This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sdkb. 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.
Hi Sdkb, I'm looking at getting more involved in non-content creation matters that need more editor attention. Not as a substitute to content creation, but as an addendum. I'm already considering going through AFD more, since I recently saw on the village pump they are in dire need of more attention.
Hi @Aza24; happy to hear you're looking to get more involved! There are a bunch of backlogs listed at WP:Tasks, a page I helped with a little. Responding to COI edit requests is one that's perpetually backlogged, which is bad because when COI editors have to wait months for their request to be reviewed, it encourages them to just do UPE. Working in that area requires a strong understanding of neutrality, since you need to judge whether the proposed edits are promotional or not. New Page Patrol (and the related task of reviewing Articles for Creation submissions) also always need help (see the thread just above for NPP), since there's a flood of new content, and the wheat needs to be sorted from the chaff there. I'm not as familiar with AFD (I participate sometimes but don't hang out there as a regular), but from the thread you alluded to it seems they could use the help.
Ultimately, though, I think the core of your question is "how can I have the most impact?", and I find that going through backlogs isn't always the answer. That work is super important, but I often find that the most I can do is hold back the tide a little, which doesn't lead to any permanent impact. The most fulfilling work I've done is the stuff that helps prevent the backlogs from forming in the first place. So e.g. rather than just answering the backlog of questions at the Teahouse, I try to figure out what made the editor confused enough to need to seek out help in the first place, and then I try to improve guidance so that the next editor (and the next, and the next, ad infinitum) is able to figure it out on their own. So what I'd really suggest is starting out with a backlog, but then, once you've familiarized yourself with the area, zooming out to a systems lens and trying to figure out how to make it better.
Slowjamastan just became a country in 2021 and i wanted to make a wikipedia article about it but when i typed "Flag Of Slowjamastan.svg", it didnt work, can you tell me why? --Fillip Yhmaart (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Fillip Yhmaart! There's a draft article for that topic, Draft:Slowjamastan, so I would contribute your improvements there. References will be very important; [1] and [2] look like a start. Regarding an image of the flag, that needs to be uploaded separately. Go to Wikipedia:File upload wizard and choose the local upload option given that the flag is presumably copyrighted and will need to be used under fair use. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Wondering if you (or anyone else you've seen) has thought about this. With TOC's gone from the main text in the vast majority of reader's screens, top article formatting has been drastically changed for thousands of articles. That is, I see tons of articles where an infobox or sidebar now pushes images in the earliest sections far below where they should be. US Presidents are having this problem everywhere. Any thoughts?
I'm considered starting a proposal to cut signatures and seals from president sidebars (i.e. in {{Joe Biden series}}, {{Andrew Jackson series}} etc.). Although I see those two don't even have the sidebars and Andrew Jackson still faces problems (the infobox makes a childhood picture go out of the childhood section. Aza24 (talk)17:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Aza24! Yes, that was definitely something I brought up early on with the ToC change in New Vector, and it was raised again by others here (among other places). Having a persistent table of contents is nice, so I see why the Desktop Improvements Team did what they did, but it has certainly created an issue for us. I think part of the solution may have to be loosening up some rules around MOS:SANDWICH, possibly creating an exemption for ones caused by the infobox. They're never ideal, but when we have to choose between e.g. having an illustrated history section with a sandwich and having an unillustrated section without a sandwich, I think readers are better served by the former. I'd like to see the wording at MOS:SANDWICH changed (addition in bold) to However, when possible avoid sandwiching text and might propose that at some point.
For sidebars, the signatures and seals are certainly less important elements that could go. But that's really just a small part of a larger issue. Having two different types of navigation templates (navboxes at the bottom and sidebars at the top) with no clear guidance on how to choose between them has never made much sense to me. The increasing usage of infoboxes and reduced space in the lead in New Vector really means that there is no room for sidebars in most articles where they would go. If we were building Wikipedia from scratch at this point, I think there would be no sidebars, just navboxes. Phasing them out given their long history here would be difficult, but my hope is that we'll eventually do it. I'd be interested to see (and would be happy to help with) discussion or proposal on that. A proposal would definitely need to be gradual to have any shot at passing (and even then probably wouldn't on the first attempt), but it'd at least get people talking about the issue and lay the groundwork for future efforts.
It seems to be a growing trend for more and more sidebars to have pre-collapsed sections. This was finally done on {{History of China}}, after many years of issues with its size.
I agree that sidebars can seem often entirely redundant. Actually though, my view on them has shifted somewhat recently. I realized that they often work well for large topics with no clear/distinct lead image, in the Philosophy article for instance. Once I also realized that they not need be included in every article they link to (a perspective few sidebar creators probably disagree with, unfortunately), they also seemed more fitting. Confucius, for instance, is included in {{Philosophy sidebar}}, but the sidebar has no real need to appear in his article Aza24 (talk)04:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, that makes sense as a structured way to think about which articles should have sidebars vs. navboxes. If that could be codified and applied, that'd make me feel slightly better about the redundancy. {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
We shared our annual plan, for the period July 2023 - June 2024.
Our first project of the year will be Community configuration 2.0, which helps editors with extended rights transparently and easily configure important on-wiki functionality.
After we finish work on Community configuration 2.0, we will hope to fit in one of the following projects:
Article creation: This project aims to provide new editors with better guidance and guardrails in the article creation process, with the intention of lightening the load of new page reviewers.
Non-editing participation: This project aims to create low-risk ways for readers to participate in Wikipedia with the intention of funneling more readers into contributing to the Wikimedia movement.
Suggested Edits are now receiving topic predictions via the new Language-Agnostic Topic Classification. This change affects non-English Wikipedia wikis. It will ensure newcomers receive a greater diversity of task recommendations. Before, as this feature was a test, English Wikipedia was used to select topics. The change is gradual as lists of topics are refreshed when they become empty. The Research team will evaluate the impact in a few months. [3]
Starting on August 1, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link": Georgian Wikipedia, Kara-Kalpak Wikipedia, Kabyle Wikipedia, Kabardian Wikipedia, Kabiyè Wikipedia, Kikuyu Wikipedia, Kazakh Wikipedia, Khmer Wikipedia, Kannada Wikipedia, Kashmiri Wikipedia, Colognian Wikipedia, Kurdish Wikipedia, Cornish Wikipedia, Cornish Wikipedia.
Mentorship
The Growth team provides dedicated features to establish a mentorship program for newcomers. Every newcomer gets a volunteer mentor who provides encouragement and answers questions. Communities can set up or join this mentorship system by visiting Special:ManageMentors. This mentorship system is configurable by the community at Special:EditGrowthConfig.
More communities have implemented mentorship. A Wikimedia Foundation data scientist will be looking at the impact of Mentorship. We will look at the impact on Spanish and English Wikipedia. [4]
The Growth team will also host a Mentoring new editors on Wikipedia session at Wikimania 2023 in Singapore. Workshop attendees will help brainstorm improvements to Growth’s mentorship features.
Positive reinforcement
We will share more complete experiment analysis for all the three parts of the Positive reinforcement project soon. At the moment, the new Impact module, Leveling up, and Personalized praise are still being A/B tested on the Growth team's pilot wikis.
In the meantime, initial leading indicators for the Personalized praise project have been published. Although this is still a relatively small sample, results seem healthy. They show that Mentors are indeed receiving notifications and clicking through to view their praise-worthy mentees.
Growth contributes to IP Editing migration
The Growth team is currently focusing on IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. It is a project that touches many different Wikimedia Foundation teams. The Growth team will focus on temporary accounts through two main points:
the user experience of a logged-out user, that switches to a temporary account,
change Growth-owned extensions and features, so that they work as expected with temporary accounts. [5]
Trizek (WMF), this is the first I'm hearing of "temporary accounts," and I'm rather concerned that their presence might discourage editors from creating actual accounts. Where can I read more about what's happening there? {{u|Sdkb}}talk14:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Trizek (WMF), ah, I'd heard of IP editing changes, but I wasn't aware this was part of the proposed solution. With the proposed implementation, I'm not too concerned it'll deter people from making actual accounts, but still, I'd focus on the experience of users who start out with a temporary account but then decide they'd like to switch to a permanent account. They may not be too happy if e.g. their editing history from the temporary account cannot be retained as history for their permanent account. (And I'd imagine we would not want to retain it, as it could contain edits from others sharing the same IP address.) Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Module vs template Find sources
Thanks for weighing in at the Module talk, but not sure if this came out the way you intended: "whereas the template is what determines which links are actually used". The template is a wrapper for the module, and it's true that the template does determine the domain (med, video, general), but once that is chosen, the module determines the specific links within the domain, not the template. Whether it displays NYT or Reuters, etc., is done at the module level; for example, here, for the general case. Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the reminder of how that works — it's been a little while since we worked on introducing the module and it seems I forgot exactly how it functions. Feel free to correct me at the discussion. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @MercuryOxide, and welcome! It looks like the article you tried to nominate, List of presidents of the United States, is already a featured list (it has the star in the upper right corner). Overall, getting an article to featured status is a quite difficult task. I'd recommend starting with some of the simpler tasks at WP:TASKS and working up to it over time. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This is just a reminder that I've requested the Commons help desk to remove the potential copyrighted image the user claimed to have taken and uploaded it as Own work. Here is the request [9] I made. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 (話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 14:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, is there a style guide entry for using an en dash versus em dash to denote negative numbers? For example, in Brit Awards 2018, the tables showing chart reaction are using an em dash for negative numbers. I think this looks bad because they're also using an em dash to separate the album name from the reaction/change. There are a couple mixed en dashes in with the em dashes, but until I know which way is preferred I'll leave this page as is. --Kimen8 (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for the late suggestion: How would folks feel about doing the wiknic at Dupont Circle instead of at Rock Creek Park? Dupont would be easier to get to for folks on the train. I originally chose Rock Creek Park because I was worried about the crowd getting too big (last time I hosted a CentralNotice'd event hundreds wanted to come!), but it looks like there have only been a small handful of signups, which makes Dupont plausible! I'll notify everyone who's expressed interest — please let me know if you have a preference one way or the other. Looking forward to seeing you all!
Hai! InternetArchiveBot run #14871 (submitted by you) seems to be going very wonky - it says it's run through the full list of pages, but apparently hasn't realized that it needs to finish the job and release its bot worker for other use. Could you maybe try manually killing the job and see if that clears up the issue? Whoop whoop pull upBitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah, good ol' IABot... I tried manually killing the task; please let me know if there's anything further I can do. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
It appears that the WMF is not planning to prioritize enabling syntax highlighting for IPs and new editors because of the technical challenges involved in doing so. However, I think it would be a real boon to editor retention (especially given that source editing is still the default on desktop). Given that, do you think it would be worthwhile to take a swing at an RfA here to turn on syntax highlighting for *all* users by default? That would lower the technical burden of the change, and of course, those who dislike it could still opt out. Let me know what you think. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Ganesha811! I raised it with the Growth team here the other day, and @KStoller-WMF is looking into whether it might be a task they could help with. If they come back and aren't able to help with it, or they feel that the technical hurdles from turning it on only for new editors/IPs would be an issue, then I think an RfC (not RfA 😛) would be the next step. I certainly concur that it's a useful feature and hope we can find some way to get this across the finish line. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The RfC/RfA mixup is a little embarrassing, but it's good to hear the WMF is looking into it again! I'll look out for their answer. Thanks for the quick reply. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@Ganesha811, @SD0001 (from the Phabricator ticket), and @KStoller-WMF, I've drafted an RfC here. Feel free to let me know if you have any comments about it or suggested changes. Kirsten, if you'd like longer to look into the topic, just lmk and we can delay it. But absent that, I think we could launch it within the next few days. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, @Sdkb! I've discussed this with several people at WMF, but I haven't made much progress on finding ownership or solid next steps. I'll follow up with more info soon. If we enable Syntax highlighting for existing accounts by default, do you think we should also provide some sort of GuidedTour explaining the feature and how to disable it? Or do you think that experienced editors who dislike syntax highlighting will know how to disable it? KStoller-WMF (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Request for statement removal regarding Chaos Warehouse.
Sdkb,
I am making my second request for you to remove the statement made upon closing the conversation at the TeaHouse regarding Chaos Warehouse. While trying to provide information on the current popular music platforms operation and presence, you closed the conversation with an untrue statement based on limited knowledge of the subject. Your statement said only three monthly listeners and no media coverage. I submit to you that radio stations are media coverage and also supply alternative station reports besides Spotify. The link Chaos Warehouse Metrics has the Pandora and Radio Airplay(covering Jango, Tunecore and others world wide) showing 60 streams in the last 16 days for Pandora, and also 39 listeners just in the last 24 hours with more than a thousand world wide listeners in the last two months on Radio Airplay. These are just a couple of the several music platform Chaos Warehouse is utilizing and it shows clearly your statement is untrue and your statement can be viewed as libel and defamatory. This will be my last communication directly to you and further communications, will be directed to alternative respondents within Wikipedia to resolve.
In attempts to help you understand the subject you are making defining statements on, it has been explained that the monthly listeners are people who created a channel to hear the music more often, and not the amount of listeners who hear Chaos Warehouse in a month through Spotify's normal curated algorithms for the type of music.
Please research the definition of the term "Media". Media is not just written, but includes TV and radio coverage(which I have shown) therefore your statement is erroneous and defamatory.
I have provided the data to show that there have been more than 39 people in the last 24hrs and more than a thousand people reached world wide in less than two months(on only a few of the used platforms)- from a solo written, recorded, produced piece of art.
I believe your statement suits your current attitude towards someone you don't agree with rather than the truthful data supplied. I'm will not ask= you to correct one thing about what you wrote because I believe people can read the facts in the remarks and links provided, and see that internal bias is overriding the logic. I only hope you approach future discussions with an open mind and eagerness to learn about new subjects. Cheers as well.
On 18 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tamás Király, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the Hungarian Arts Fund denied a grant application by Tamás Király(pictured) for a fashion show, he used the rejection letter as a poster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tamás Király. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tamás Király), 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.
New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023
Backlog update:
At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive:
A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades:
Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip:
Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip:
If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
On behalf of the Editing team and my own team, thank you for your support for the Talk pages project during the last several years. I expect Discussion tools to be out of Beta Features at all wikis before long. The team couldn't have met its goals without your help, especially your willingness to ask and answer questions. Editing hopes you will continue partnering with them for mw:Edit check. Thank you so much. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Pomona-Pitzer Sagehens logo.png. 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).
Community Configuration 2.0 is a feature that will enable Wikimedia communities to easily customize and configure features to meet their unique needs. This approach provides non-technical moderators with more independence and control over enabling/disabling and customizing features for their communities.
Initial designs are drafted for two different approaches (see images). We will soon demo interactive prototypes to interested admins, stewards, and experienced editors (T346109). Please let us know if you have feedback on the design approach, or want to participate in prototype testing.
IP Masking
The Growth team has been working on several updates to ensure Growth maintained features will be compatible with future IP Masking changes. This work has included code changes to: Recent Changes (T343322), Echo notifications (T333531), the Thanks extension (T345679) and Mentorship (T341390).
Before December, the Growth team will initiate community discussions with the goal of migrating communities from Flow to DiscussionTools. This move aims to minimize the necessity for additional engineering work to make Flow compatible with IP Masking. (T346108)
Mentorship
We assembled some resources for mentors at Mediawiki wiki. This resource page is translatable and will be linked from the mentor dashboard.
We are working to resolve a bug related to mentors properly returning after being marked as "Away". (T347024)
We continue the deployment of the structured task "add a link" to all Wikipedias. We plan to scale the task to all Wikipedias that have link suggestions available by the end of 2023.
We plan to scale the new Impact Module to all Wikipedias soon, but first we are investigating a bug with the job that refreshes the Impact Module data. (T344428)
At some wikis, newcomers have access to the "add an image" structured task. This task suggests images that may be relevant to add to unillustrated articles. Newcomers at these wikis can now add images to unillustrated articles sections. (T345940) The wikis that have this task are listed under "Images recommendations" at the Growth team deployment table.
Other news
We disabled the “add an image” task temporarily (T345188) because there was a failure in the image suggestions pipeline (T345141). This is now fixed.
After a 2.5 years-long collaboration with Bangala Wikipedia, we have decided to start a collaboration with another wiki. Swahili Wikipedia is now a pilot wiki for Growth experiments.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi! You provided some very useful insight earlier this week regarding my draft, User:Pbritti/sandbox/Campus of the College of William & Mary. I'm making steady progress and have taken on some of your advice. If you find time, would you mind checking how it looks to you at this stage? I have yet to add material regarding the Colonial Williamsburg restorations of the 1920s and 1930s and the subsections for New Campus and South Campus, so don't fret if those sections looks peculiarly bare. This is more concerned with the general "vibes" thus far. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Pbritti! One thing that can help out campus articles a lot is having good images, since they let readers directly see what the grounds look like. If you live near enough to W&M to go visit, I'd suggest taking lots of pics. At Pomona College § Campus, I ended up using two galleries, although I had to fight to justify them during FAC. For an entire article, you have a little more space, so you might be fine just with normal images.
The desired level of detail is another thing to consider. At the FAC, some of the reviewers felt that I was going into too much detail by mentioning some of the less-significant buildings on campus. I resolved that issue by creating the mapframe for those, which took care of it but was a ton of work. For your case, writing a full article, you have more room, but I'd still caution against too much detail. Campuses don't change super quickly, but they do change over time, and excessive detail will dilute editorial resources, making things harder to maintain.
Thanks for yet another outstanding reply. I live in Arlington (which, from what I gather on your user page, isn't terribly far from you!), so I'll be taking many pics when I go down to both the Williamsburg and Petersburg campuses late next week. If you have any recommendations on videos or pages to read regarding making a map like you have on Pomona College, I'm all ears–that's easily one of the most neato things I've seen in a FA. I agree on the excess detail element, but I would like your opinion: is it better to start large and await the slicing-and-dicing at FAC or have a reduced size with the risk of reduced breath of coverage? ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Template:Mapframe would be the place to start. The short of it is that making the campus boundaries display required a dive into the world of OpenStreetMap, which, as a much smaller wiki, has quite limited technical infrastructure. I had to push to resolve a bug that kept some database from updating, which took a month or so to resolve, and I had to put in a Phabricator ticket to get the Kartographer extension to be able to handle references. And then it took a long afternoon or so to make the map itself.
Regarding whether to start big or small, I think the advice of most FAC regulars would be to go smaller. Once you've put in the effort to write out a bunch of content, you're naturally going to want to defend it, which can lead to conflict with reviewers who want to take it out. Whereas anything not detailed enough the reviewers can just ask you to go write. WP:TOOBIG has some size guidelines you can use as benchmarks. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, again! I've taken your advice to heart and have completed the draft with the exception of the images. I have partially completed galleries in the relevant location. If you have any additional suggestions about any aspect of the draft before I get the photos tomorrow, please let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTGame (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I've sent out solstice season greetings to a sampling of editors I know, but I'm sure I've missed some folks. If that's you, apologies, and here are some artworks for you:
Hello Sdkb, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, QuickQuokka[talk • contribs]18:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7☎ 13:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas, Sdkb! Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.
That was really sweet! I'm just sorry I'm not that versatile in using AI to do a proper response, so please accept my written thank you and my best and warmest wishes for happy holidays with the ones you love the most. :)
I have found an issue that I can't figure out how to fix. On Parrot, I see the error "Missing taxonomy template (fix):" from Template:Automatic_taxobox. On the template docs page I see that that error message means the Taxonomy template supposedly doesn't exist, but Parrot uses |taxon=Psittaciformes which does exist (Template:Taxonomy/Psittaciformes). The Taxonomy page does have a Lua error though, which I can't seem to identify or correct. --Kimen8 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Kimen8! I'm no longer seeing the error, so perhaps it was fixed. Taxonomy questions are best directed to WT:TREEOFLIFE, since there is a complicated system that makes those boxes work. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
There were over 900 categories involved in this category name change and I've run into some glitches from there being a delay between JJMC89 bot III moving the categories and it then moving all of the category contents out of the deleted category to the new category. But that's just an explanation of how I came across this CFD case, not the problem.
My issue is that a lot of editors were placed in one of these "Member" categories because they put a specific userbox on their User page. If you want to follow through with this change from Members>Participants, I think you should check and see with all of the different WikiProjects and Task forces if they have userbox template that is being used and change the language on them from Member of a group to Participant in a group. It would be a bit time-consuming to track these down but otherwise, I think the misunderstanding and possible confusion of "Member" vs. "Participant" will continue as the language will still appear on User pages for thousands of editors. But it's also just a word change that won't require any larger discussions on a noticeboard to carry out or consensus to approve, you can just do it yourself. Just a suggestion. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Liz, and for helping implementing the CfD outcome (which I'm sure is not straightforward). I was glad to get the ball rolling on this, but due to off-wiki busyness I don't currently have the capacity to carry through the entire implementation.
Hi there, Sdkb. While I agree with your wish to make it easier for contributors to join wikiprojects, I was surprised to see that categories for members of wikiprojects have now been changed to "participants", especially as highly active projects such as WikiProject Women in Red were not informed of the proposal. Since WiR was launched in 2015, we have distinguished between membership of the project as a whole and participation in project events. It will be interesting to see reactions to the thread I have started on the project talk page.
I was surprised to see, btw, that your user page displays several icons stating that you are a "member" of wikiprojects. It looks to me as if these and many more will now have to be changed. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
How do I go about editing the name of an associations page? American Payroll Association is no longer APA and has been rebranded as PayrollOrg --CMG95 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @CMG95! Per the Wikipedia policy on article titles, we generally use the most common name of an organization, not necessarily the most official name, so the first step is to confirm that a retitling is appropriate. Newspapers and other outside entities using the rebranded name would be an indication of that; otherwise, it might be better to wait. Once it's time, see here for information on how to propose the change. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Taimour sheikh! As currently written, that draft will not be accepted because it lacks references. See Help:REFSTART for instructions on adding those. It also contains language that appears to be promotional (leading supplier of premium sanitary ware contains peacock terms that will invite strict reference scrutiny) and excessive details about the products offered (Wikipedia is not a product catalog). Overall, see Help:Your first article for advice. Also, please note that if you are affiliated with the company, you are expected to disclose it per WP:COI. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's theoretically possible, but I just tried and got the same result. Rendering the few thousand points for FAs with a location is one thing; going for the many thousand GAs with a location seems like a recipe for borking mapframe. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Can you see if the references I used in my draft "Hadayat & Co." are reliable for wikipedia or not. The organization I have written for is a renowned corporate in Pakistan so it needs to have a presence on Wikipedia as it is a legacy business. But as I am not a pro at wiki's content guidelines, my content gets rejected. --Taimour sheikh (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
This first meeting language will be English, but we plan to host conversations in other languages, and about other topics. Please visit the conversation page on-wiki for the details on how to join. You can also watch the page, or suggest ideas for upcoming conversations there.
Impact Module
At the beginning of November 2023, the Growth team deployed the New Impact Module to all Wikipedias. We recently released a follow up improvement to how edit data was displayed based on editor feedback. [11]
Developers can find some initial proof of concept code shared on gitlab.
Mentorship
When a mentor marked themselves as "Away", they were not getting their name assigned to new accounts when they returned. This has been fixed. [15]
We improved the message received by newcomers when their mentor quits, to reduce confusion. [16]
We worked on ensuring that all mentees are assigned to an active mentor. This required reassigning mentees with no mentors to a new mentor. We paused this as the clean-up script confused some editors. We will resume it when the identified blockers are resolved. [17]
It is now possible to create an Abuse Filter to prevent one user from signing up as a mentor. [18]
Thank you for being vigilant and taking care of Help pages <3
When I read the Help article Referencing for beginners I couldn't find any information on how to use Citoid, hence, I added a section with instructions and an illustrating video. You have removed that section, arguing that it is redundant, so I might have missed something! Would you be so kind to point out in which section readers get information about semi-automatically adding references using a DOI, a URL or a title? Silva Selva (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Silva Selva! In the RefToolbar section of that page, the instructions encourage editors to click the magnifying glass icon to autofill fields. To my understanding, this invokes Citoid to fill in those fields. I don't think that we should actually be naming Citoid there, though, since newcomers don't need to know jargon when it affects only under-the-surface mechanics.
I'm curious where you came across Citoid and what you were trying to do that led you to the Referencing for beginners page. (It's possible that there are overly technical mentions of Citoid elsewhere that should be replaced with simpler language.) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
However, given it is a page called "Referencing for beginners" I thought it was important to add Citoid which is a tool for the VisualEditor. Which is much easier to use. As I had written in the instructions that were revoked, you only requires three clicks:
I hope this makes clearer why both instructions are useful, as one is for Wikitext editors and the other one for editors who choose the VisualEditor :) Silva Selva (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Ah, that's helpful clarification. There's a note at the top of the page that it assumes you're using the wikitext editor, and that there is a separate page for VisualEditor (which covers Citoid, although again not by name). I agree that VisualEditor is better for newcomers, although it's also self-explanatory enough that there's less need for a help page about it (the ideal way to give help is in the moment, contextually prompted, rather than on a long help page; we're slowly working toward that). What I would really like is for the page to detect whether you use the wikitext editor or the VisualEditor, and to then give you the appropriate advice based on that. Alas, that is (to my knowledge) not currently possible with Wikipedia's software. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Question from KiwipediaZea (19:43, 9 December 2023)
Question from StrafeLeft (17:36, 18 December 2023)
Hello,
I was planning on updating the CO2 emissions on the "List of coal-fired power stations in the United States" but am unsure how to do so or if that is even a good idea (I am looking at the EPA's 2022 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities) as many haven't been updated from that source.
Thank you for your help. --StrafeLeft (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @StrafeLeft! List of coal-fired power stations in the United States is a fairly obscure article, so I wouldn't be surprised if it needed updating, and based on the access dates in the references, it looks like it was last updated in fall 2020. Overall, I'd encourage you to be bold and go ahead with the updates. Regarding the how aspect, tables are unfortunately a bit more technically complex than some other types of content. I'd recommend trying to use the VisualEditor if possible. And feel free to reach out to me if you encounter any specific snags. Thanks for helping out! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey Sdkb, thanks a lot for the encouragement. I actually started with a different page, List of power stations in Georgia (U.S. state), and figured out how to use both the visual editor and the script (took me a few edits but I made it haha). I think when I have time I'll follow your advice and update the other page. StrafeLeft (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the most beautiful, personalized postcard I have ever received, Sdkb, and I can't thank you enough for it. I went through the gallery of images for a while, chose one and created a derivative, smilingly and in awe. This one here is for you!
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,
This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beer, Brewery, and Pub related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BeerWikipedia:WikiProject BeerTemplate:WikiProject BeerBeer
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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}}talk13:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
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!
+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)
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. ——Serial00:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
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}}talk02:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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}}talk16:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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}}talk17:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
(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)
@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)
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)
Photomontage RfC
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)
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}}talk15:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
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).
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.
Question from KiwipediaZea (03:00, 24 January 2024)
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)
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)
@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}}talk00:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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}}talk02:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Info request for debugging
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)
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}}talk02:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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}}talk14:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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}}talk09:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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}}talk16:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"...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)
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)
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)
RFfA Love
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)
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}}talk21:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
RFA as well
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)
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}}talk21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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, Sdkbtalk04:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.)
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. LizRead!Talk!05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
Here.
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)
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)
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)
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, Sdkbtalk04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
And woah, those look tasty! Sdkb talk 04:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}