical change that affects Wikipedia, the increasing popularity of getting information from personalities on social apps/platforms that cater to younger audiences). I've started a draft here – as someone who has been following the Future Audiences work and had some good feedback early on about the social apps space, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know what you think! Open to any/all feedback. Thank you!! Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maryana; nice to hear from you! And that sounds like a very worthwhile op-ed for the Signpost! Taking a read, here are a few initial thoughts (feel free to take or leave whichever of them are helpful):
  • The comparison between how much attention we're devoting to AI vs. the desire for info from personalities is an interesting framing device. But given that the article is focused on the personalities issue, it might help to dial in on that as early as possible.
  • In the first bullet point, it seems you're talking in part about how editor attention has shifted, which doesn't seem to speak directly to the question you pose about reader attention.
  • I want to hear from you, English Wikipedians – as the groundbreaking community that, 23 years ago, revolutionized how knowledge could be shared and accessed online This feels a little weird, given that most Wikipedians today weren't editing 23 years ago.
  • The Basque Wikipedia example speaks to an attempt to pursue the "knowledge destination" approach. Is there an example of current work you could add that'd speak to the "free knowledge everywhere" approach? (Perhaps the sound logo?)
  • I recall from your WCNA presentation (sidenote: Is that online anywhere? I don't see it in the category) that you had the third "Internet's Conscience" approach. Was there a reason you left that out from the article?
Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much – this was all extremely helpful feedback, and I've incorporated your suggestions into a revised draft. (Also, thanks for catching that my WCNA slides never made it to Commons, ack! Uploaded and in the category now.)
If you have time for another read-through of the refreshed draft, I'd appreciate it (but no pressure – I know you're a busy VIP admin now! ) Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Coolguy12340 (13:52, 25 February 2024)[edit]

Are you really my mentor? --Coolguy12340 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am. Sdkbtalk 15:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Faerlynwiki (15:06, 27 February 2024)[edit]

Hello, mentor. I have never edited before so I thought I'd let you know what I wanted to do. I don't want to change anything yet, but I've found a mistake on the Pupstruction page so I want to talk to someone about. If Disney came up with the mistake I'll drop it. One of the dogs is described as a neopolitan mastiff but the dog in the show is NOT that breed of dog, I've owned and rescued this breed and the defining characteristics are simply not there. I'd like to change this. Is there a chat feature within this program? Thank you for being my mentor! --Faerlynwiki (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them.
To the extent possible, I'd encourage you to add a reference when you make the change, as it'll be more likely to stick that way. And talk pages are the closest we have to a chat function, but you could also get help on the Wikipedia Discord. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 15:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bot to check DYK QPQ automatically[edit]

Hello. I'm sure you're very busy, but if you have the time, I'd love your quick thoughts here. Thanks in advance. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there; thanks for letting me know about that thread! Sdkbtalk 23:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conference funding[edit]

Thanks for your note at Jimbo's talk page. I've mentioned more funding for conferences on his page at least a couple times, without a response, and have contemplated doing a Signpost article which would include large-scale further funding of conferences. Seems a touchy subject, Foundation funds are gathered by pushing Wikipedia to the forefront. It's the elephant in the room: the difference between what the Foundation should allot to Wikipedia matters and what it actually does.

As for conferences, the yearly world conference as well as the North American, Indian, European (I don't think they have a regular one), etc. should be a major recipient of millions of dollars of funding. For example, I attended November's North American Conference in Toronto, and give the organizing committee full credit for a wonderful conference with what they had to work with (I don't know the exact amount of funding allotted - maybe SuperHamster and Econterms and others could elaborate - for the conference itself, for scholarships, etc.). But the Foundation, especially after a literal four-year conference hiatus per covid, should have thrown money at it and asked "Thank you Wikipedians, what else can we do?". All conferences should have hundreds of full scholarships. Evening events should be held every night of the conference - full catered banquets, speakers including officials from the city/state/country, a panel of celebrities talking of how they view and relate to Wikipedia, a dance night with live music, etc. etc. These conferences are both educational connections for participants and celebrations of their work - and by celebrations I envision as far as it can be taken. For example, I've been advocating for a large North American conference in Las Vegas in 2026 for the 25th Wikipedia anniversary year, a major event to augment the Paris Wikimedia conference.

"Lack of funding" should be no barrier, Wikipedians as a group being the recipient of donations is an obvious use of funds. I bet with a proposal in-hand for fully funding these large world-and-continental conferences, combined with visits to a couple of local millionaires or billionaires, these things can equate with and rival the best conferences of other major organizations and professional gatherings. There is a large playing field not being played on, and your unanswered query to Jimbo Wales adds one idea to a what-can-easily-be scenerios in terms of tying Wikipedians into Foundation funding (as the public appeals strongly imply). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(a ping to the two other editors mentioned at Jimbo Wales' talk page: @Nadzik and @SGrabarczuk (WMF) and to our beloved Board Member and actual editor, Rosiestep who may have thoughts on this as well as on the VivaWikiVegas26 idea) Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update, Nadzik left a note on the discussion at Jimbo Wales' talk page, and I've left a note of their page per this subject. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ella Honan (13:50, 29 February 2024)[edit]

Hello I am trying to get more information about myself and my acting I’ve done throughout previous years how can I get more information out? As there is bits and bobs on Google --Ella Honan (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ella — our goal here is to write an encyclopedia about notable topics, not to help you promote yourself. Your user page is not an article, and we'd want one about you only if you meet the criteria at WP:NACTOR. Please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY regarding the conflict of interest you have writing about yourself. Best, Sdkbtalk 14:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I bookmarked this page because of an above section I saw your enquiry Ella. The best you can do is collect your press and other media mentions and, when you think you have enough for a Wikipedia article, query again. You cannot write it yourself, but if there is ample coverage, and hopefully your career takes off like a skylark, there will come a time for a Wikipedia page (is the Survivor series a major series? If so, press should follow, especially if you have the magic ingredient: a good agent). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re:e-mail[edit]

Hello! Sorry, I'm missing something about what you wrote...

Maybe it's just because I'm feeling tired. : D Oltrepier (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, you're right, haha!
I'll do it real quick, thank you for flagging it! Oltrepier (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... now I genuinely feel like I forgot the birthday of a loved one. : D
By the way, congratulations on getting admin powers! Oltrepier (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for your successful adminship![edit]

Congratulations!!

Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 19:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sdkbtalk 19:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, congrats! :D –07:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Fpmfpm (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fpmfpm! Sdkbtalk 15:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peter I. Klock (22:17, 5 March 2024)[edit]

Hi, I just entered an article I published and presented at the WGMSC. I want to add it to Wikipedia. Please help me to take the next step. --Peter I. Klock (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter! The page at Help:Your first article has instructions for you. The material at your user page does not currently resemble an encyclopedia article and would need significant editing before it could be submitted. Sdkbtalk 22:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

Noticed that in your recent edits to Template:User WikiProject Music of Canada and Template:User WikiProject Country Music, you accidentally wrote "particpant" instead of "participant". Don't have time to scour your edit history to find anywhere else you may have made the same error, so I figured I would let you know so, if need be, you can fix it yourself when you get a chance. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! Thanks for letting me know. I'll review and fix anywhere else with the typo. Sdkbtalk 05:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all fixed now! Please let me know if I missed anything. Sdkbtalk 04:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Society[edit]

Great hook! Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Viriditas! (For anyone else wondering, the hook is Did you know ... that the use of trade in prehistoric society may have given humans an evolutionary advantage over Neanderthals? It was chosen from among a few options.) Cheers, Sdkbtalk 17:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I should just give up and outsource all my hooks to you. Do you think being a professional journalist gives you some insight into how to create better hooks than others? And would you care to share some personal tips? Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I am by no means the best hook writer — you should look to editors like @Theleekycauldron, who has compiled some great tips herself.
But writing hooks does share a lot of similarities with writing teases (the text in a social media post accompanying a link to a journalistic work). The biggest thing I notice is that people need to let go of the idea that a hook should describe the article comprehensively. People tend to write articles because they're interested in the topic as a whole, and that translates to an impulse to include as many details about it as possible in the hook. But those details don't tend to be interesting, and by the time you add the year/nationality/other info that might normally go in an article's first sentence, the hook is overly long and there's no room for the actual fun factoid. What I try to do is find the interesting factoid — the nugget of info where I go "hmm, I didn't know or wouldn't have suspected that," even if it's not otherwise a big part of the article. I then use that as the basis for the hook, stripping out everything not directly needed to support it.
For instance, in my currently nominated hook, the article is about a 2022 documentary directed by Violet Du Feng on the Chinese language Nüshu. But almost none of that is needed to support the interesting factoid — or in this case two, that it was a secret women-only language and that marketers tried to turn it into a branding device for high-end potatoes (which is actually only a brief moment in the film). So I stripped out "2022," "Violet Du Feng," the word "Nüshu" and even "Chinese". By distilling in that way, I was able to keep it a medium-length hook even with the double-factoid. Readers will get those details once they click through, and to some extent the omissions may even encourage it (e.g. if someone wonders which culture created this language, they have to click to find out).
I hope that helps! Cheers, Sdkbtalk 01:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may bother you with a follow up question: how do you personally gauge interestingness? I recently was involved in a small discussion about this, and what I thought was an interesting hook, another found absolutely boring. I would appreciate some insight into this specific problem. I think what I like most about your hook up above is its brevity. But would others find it boring? I wouldn't, of course, but I'm curious how you bridge this somewhat subjective gap. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly the perpetual question! And you're right that it's always going to be subjective. As best I can formalize it, interestingness derives from a fact being counter to what one might assume or guess. Most people don't propose marriage the same day they meet their spouse, most zippers don't weigh 1,500 pounds, and most concerts don't ask you to bring your own chair, so when I came across those things, I used them in my hooks.
A key element is that, because Main Page readers are a general audience, hooks need to appeal to someone with no special interest in the topic area. I think that a lot of uninteresting "first person to do X" hooks arise from forgetting this. The thought process behind a nomination of a hook like "... that Jane Smith was the first female train conductor in New Zealand?" is basically "I find New Zealand trains interesting, so this hook is interesting because it relates to New Zealand trains." But for general readers, who have no special interest in New Zealand trains, there's nothing surprising here — of course someone was the first female train conductor in New Zealand, so learning that they were named Smith doesn't change my perception of the world in any meaningful way, and I'm not likely to click.
Of course, there is an element of luck involved — some topics have a fact that leaps out (which journalists writing about it will typically use as a soft lead) and others don't. But even for relatively niche topics, you can stack the odds in your favor by doing deeper research — the Pete Sutherland fact above, for instance, wasn't mentioned in any of his obits, but turned up once I looked through the Newspapers.org archives. And for huge topics like Society, you can dig pretty much infinitely until you find something good. Sdkbtalk 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful. I will ruminate on it for several days until it sinks in and I become one with everything. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question[edit]

Thought you might have some insight on this. My first batch of FGTC proposals passed, one of which is combining the pages Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates & Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions.

How might I go about doing so, considering that both pages have (somewhat) extensive archives? I could just leave a merge request, but I find those tend to go un-answered for a while, and I'd rather just do this myself then force it into another editor's hands. Aza24 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not too familiar with talk page merges personally. If the documentation doesn't provide clear instruction, perhaps posting at WT:MERGE or somewhere similar might draw the attention of someone who would know. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ironically, looks like a thread already began there earlier this year, Wikipedia talk:Merging#Talk page archives. Aza24 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

n.d.[edit]

i can't really disagree with the {{notability}} challenge. But the reason that I felt we needed a better landing space for this abbreviation was my own experience many years ago when I first came across it. I had no idea what it meant and no idea how to find out. Until I created the page, n.d. redirected to ND (disambiguation), where it languished imperceptibly in the See Also section, so even if someone did search for n.d., there was a very high probability that that would leave none the wiser.

In CS1 citations, we actively encourage editors to use it: when templates like {{sfnp}} are used, it is essential.

My first thought was to redirect it to APA style but there is no obvious landing spot there.

Can you suggest a better idea? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A soft redirect for the Wiktionary entry would be my suggestion. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it legitimate for the "article" n.d. to consist only of a redirect to Wiktionary? I didn't know you could do that (well I've only been editing for nearly 20 years. ) Yes, that would be ideal, how is it done? (Happy for you to point me at the Teahouse if it is not a trivial explanation.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it can be done using {{Wiktionary redirect}}! Sdkbtalk 18:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TYVM, sorry for any inconvenience. Another one added to my user:JMF#Obscure but useful links:.
Not a problem in the slightest! Sharing with each other is the main way to learn about a lot of the more obscure things on Wikipedia. :) Sdkbtalk 21:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to anchor[edit]

Hi,

I posted the § Showing "Redirected from" notice at top of section suggestion the other day, and realized just now that putting together the two points raised in the comments I replied to actually yields quite a nice solution for how to apply this to anchors as well.

I added a mock-up to my current IP's talk space, starting from User talk:2A02:560:5829:B000:3035:7BA6:5759:C13C/User test/Origin page. The bolded wikilink goes thru a redirect to one of the anchors on the target page, which is a slightly edited copy of an actual article. The full "Redirected from" notice is accessible via the {{NoteTag}} displayed at that anchor.

This one is hardcoded, of course, and is labelled "[note 1]" instead of something custom like "[Redirected here]", and clicking it jumps to the bottom instead of the top of the page, because putting the notes above the note tags apparently isn't allowed. But the functionality supplied by the notes system is an (in retrospect maybe not very) surprisingly good match for this scenario, with the ability to jump back and forth between the "top" and the redirect target as a pleasant bonus.

Could I trouble you to re-post this comment to the dev page? IPs can't post there, and I could not get Wikimedia's signup captcha to work despite trying multiple browsers.

Of course, if you notice any major issues that I overlooked, then do not do that last part! :)

- 2A02:560:5829:B000:3035:7BA6:5759:C13C (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Sorry to hear of the Captcha troubles. Sometimes ad blockers can interfere with them, so I'd suggest trying with those turned off, or checking from a mobile device if that fails too. It'd be helpful to have any details about how the Captcha is failing, as others are unfortunately probably experiencing the same thing, and we'd like to figure out how to fix it.
Accounts are extremely useful for communicating about development topics like this, so if you're able to create one I'd suggest using it to post yourself. As a last resort, I'd of course be happy to copy your comments over to Phabricator, but that'd make it harder for others to ask you follow-up questions, etc. Sdkbtalk 21:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N. d.[edit]

Dear colleague, I have marked the article N.d. as being under review, and boarded the plane. Upon landing I have discovered that you have removed my hatnote and replaced the article with a soft redirect. I have no problem with this resolution, although I was planning to redirect it to some abbreviation list or APA style and checking the sources for potential Abbreviations for citations. Still, the purpose of placing the {{under review}} tag was to gain few hours' worth of time for the flight. Next time, please let me complete the review. Sincerely, Викидим (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Викидим! Apologies for disrupting your workflow. I was following up from the discussion above (itself flowing from here), and did notice the {{under review}} tag but saw it was half an hour old, which is longer than NPP reviewers typically spend on a page. That template appears pretty obscure, and given that it provides meaningful info only to editors, not readers, I question whether it should be being used in mainspace. Sdkbtalk 21:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD tag[edit]

When you decided to remove this PROD tag, asserting that sources exist, did you consider adding any sources? WP:DEPROD encourages editors to "Improve the page to address the concerns raised." Instead we are now left with an article with zero sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text you're quoting is an encouragement, not a requirement. What is not merely encouragement is the instruction that PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. Sdkbtalk 03:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Semaj Jr (02:28, 23 March 2024)[edit]

Hello how do I create an article --Semaj Jr (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Your first article. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back here pestering[edit]

Hey, if you have the time/inclination, could I request a template alteration from you? I see that you made Template:FC pass talk message (great idea btw!). In helping reform WP:FGTC, our bot operator is going to add the template to the system for completed nominations. It works great with promoted featured topics, but the issue is promoted good topics (which, for obvious reasons, it doesn't support at the moment).

I'm seeing three possibilities here: (1) GTs are added as a fifth option, but that may be a little awkward to include (and the image would have to change, just for them). (2) A second template is created for just GTs? (3) I'm almost wondering if both FTs and GTs should be in a separate template, since the multi-star File:Cscr-featuredtopic.svg probably works better than the single File:Featured article star.svg for FTs anyways? Sorry to be rambling here. Aza24 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sdkb, wondering if you've had a chance to look at this? Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aza; sorry for the delayed reply! That template is actually one of my prouder template creations — the editor retention value in having it vs. nothing shouldn't be underestimated. So I'm glad to hear you're looking to extend its use! I changed it so that the appropriate image is used for featured topics. It wouldn't be impossible to modify it to accept good topic nominations as well, but that'd go a little beyond its intended scope, and some of the other language wouldn't fit. So I'd suggest copying to a new template specifically for good topic nominations (which can be linked in the documentation as a "see also"). Cheers, Sdkbtalk 03:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you! I will endeavor to copy the code over for GT-specific purposes. Thanks for adjusting for FTs! Aza24 (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and question[edit]

Thank you for converting the links I added into proper references. Could I ask how you do that? I'm assuming it isn't done manually. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IOHANNVSVERVS! It's semi-manual, in that the tools try to fill in the references, but often need proofing or fixing. I used the Reference Toolbar to make that particular edit, but you can also use VisualEditor. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 20:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hidden Letters[edit]

On 27 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hidden Letters, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that marketers try to turn a secret women-only language into a branding device for "high-end potatoes" in the documentary Hidden Letters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hidden Letters. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hidden Letters), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

PMC(talk) 00:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plopping for my records the pageviews link that includes Nüshu, which did even better than Hidden Letters. Sdkbtalk 20:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting user right removals[edit]

Hello, I am requesting the removal of my Page mover and Pending change user permissions, thank you. Jerium (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm not Sdkb, but I have fulfilled your request. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Jerium (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wag1weliz (23:37, 28 March 2024)[edit]

Good day How i could change a misleading front page brother. Would like to know thank you. --Wag1weliz (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wag1weliz! If you're referring to the Main Page, errors can be reported to WP:ERRORS. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 00:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Özcan gündük (21:25, 29 March 2024)[edit]

Resim eklemek ve profilimde meslek yazmak istiyorum --Özcan gündük (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba. Burası İngilizce Vikipedi. Görünüşe göre Türkçe konuşuyorsunuz, dolayısıyla bunun yerine Türkçe Vikipedi'ye katkıda bulunmak isteyebilirsiniz. Sdkbtalk 21:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024[edit]

Hello Sdkb,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy primes[edit]

My impression is that 90% of the mathematical facts in these number pages are just anecdotal with no particular importance, and there is after all a wikipedia article about sexy numbers. But whatever. Vegan416 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, number pages are rather notorious for trivia content that goes against our general style (the dearth of good examples is part of the issue, as it's not clear what we'd replace the cruft with). The addition of the sexy prime factoid to 47 didn't really make it any worse than it already was, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I probably wouldn't have reverted if you'd included an appropriate source, and if you wanted to restore it with one, I wouldn't personally remove it again. Sdkbtalk 16:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endowment thing[edit]

Could you take a look at my latest edit on the university endowments article? Its my effort to contextualize the large endowments. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned a source in the edit summary, but don't appear to have included one in the edit. Sdkbtalk 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source is in the linked article, but I will make it explicit. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Dear Sdkb, I would like some help for a draft article I have related to Prime Press. It is confused with the Prime Press, Inc while this is an all new publishing house created in 2019, Prime Press Ltd.

I see you have edited several publishers articles and have also experience.

Please give me a hand on this, also with fixing the logo case.


All the best Khufu2019 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Khufu2019, you were given good advice on your talk page; follow it. Your draft needs sources to establish organizational notability. Once that's resolved, we can address the disambiguation question. Sdkbtalk 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I understand, but it was not easy to solve this case, I tried several times. It has just started the activity in the ELT market. It is enough even “ X is an educational …..based in …….”.
I am not requesting to skip any regulation, just finding a middle solution for this case.
thanks a lot for the sensibility and assistance Khufu2019 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only covers notable organizations. If this publisher has only just started operation, and has not yet received qualifying coverage, then it is likely too soon for it to have an article, and no amount of effort will be able to change that. Sdkbtalk 21:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Aedipikiw (17:10, 13 April 2024)[edit]

what criteria is needed to make a good functioning article? --Aedipikiw (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aedipikiw! See Help:Your first article. Sdkbtalk 18:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much!! For your help
- Wikipedia backwards (almost) Aedipikiw (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]