This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rhododendrites, for the period April 2023 - June 2023. 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.
Urban agriculture, urban farming, or urban gardening is the practice of cultivating, processing, and distributing food in or around urban areas. Urban agriculture can reflect varying levels of economic and social development. It may be a social movement for sustainable communities, where organic growers, "foodies", and "locavores" form social networks founded on a shared ethos of nature and community holism. For others, food security, nutrition, and income generation are key motivations for the practice. In both scenarios, more direct access to fresh vegetables, fruits, and meat products through urban agriculture can improve food security and food safety. This photograph depicts urban agriculture in the form of a roof garden at Essex Crossing in Manhattan, New York City. Among the plants grown are tomatoes, chili peppers, lettuce, herbs, carrots and beetroots.
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!
We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned!
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.
@SilkTork and GeneralNotability: Without seeing the hatting back and forth, I did the same thing before deciding hatting was a half measure. Went ahead and blanked it in the next edit, which IMO is what the very first person who saw that allegation should've done (with an "FYI this is a very common scam, and these kinds of allegations need to be made privately, email arbcom yadayada").
Just a ping because it wasn't intended as participating in some sort of war over your [un]hatting -- I just didn't see it, and won't complain if someone restores the content. That said, I still think it shouldn't be there. He hasn't been around in the better part of a year, but we're hosting an accusation and an emerging dramabomb on his talk page. IMO leave it out, maybe even revdel it, and open a thread on JW's talk page about (a) the scam, generally, or (b) making public accusations, without bringing up a specific user. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
On 11 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article BRAAAM, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there is a name – BRAAAM – for the loud – BRAAAM – low horn sound (featured) – BRAAAM – made popular by action film trailers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/BRAAAM. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, BRAAAM), 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.
@Bruxton: Looks like it was altered a few hours ago to be a bit drier in presentation. A bummer, but oh well. If only there were a way to break pageviews into 12-hour periods. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The way the DYK viewcount is calculated means that this is probably close to the number it received in its twelve hours – an hourly viewcount that I think beats any other audio-clip lead I've come across! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Just for clarity, I know the rest of my statement was loaded with a bunch of canadian humor, but I wanted you to know my AGF link was a sincere attempt from me to highlight there were no ill intentions from you in what you did, I just didn't want to assume your intentions. I also don't think that lack of action (aka reverting) is agreeing with something, more just it's likely better of left than reverted. Either way, just wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to go at you for your action there. -- Amanda (she/her)01:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
It's odd to explicitly undercut a reference to AGF, then insist it was just a sincere AGF, but I don't intend to belabor the point. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 11:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to start a conversation here, away from Jimbo's talk page, principally because your talk page doesn't attract as much traffic and I've got more chance of the discussion remaining on a sensible tangent.
The problem, as I see it, is that Jimbo is the only Wikipedian who is famous for editing Wikipedia by the general public. Sure, other famous people contribute to Wikimedia projects; Allan Warren's freely-licensed photos adorn numerous articles, including FAs. But nobody else has such a longstanding reputation that is primarily based on Wikipedia, and that means, as you suggested, every single action that Jimbo takes has, at a guess, 100 or so people looking at it ready to criticise or pick holes in it. Combined with his lack of time to address issues, this leads to an effective "hit and run" style of management whenever he states any sort of opinion on an article or project governance. And that leads to an insane amount of verbiage and discussion by everyone who does have the time - I can't remember how long that discussion was about Jimbo's move of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, but it seemed to go on for days.
I've heard it said that people are afraid to take administrative action against Jimbo, especially blocking him. But I don't think Jimbo has done anything block worthy; if people think he has, then they should be able to start a thread proposing sanctions on ANI, consensus will form, and action will be taken. I can't see it happening myself. Also, some of the editors who don't think Jimbo should have admin rights or disapprove of his actions are not cranks or trolls, but sitting Arbitrators. For better or worse, we elect those people to be the ultimate body that decides conduct on Wikipedia, and so we have to listen to them.
I haven't really got a good answer to this other than to suggest to Jimbo that he's simply too famous to edit Wikipedia, and attempts to do so will always be counter-productive, and that resigning any advanced tools would be a magnanimous move towards that, though I also see your point that doing right now may be sub-optimal and invite drama in the future. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:your talk page doesn't attract as much traffic Whaaaaat? :) Yes, good call.
an effective "hit and run" style of management - The tricky thing is, he's not exactly a manager. A manager can hire, fire, set the rules, and enforce them. Jimmy doesn't really do any of that, and I don't know that he would be able to if he tried, outside of obvious circumstances. The things he gets in trouble for are relatively normal, everyday things that any volunteer can do (which isn't to say should do :) ). The impact comes not from what he did but from who he is, as you say. An alternative to telling him he's too famous to edit Wikipedia is for us to directly address his missteps, provide advice, and try not to create a circus anytime he does anything outside of Jimbotalk. Probably not realistic, though.
Overall, I think it's a Good Thing™ for the project that there's someone with a lot of soft power who's on the right side of issues like paid editing. I like that he's willing to take someone to task when he thinks they're compromising its integrity, and willing to advocate against promotional editing. I just think he should ping a couple people off-wiki first to, you know, avoid acting on a scam or doing so in a way that does more harm than good. He may be a busy guy, but it doesn't take keeping up with the minute developments of everything on-wiki; it just takes talking to someone who does. Any admin, regardless of their available time, can attest to how quickly things can spiral if they're made a bad call just before going to bed, starting work, going on vacation, etc.
afraid to take administrative action against Jimbo I believe this might be true for the sorta-kinda "insiders" who know they'll have to work with Jimmy, the WMF, or the board. Maybe some old-timers, too, who were around for Ye Olde Userbox War. These days, however, it sure feels to me that there are more people quite eager to take some action against Jimmy (or other insiders). His actions just never rise to that level. Some bad calls, but nothing that would get anyone else sanctioned. He gets in trouble in a way that's similar to how another board member might get in trouble, or the way we would tut-tut an arbcom member if they made such a mistake because it means more coming from them.
You might be right. It might be better if he didn't get involved in on-wiki specifics and reserved his power for talking about broader issues. It would probably make for better PR, but it also feels rather un-Wikipedia to be motivated by "better PR". Maybe that's the old Wikipedia, though, before it was, well, actually important. *shrug* — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am a Wikipedia user Jeff6045. I am writing to you because it seems that your recent edits are slightly different from the edits I made earlier. You edited the page by removing numerous names of politicians that you believed were inaccurately associated with Trump without proper evidence. However, your edit also reincluded the names of Yoon Seok-yeol and Hong Jun-pyo, which I had removed from the page and explained why they should not be included as figures related to Trumpism. I assumed that your some of your edits were unintentionally including the content that I removed earlier, and so I removed the names of Yoon Seok-yeol and Hong Jun-pyo from the main text. If you believe there was an issue with my edit, please let me know. Thank you. Jeff6045 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff6045: Did you see the edit summary for my edit? You said here inaccurately associated with Trump without proper evidence, which is inaccurate. As I said in the edit summary:
the lead of an article summarizes the body. especially for such a controversial subject, it's entirely inappropriate to have a running list in the lead where we don't have any coverage of these people and their brand of trumpism in the body of the article. secondarily, we need a higher bar than one single source comparing someone to trump. no prejudice against these names being restored if accompanied by well sourced material in the article
reincluded the names of Yoon Seok-yeol and Hong Jun-pyo Yes. There is a whole section about them in the article, and we summarize the article in the lead (the top part of the article). It sounds like your issue is with the material in the body of the article, not just what's in the lead (which, again is only a summary of the rest of the article). I've replied on the talk page. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: personally I think the editorial's structure diminishes its effectiveness, but the author disagrees, and I'm pretty sure others also disagree. There'd be no point though in having a parallel article covering the same material: it would be redundant, somewhat similar to a newspaper publishing both a reporter's original draft and the copy edited version. The regular contributors to the Signpost generally defer to what the authors prefer regarding writing structure and wording, and I understand why (it's not like there are a plethora of contributors to write about the areas usually covered by the Signpost). isaacl (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@Isaacl: I agree that it could be awkward, but it could also be framed as two takes on the same issue. I feel like I've seen that in the Signpost before. I don't think it's like the rough draft and edited version; more like two people focusing on entirely different parts of an event. Another approach could just be SB writes about the paid editing part of the story and someone else writes about ... the rest of it. But yes, as I said in my first comment there, I suspect there's a way to edit SB's version to be more acceptable to all (perhaps not those who want to totally exonerate Jimbo or those who would love to drag him over the coals, but meh). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the key is that there needs to be different takes for different articles to work. When the disagreements are with organization, style, and so forth, different articles would just be rewritten versions of the same facts. The author doesn't want to separate out the different aspects of the story, so that's not an available option (and it would amount to a complete overhaul of the piece). isaacl (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a pair of special events this weekend as we wrap up Earth Week! No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome.
Hello Rhododendrites, you appear not to have started addressing any of the comments I wrote in my review of the Bazzini GAN. Please note that the nomination will fail if the comments are still unaddressed by the date set, 25 April. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Amitchell125: Hey. Thanks for the review. You mind leaving it open for a while? I nominated a few articles at once, overestimating my available time a bit. I do plan to get to it in the near future though. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The article Bazzini you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bazzini for comments about the article, and Talk:Bazzini/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:
So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Rhododendrites edits an exceptionally wide variety of topic areas (example:here) both in WP content (62000 edits) and at Commons (78000 edits), many attaining deserved Featured Article and Picture recognition. This editor has a history of helping at the reference desk, inputs dialogue at various noticeboards with thorough, logical, courteous and civil comments, and is dedicated to improving the neutrality & integrity of Wikipedia. Also, they have improved many "List" articles (see:List of hip hop musicians) and is a recent event coordinator at Wikimedia New York City.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
:Rhododendrites edits an exceptionally wide variety of topic areas (example:here) both in WP content (62000 edits) and at Commons (78000 edits), many attaining deserved Featured Article and Picture recognition. This editor has a history of helping at the reference desk, inputs dialogue at various noticeboards with thorough, logical, courteous and civil comments, and is dedicated to improving the neutrality & integrity of Wikipedia. Also, they have improved many "List" articles (see:List of hip hop musicians) and is a recent event coordinator at Wikimedia New York City.
Many thanks, Buster7! I should say that while there are a bunch of GAs (top of my user page) and a lot of FPs on Commons, I haven't worked on any FAs and haven't been to the refdesk in a few years. :) It's interesting... I guess I haven't thought of myself as someone who likes lists. I've created a few (one FL) and watch the lists delsort, but it's mainly that I try to clean them up sometimes (especially a maybe 5 or 6 years ago). That's what happened with the list of hip hop musicians. It's not that I'm a huge hip hop fan, but the list was in terrible shape, with people constantly adding themselves, so I cleaned it up and sort of adopted it (and a bunch of others). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
My apologies for misconstruing your editing history. When vetting a nomination I use [[1]] to gather information. The hip hop list is the top edited page among other list articles. I guess I just mistakenly assumed you searched out lists to improve them...My bad. I can make changes if you like. ―Buster7☎13:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Indonesia report: GLAM Mini Grants; Structured Data Marathon VIII; Wikisource Online Workshop
Italy report: Bridges between Wikimedia and culture
New Zealand report: BHL Whitepaper and outreach for Citizen Science Month and WeDigBio, Auckland Museum suburbs project update, New Zealand Women in Architecture Wikidata Project
Poland report: Another meeting of EU GLAM Coordinators; Guided tours for Wikipedians in museums in Krakow; Presentation on Art in Wikipedia; Online training on the basics of copyright law; Polish monuments among the top winners of WLM
Sweden report: ISOF workshop; More articles from students; SAAB veterans shared their knowledge during metadata edit-a-thon; ArkDes edit-a-thons
UK report: Democratising knowledge and cultural diversity
USA report: Into the Wikiverse; Earth Day 2023 Bushwick
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!
We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned!
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.
@Mobushgu: Don't know how much it matters, but I wasn't the one that updated the article -- I just added a bunch of citations. An IP added the news about Pale Male. It's worth mentioning, in the spirit of WP:ERRORS, that not a lot of the "serious birders" that I know give much stock to the argument that this was indeed the original Pale Male. It would certainly be odd for the local hawk celebrity to not only be the longest-living red-tailed hawk ever, but also pulling it off in a place known for being perilous to raptors (mainly due to rat poison). That said, plenty of sourcing is treating the bird as though it's the same one. Figured I'd mention it, though. :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, you added the citations and the item wouldn't have been posted without that effort. I say you deserve some credit. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Originally deleted the NY Times citation because a subscription is required to read and verify the citation. How does one verify the subject is mentioned? Thanks PhillyHarold (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@PhillyHarold: Thanks. Per WP:V and WP:RS accessibility/being behind a paywall is irrelevant to the source's reliability. We should use the best quality source available, even if it's an undigitized book only accessible through a physical visit to a library. For something like the NYT, though, you can always use WP:RX, where someone will be willing to send it to you. In fact, if you send me an email I'd be glad to attach it. All that said, thanks for clarifying that he's mentioned in the Duke article. Seems like a good idea to retain both. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree that it's good to keep both and that we should always use the best quality sources. A genuine thank you for the additional information regarding sources as I continue to learn more about editing. I have no doubt that all NYT sources are excellent and relevant, as I was a digital subscriber many years ago. My question relates to how does the average user verify a source if they can't get behind a paywall? I know we're always supposed to assume good faith, but a library trip to verify a book seems a bit sketchy, as a less scrupulous editor could claim an undigitized source says whatever they want. Just my two cents. Thanks again for the help and information. PhillyHarold (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
how does the average user verify a source if they can't get behind a paywall - For better or worse, that's not a requirement. What we need is for it to be verifiable if someone were to check that source, not whether they can check that source. Most of the highest quality sources aren't immediately accessible by an average user (books, journal articles, etc.). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
6666666
Well congrats! This proves that you are just as certifiable as the rest of us! And I thought that I was nerdy when I saw that one article had a totally needless fair use image and another one had a really crappy image. So I spent some quality camera time with my old LP collection and made new Commons:Categories for these two rather uninteresting and rarely viewed subjects. (No, I don't stalk your edits, and I rarely visit Twitter now, but when TFG gets indicted you have to take a look at what the site makes of it. ;-) Just in time for your announcement there.) cart-Talk21:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
And I thought that I was nerdy - No argument from me. :) Nice job illustrating cataloging systems there! Regarding SatanCon, I was more excited than I'd like to admit when I realized the milestone was coming and found a fitting topic. Woke up early (before my alarm, even), and wound up refreshing {{numberofarticles}} for ... a while, before publishing. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
UK report: Promoting cultural diversity on Wikipedia
USA report: A Spotlight on Black Women Birders; DC Nobel Solution Sessions; Women of Color in the Renwick Gallery; Anthropology and Community Connections; SAGE edit-a-thon; WikiWednesday Salon; Into the Wikiverse: AANHPIs in Science Fiction and Pop Culture; Queering Wikipedia 2023
Special story: Help Wikimedia Map Your Efforts to Improve Copyright!
GLAM Wiki conference report: GLAM Wiki Conference 2023: Announcing the venue & scholarship application process open
On 13 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bazzini, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bazzini, established in 1886, is the oldest nut company in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bazzini. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bazzini), 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.
We are proud to announce that monthly food has returned!
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Prime Produce encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
