This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rhododendrites, for the period April 2021 - June 2021. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Sdkb: I didn't have a great afternoon. While birding by the water I came across an injured red-throated loon down on the rocks below where I was standing. I was excited at first to see a bird close up that I've never been able to get close to, taking pictures before realizing it was hurt. I spent an hour or so contacting knowledgeable people and trying to figure out how to (a) get down to it, (b) without it limping back to the water, (c) how to wrap it up, and (d) how to get it back up... and then how to get it from Brooklyn to the upper west side where the bird rescue is (would a Lyft take me if I had a big waterbird with me?). Anyway, people who know better stopped me and alerted people who know what they're doing, but it's unclear if anyone would come (or if anyone could really do anything). Fun fact: apparently when loons feel threatened they just start stabbing with their beaks, so being prepared also requires wearing heavy gloves and face protection. Sigh. Anyway, I came home, had some tacos, and saw this message, which was a really nice compliment and a good pick-me-up. Thanks. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Because I'm very sure you're invested in the loon now :) FYI it turns out a rescue was possible. It had fishing line wrapped around its wing which, in hindsight, is visible in this picture. It's recovering at the bird rescue. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I posted a link to this section at WP:COIN#Article in the Forward to avoid belaboring something that's more or less resolved there, for better or worse.
Here's the TL;DR version of what I said in response to an inquiry about the ADL case: So much of the difficulty of editing Wikipedia as an organization or otherwise with a COI is how few bright lines rules there are, and how many shades of skepticism there are among the community such that a range of outcomes are possible for any given situation. That's true of a lot of Wikipedia, but seems particularly pronounced with COI issues. The reception ADL received in the noticeboard thread was IMO harsher than necessary, given they expressed interest in learning the rules, responded to criticism, and seemed to agree to just about everything we asked of them, stopping short of a self-imposed ban on ever adding ADL sources to articles. But while I think that should've led to a second chance, the result of the thread (to the extent there is a result, except to say that I was in the minority and ADL has stopped its editing project) is also unsurprising because -- and it's hard to overstate this -- first impressions are extremely important. If they hadn't edited the ADL article, hadn't only been adding ADL sources, and hadn't created weight problems (in other words, if they started with the guidelines that they've now agreed to), I doubt we would be here. But organizations and people with a COI do not get the same leeway to make mistakes that ordinary volunteers do, and there's a good reason for that. Any organization interested to edit Wikipedia really needs to do a lot of homework about Wikipedia policies and conventions beforehand, err on the side of transparency, and ask questions if they're not sure about something.
In general, I thought the article was a more or less fair summary of something that was likely frustrating for all involved. Hopefully others do, as well. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
To add something I've said in several places at this point (as have others, probably more eloquently than me): if we're going to have vague COI rules in order to allow more room for case-by-case judgment, taking a hardline approach which operates as though the rules are not vague and which leaves no room for making mistakes ultimately discourages transparency and makes volunteers' jobs harder in the long run. Editing with a conflict of interest is never ideal, but it's going to happen, and doesn't always harm the project, so we might as well try to be more consistent with how we deal with it. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.
We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!
As this WikiWednesday is just the day before Earth Day, we will have an environmental focus.
If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page.
You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in Round 2 were:
The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.
Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
Hi Rhododendrites—I thought I'd let you know that the user who was causing trouble with the "O Fortuna" article has been indefinitely banned. If you're still interested, I'd love to help in any way, as I think you were making important progress. Though I must admit, I'm a bit lost on where everything was with the article. Aza24 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: Thanks for the heads up, though at this point I don't know what there is to do. The popular culture AfD was closed as redirect to O Fortuna (Orff), but nobody at the classical music project seemed particularly enthused about that article's existence. If there's a rough consensus for a merge of the poem and the movement, Francis already took it upon himself to do that. I may be grumpy about how he did so, but at the end of the day it's done. Onward, I guess. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
France report: Journée Wikimédia Culture et numérique 2021; French open content report
Germany report: Northern Exposure for cultural heritage data
India report: Proofread competition on Bengali Wikisource in collaboration with British Library
Indonesia report: Wikisource Competition 2021; Museum Daerah Deli Serdang is now on Commons
Italy report: A Wikipedian in residence at the Civic Museum of Modena: report
Netherlands report: WikiVrijdagen with Atria and IHLIA, Wikimedians in Residence will increase the visibility of media art on Wikipedia, Wikimedia training: shared heritage, Papiamentu and Papiamento: Wikipedia is up and ready to go!
I was just wondering how you anticipated these categories being used and whether they were your invention or had broad support on Wikipedia. Right now, they are empty categories and will be tagged CSD C1 tomorrow. Thought I'd give you a head's up. LizRead!Talk!01:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Typically, CSD C1 is automatic except for a few exceptions (disambiguation categories, redirect categories, categories being discussed at CFD, etc.) but I'll put an empty category tag on them which will exempt them from deletion when they are empty. I'm counting on you to remove the tag if you discover that the categories aren't being used or are unnecessary, okay? Thanks. LizRead!Talk!15:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Regards! I request you to consider the template Indian name which says to use the person's name instead of the patronymic one while referring to them. As we did it at Disha Ravi. Glad to correct myself if I'm wrong. Thanks:) NinadMysuru (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.
We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!
If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page.
Good morning! I request you to see the page Hagalavadi. This is being vandalized for every now and then. Few editors are indiscriminately adding their own stuff. Please protect the page from future vandalism. Thanks. Msclrfl22 (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Pyrosoma atlanticum is a species of deep-water colonial tunicate found in oceans around the world. The colony forms a hollow cylinder that can grow up to 60 cm (24 in) long. The constituent zooids, which may be pink, yellowish, or bluish, form a rigid tube; each zooid has a pair of luminescent organs which can be turned on and off, causing a rhythmic flashing. No neural pathway runs between the zooids, but each responds to the light produced by other individuals, and even to light from nearby colonies. This P. atlanticum colony was photographed in a tide pool in Pacific Grove, California.
I confess to starting to feel a little burnt out with the "it must be my way; there's no good reason for anything else; you're all breaking the rules" on one end and "let people do what they want; there's no good reason for anything else; you're all just a bunch of destructive jerks" on the other and not enough nuance between. Anyway, I'm starting to repeat myself and create lots of notifications for Guy, so I'll shut up.
I agree with this 100%. And actually, I think our current guidelines are somewhere in the middle. I strongly agree that all signatures should link to a userpage or user talk page, that impersonating other editors should be impermissible and that the time-date stamp should be required. All of those things address problems that could, if not handled, become a disruption to this project.
And for what it's worth, I don't think you're behaving poorly in that thread. And I've never found you to be unreasonable. I just think that making the policy stricter is just the worst possible way to go about aligning policy and practice. In fact, I think the policy and practice are aligned pretty well, right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Epic Barnstar
Thank you for catching a massively important point of Governor Fielding L. Wright back in 2020. A rather embarrassing story of mine. I worked on the page real hard, but I did not directly call him a segregationist since I thought him defending the KKK, receiving support from segregationist groups, and being the vp of the Dixicrats was enough. The article even made it through the GA process without that mistake being noticed lmao. Thank you for catching that massive mistake. Sorry for taking so long to give you a barnstar. Jon698 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Jon698. And thanks for all your hard work improving that article. I have to apologize as I remember that shortly thereafter you pinged me on Discord about African Americans in Alabama, which I planned to come back to but never did! It looks like it's been expanded a bit since then, drawing at least in part from your draft. Perhaps you were the IP working on it? (you can ask an admin to hide the IP if so FYI). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Wild Bird Fund at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
RfC
I'll take it here rather than my talk page since I'm open to discussion: based on my understanding, having an alternative option proposed early (or even late) in an RfC is acceptable. It's happened multiple times for RfCs I've been involved in, and I don't think there's anything disruptive about adding one documenting that the community does not want to address this at all.
I reverted that because my understanding of WP:TPO is that if you feel someone has inappropriately moved your comments, it is acceptable to restore them. I don't see a reason for "No option" not to be an option. If there's anything in particular you think should be changed about my presentation, I'm more than happy to change it, but I do think its important for the community to have the option to document that this is something it doesn't feel strongly about at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: thanks for the message. Fair enough regarding TPO. The thing is, you didn't just add a "do nothing" option. You added an "option" that challenges the RfC itself in the most dismissive way, and which functionally is just a rejection of the three questions, which could be accomplished through the existing structure by just answering "no". I wouldn't have so strongly opposed if you just said "do nothing" or "status quo".
That said, I do think it's a terrible idea to go with the status quo. We have a problem that needs addressing. When a policy or guideline falls out of step with consensus, or when interpretations of said guideline have removed all meaning from it, that's an indication we should update it in some way. An RfC like this tries to find what, if anything, there is consensus for so that we can ensure that correspondence. We shouldn't have rules that anyone with sufficient defenders can just ignore while we use the same guideline to pressure new users and those who don't have the requisite advocates. I suppose a reason to leave the status quo is if you don't think this actually happens often enough to clarify one way or the other. Meh. I think what we'll see is people supporting your option when they really just don't want any enforceable guidelines about username/displayed name correspondence (i.e. another opportunity to say no/no to the first two questions). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I suppose my view is that this RfC is about something most editors don't care about at all. I really hate the idea of something becoming an established community guideline that can be enforced against people when most people will ignore the RfC establishing it simply because they don't care, even if it was posted at CENT and VPP. I really don't think that's fair.My objective in giving a 4th option was to give a place for people who want to reject the idea of the RfC all together a place to voice that. I think rejecting the RfC should be a valid option (it is one I've proposed in the past that has achieved consensus), which is why I proposed it. I'm fine changing the header if you are concerned about that (perhaps something like Community takes no position or No consensus.) The intent honestly wasn't to be dismissive, but to give people an option to say "we do not want to establish any consensus at all on this."Basically, the concern I have is that we could get a guideline that can be enforced for 20%+ of the edits people make that has no consensus in the community because people don't care enough to comment on it. Having an option that gives people a place to say "I really don't care either way" serves a purpose in preventing that. Like I said, I'm more than open to tweaks. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I really hate the idea of something becoming an established community guideline that can be enforced against people when most people will ignore the RfC establishing it simply because they don't care But here it sounds like trying to circumvent [question 1 in particular] for fear that it will be shown to have strong consensus behind it... rather than just trying to form a consensus against that question.
I get that a "yes" to question 1 could have an effect on several users who might not see it coming, and that it would be ... irksome, at least ... to be told the signature you've been using for years needs to change. I don't actually expect Q1 to wind up with a yes, honestly (I've said this elsewhere), and I expect it to be most useful in ending some complaints about username-signature compliance. I suspect there will be a yes for Q2, though, but that just really just doesn't affect a ton of people and a whole lot of people have said it adds nontrivial confusion.
Ultimately, we do currently have a guideline which theoretically has strong community consensus behind it (just based on it being a guideline), so at least theoretically shouldn't just be ignored for absolutely any reason in some cases and enforced in others, right? I mean it uses language like "should" but in the context of PAG that's typically "do this unless there's a good reason not to" where "good reason not to" doesn't usually include "I just don't want to". If you think that, beyond blinking, huge-font, unreadable signatures, they shouldn't be something anyone should have to worry about, maybe after this closes it makes sense to propose cutting down the guideline and splitting some stuff off to essay status or somesuch. I just feel strongly that what we have doesn't work. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I suppose my view is that it routinely being ignored is evidence there is no consensus for it and that no one ever bothered to update the page. I also oppose the existence of the username policy, though, and this seems very similar to that, so maybe it's just me being cranky over stuff that feels like it consumes a lot of community time for no reason.Anyway, I'll move it back to discussion based on this. I still really don't like the existence of the RfC, but I guess to go back to my first point, guidelines without consensus are usually ignored, so regardless of the outcome, it'll be fine.Sorry for any misunderstanding. If you want the most blunt version of my concern: I'm afraid we'll get a bunch of new users harassing old-timers over their signatures, and the newcomers eventually getting blocked for being annoying and overzealous. I think that's the most likely outcome of any closure of this RfC. I'm more than happy to let it run its course, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. No one bothered to update the page, and we had a big ANI thread (not the first) about someone's signature not complying with those guidelines. Whichever way it goes, the goal is to try to find that consensus-guideline correspondence for the sake of consistency/fairness/relevance rather than to add new rules. I supposed worst case scenario is we trade one form of annoying complaint for another, but I hope that it would at least then be within the gray area of the guideline rather than in random dismissal of it. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
My gut is that what we have now is a guideline where no consensus exists to have it, but no consensus would exist to remove it and so we're stuck in a position where there's this guideline that administrators will not enforce unless it is obviously disruptive, but people don't know that if they're new. I agree that's not a great place to be in, but I'm not really sure any change to the words of the page will change that status quo. There really isn't a good way to deal with situations like this within the wiki system, unfortunately. I appreciate that you're trying, though (and I mean that sincerely.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
As I posted at the RfC, it seems a compromise would be to work in the functionality provided by the unclutter Javascript script into "preferences" more easily (I'd love simplified signatures.) Is it worth starting a fourth question at the RfC on this or letting that play out first? It'd allow people who want simple signatures to display simple signatures, and people who like fun usernames to display their usernames, but I don't know how to add the unclutter script myself, and I only want the signature functionality. SportingFlyerT·C19:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: That sounds like what Enterprisey was talking about (User:Enterprisey/signature rfc drafting). It certainly seems like a conversation worth having. My issue with Unclutter is that the only options are (a) fully customized signatures, and (b) plain signatures. If someone likes customizable signatures and their only objection is when someone uses a name that doesn't correspond to their actual username, it probably wouldn't be worth it to enable such a script. And I suspect that, technically speaking, it would be difficult to turn a customized signature that uses a different name into the same kind of custom signature with the actual username. If you're looking to take it for a spin btw, instructions are here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
...Now that I open the Unclutter page, however, I see there's more customization than I thought. Will have to take a closer look soon. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Yup, Unclutter is a really great tool. I would be pushing it a lot harder in the current discussions if it weren't for Jorm's message about new editors. That convinced me we need something like Unclutter, but on by default, and on for logged-out editors and new editors - hence my proposal on that page. That proposal might also make Unclutter a lot faster and more efficient. Vaticidalprophet's response to it being mentioned was a preview of the sort of response that'll get, though, although honestly I think there's a chance people might like it a little more than the current proposals? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree with this, and think it's a good compromise. It's clear there's an accessibility issue with signatures, but not for all users: giving people the option to display custom signatures, and turning that option off by default, makes a lot of sense. SportingFlyerT·C10:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Sweden report: Working with UN Human Rights; Aftermath to the fiddler competition; Music manuscripts from the 18th century; Digital visions; Should museums work with Wikipedia?; Wikidata project with museums has results
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.
We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!
If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page.
On 15 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wild Bird Fund, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Wild Bird Fund is New York City's first and only wildlife hospital (example treatment pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wild Bird Fund. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wild Bird Fund), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
The key results were:
Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
Looking ahead
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
Your user page is a great guide for writing better articles! Thanks! Enjoyed the meeting yesterday and will be following your lead more closely. I use WikiEdu but I aspire to get a good article out of future classes.
@SheridanFord: Glad you could make the meeting last week, and thanks for the goat! :) I'd love to hear about any good articles that come out of your classes, and would be happy to share my experience having students go through the WP:GA process if you think it'd be helpful. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Helen Keller (June 27, 1880 – June 1, 1968) was an American author, political activist, and lecturer. She lost her sight and hearing after a bout of illness at the age of nineteen months. When she was seven years old, she met her first teacher and life-long companion, Anne Sullivan, who taught her language skills, including reading and writing. After attending Radcliffe College at Harvard University, she became the first deafblind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree. She worked for the American Foundation for the Blind for many years, during which time she toured the United States and traveled to 35 countries around the world. This 1920 photograph depicts Keller examining a magnolia flower.
Strongylodon macrobotrys, the jade vine, is a species of leguminous perennial liana endemic to the Philippines. The woody stems can reach a length of up to 18 m (60 ft). A member of the family Fabaceae (the pea and bean family), the species has pendulous bunches of flowers which are followed by fleshy seed pods, and is pollinated by bats. This S. macrobotrys vine in bloom was photographed at the New York Botanical Garden.
.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
