User talk:Augnablik

June 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Language demographics of Quebec have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Language demographics of Quebec was changed by Augnablik (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.918174 on 2022-06-15T12:26:52+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Augnablik! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! TJRC (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About having to type four tildes to automatically insert my username and the date: I see that the automatic insertion is happening even without my typing the tildes. So why would we want to bother typing them? Augnablik (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to remove an extra line of space, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What happens if two editors keep trying to make their edits "stick" and delete the other's edits?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, US or British formatting?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Possible to add to the title of a previously published article?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Getting citation numbers to update, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Red highlighting, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Self-paced online tutorials?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Changing my previously published edits to Watch This Page status, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to cite a quotation from a dedication or foreword page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Connecting with other editors on their Talk Page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Mysterious error message, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, User Contributions page mystery, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Augnablik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 08:34, Wednesday, April 26, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Augnablik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 08:35, Wednesday, April 26, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Augnablik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 09:02, Wednesday, April 26, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Augnablik. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

I wish I had seen this question so I could add this information, but once it is archived, it's not really supposed to be edited. I do it to change links to information that no longer work, which is probably all right.

I've heard of WP:TNT and that's similar to what you were looking for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"them" vs "him or her"

Hi Augnabilk. Thank you for your copy editing work. Please don't continue to change "them" to "him or her", or make related pronoun changes, in our policy and guideline pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, does Wikipedia require "them" to be used now with third-person singular pronouns? Although I know many people do it these days, it's so confusing and we already had a perfectly good way to differentiate third-person singular and plural. Augnablik (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Generally speaking, if a page uses singular they, there should be a presumption (in the vein of a guideline on English varieties, MOS:RETAIN) that there is consensus for it, and that changing that requires a demonstration of consensus against singular they. This applies doubly for our policy and guideline pages, which reflect site-wide consensus. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi Augnablik! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Theooolone (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I made such an edit, could you point it out to me? I certainly didn't mean to do that. Augnablik (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theooolone, are you going to leave me in permanent suspense about what this edit of mine was that you're describing as a misidentified minor edit? Augnablik (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker), or rather passerby. Augnablik, if you ping User:Theooolone by for instance linking their username, they'll be alerted that you have a question for them. There, I've done it now. Bishonen | tålk 18:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! Sorry for not replying to you, I hadn't subscribed to this thread. I was most likely talking about this edit, which adds a new sentence.

Also, this edit to Camp Fire (organization) would not be considered minor as it rearranges much of the page content, and removes around half a paragraph in the 'Camp and environmental education' section. Theooolone ─ ( Talk ) 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Algonquin Hotel, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Greatpopcorn (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be specific here? If I had the example you're alluding to, it would help, as I am not aware of ever changing a US or British usage. If you perhaps mean single and double quotation marks, all my changes were for the sake of consistency — the author switched around between the two formats considerably. Augnablik (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific issue is that you, indeed, did change the US spelling of "story" to the British spelling "storey" in the Algonquin Hotel article, which is about a hotel in the US. The latter is generally considered incorrect (or at least uncommon) in American English. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, for instance, uses the word "story" to refer to floor levels. In the future, please do not change spellings from one variety of English to another if there is already an established variant of English already used on an article, or if the subject has ties to a nation where a particular variant of English is used per MOS:TIES. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am humbled as well as astounded to discover that STOREY is, in fact, considered a British rather than American spelling. That (STOREY) is what I learned as an American child in an American school many long years ago!

With that in mind, I went to the Oxford online dictionary when I saw your reply to me about this issue to point out triumphantly what I expected to find. To my horror, the entry said it's British. A rush over to the Collins dictionary met the same fate.

Having recovered from my shock, all I can say is, "At least the edits were not intended to de-Britishize the formatting of the original article."

That's my storey … oops, story. Augnablik (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand why you made these edits now. To be honest, I would have been really surprised if Americans used "storey" as a spelling, as I was taught (in an American school) that it was spelled "story" and that there was no such word as "storey". When I found out that "storey" was an actual British word, I was as surprised as you just were. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

😂 Augnablik (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

My questions are in connection with an existing article about my undergraduate school, Trinity Washington University: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Trinity_Washington_University#History

I did a number of minor edits, but realized — as other editors have also observed with requests for better documentation iin the article — that quite a bit more substantive work needs to be done, updating of information and verification stated facts with citations. I don't have access to this sort of information, but as an alumna of the school, I knew I could get it.

Then I realized that perhaps just by being an alumna, this puts me in COI status, even though I've simply done minor proofreading and editing so far. I was about to write the president of the school, who I know, and ask if she could put me in touch with someone on the staff who could provide me the information. Would my alumna status be problematic?

Another related question: how does Wikipedia's preference for third-party references hold up when the article is about an organization and third parties simply wouldn't have desired facts and figures, like for instance enrollment as of 2024 and changes from earlier enrollment figures? Surely it would be okay to consult the organization directly for that sort of information, wouldn't it? Augnablik (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik. Simply put, no, it wouldn't. On Wikipedia, any information that you add must be verifiable from published, secondary and reliable sources. Word of mouth/email from the company would fail all of these criteria. We also have a policy about original research (which basically says that you should not add information that you know, even if it is true). Hope this helps! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I'm curious. How would articles about organizations like schools, companies, and countries ever get ahold of certain basic facts like enrollment figures if they can't contact knowledgeable staff? Where else can Wiki editors go to get it?

I fully understand the need to avoid conflicts of interest and bias in writing articles, having long done academic and journalistic writing. But I must say, I'm beginning to see some "Catch 22" situations in writing and editing Wiki articles.

Rest assured, though, that I won't take my work on the Trinity Washington University article further, in light of our conversation. And thank you, @Cocobb8, for your quick feedback. Augnablik (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik, see Jim's comment below for COI, and for places to find sources :). Let us know if you have additional questions. Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed it. And what I was about to write him was this, which I'll run by you now because you got back to me with an invitation to ask additional questions:

@Jmcgnh, your comment, "Non-controversial facts can be cited to primary sources, such as the school's own website or regulatory filings," even if we can't contact the school for details directly, seems to counter to what @Cocobb8 replied to me above. Can you help put it all together here? Augnablik (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik You should probably limit it to minimal information, such as the current principal. A controversial statement for which a primary source might not be used would be something like "this team won this award against this other team and beat that record of some sort". Do you see the distinction I'm making between a controversial vs not controversial statement?

Also, the problem with just using an email as a source is that it is not a published source. However, using the faculty's official website for non-controversial statements would be fine (as long as it remains limited and that there are more secondary sources than there are primary ones). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the distinction — that's all I had in mind doing. There are a number of previous references in the article that need backing up, or updating figures like enrollment beyond the ones last provided.

Glad to see that you and Jim are on the same page after all, or so it seems. Augnablik (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're both referring to Wikipedia's policies :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Opinions vary about whether being a student or alum of a school is considered a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed. Err on the safe side?

If you are contacting the school for the information you wish to add, then that certainly puts you in COI territory. If you were disinterestedly adding information from third party reliable and published sources, most people would give you a pass on COI.

Non-controversial facts can be cited to primary sources, such as the school's own website or regulatory filings.

Wikipedia's preference for third-party sources is especially important for notability. It's also a consideration for whether a particular statement or fact is noteworthy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Jmcgnh ... please see my second reply to @Cocobb8 above, because I folded in your earlier reply in my new question. Augnablik (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond down here to try to make a more linear thread.

Yes, there's a distinction between what Cocobb8 said and what I said: published, but primary, sources are allowed, just not preferred. It is not always necessary to cite a third-party, secondary source when the facts are not likely to be contested. You still need to cite a published source, though, so 'private communication' citations and similar non-published sources - which are allowed in some academic circumstances - are not allowed for Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. That was never part of my confusion.

Really glad to see a way around what seemed an impasse for getting usable information for articles about orgsnizations! Augnablik (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search-and-replace

Following your Teahouse post. I only learned of search-and-replace recently, despite editing here since 2011, so don't think you need to be embarrassed about not knowing about it! I find it easiest to use and explain in the source editor but it's available in the visual editor too (but not in the reply tool). So 1) Go to the article and open "Edit source" 2) Click on the "Advanced" option in the middle of the toolbar: that opens another row of icons and will stay that way until you toggle it off 3) At the far right of this toolbar there is a small magnifying glass "search" icon: click on that 4) A box of prompts opens to allow entry of the search string and the replacement string, with various options much like in a standard word-processor 5) Do the search-and-replace and carefully preview the result before publish/save.

There are some really neat further things that can be done using the "Treat search string as a regular expression" option but that tickbox is not used for standard search/replace. If you are interested, comment back in this thread, where I'll keep a lookout for more discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your information was a godsend, Mike. I had not been looking forward to doing a search-and-replace by eyeballing. This feature is just what I'd hoped was available.

I wish there were a way to look up available tools in Wiki editing — actually two ways — one being by official name of the feature (e.g., search and replace) and the other probably AI-assisted where we could write a question in the search field (e.g., "How can I look for all occurrences of Sarah and replace with Sarasara?"

Do please share the "really neat further things" you mention. I have no idea what "Treat search string as a regular expression" means, but if it's really neat, I'm all ears. Augnablik (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here goes with the real example where this was used recently. There was a list article which looked like this. Note the 70 citations in the reflist but another 205 (take my word for it!) external links in the body text, in contravention of WP:ELLIST. By doing a regex search-and-replace followed by a use of the refill tool and a bit of hand-tidying, I got this to the version now live. The details of the regex used and how to do the steps are now described on my Userpage, where I put them for my future reference. Regular expressions have an article but it is a bit (!) technical. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found the Regular expressions Wiki article helpful … that is, once I understood it was simply discussing something I'd occasionally run into before while doing searches (with or without replacement) in word processing.

But I'd never heard the term REGULAR EXPRESSIONS before. What a misleading term! Surely whoever invented it could have come up with something much more descriptive.

This discussion has been helpful in more ways than just helping me grasp regexing. When you said you'd put the steps for doing it at your User page, you gave me an idea of doing something similar, not just for this. It's probably a more streamlined way of creating a stash of Wiki how-to's than what I've been doing: copying Wiki guidance into word processing files.

Augnablik (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I've triggered something useful! You can also do regex searches over the whole of Wikipedia articles at Special:Search, as explained at Help:Searching/Regex. I have an example of one Wikignoming thing I regularly do on my userpage which relies on regex. That's to find examples where IMDb has been linked wrongly, which uses the regex search insource:"imdbtitle" insource:/\[imdbtitle:/. If you have lots of how-to's to remember, you could create a sub-page in your user area to avoid cluttering your userpage: I don't need subpages, except my sandbox, as I don't have very much I want to save. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have anything like an ongoing discussion thread to which editors post their Great Discoveries … like in you case, how you've used regex to take care of issues or needs you had to do things as a Wiki editor? I'd love to pore through such a thread.

All the more if we could quickly get a question answered … sort of like the Teahouse but in a more collegial way rather than as supplicants.

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying this one-on-one conversation with you, Mike. A rare experience. I can see the advantages over Teahouse inquiries for in-depth conversations about topics that might not be of general interest. I look forward to one day doing the same for other fledgling editors. Augnablik (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any general forum like you describe. The nearest I personally participate in is the Help Desk, which regularly covers interesting problems, plus WT:CHEM and WT:CHEMICALS, which are Project-oriented: chemistry in this case. I'm sure that many other Projects have similar things. The WMF growth team mentorship program was supposed to foster newcomer retention by encouraging one-on-one discussions between newcomers and more experienced editors. I have been a mentor since the scheme started but >90% of the questions I get asked (see my Talk Page and archives) would probably have been better for the newcomer if asked at the Teahouse and they don't often lead anywhere. On the other hand, I would suggest you sign up as a mentor if you are serious about wanting to help others. And, of course, you would be welcome to start another conversation with me when you run into any knotty editing problems. My background means that I like problem-solving! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a wonderful offer, to be welcome to connect with you for knotty editing problems. I haven't felt much connection with the editor I was specifically assigned when I got started with Wiki work, but I HAVE felt very blessed indeed for the recurring guidance and support I've received from maybe about 7 or 8 seniors in the Teahouse. Yes, you included.

But to actually have a direct invitation from an editor for "knotty problems" … that's a true gift. Especially from an editor who says he likes problem-solving! And I definitely do have a knotty problem. It's been plaguing me for a long time as to how to handle it. You'll probably need your best problem-solving wand, as it overlaps several of the trickiest editing situations in Wikidom.

As for me becoming an editor who helps others, like in the Teahouse, that's a long way away. There's so much to learn. Although I'm a well-seasoned editor, I wasn't expecting such a learning curve as Wiki newbies face. Still, as I too enjoy solving problems in both editing and education, I look forward to "paying back" the help I've Augnablik (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what can be found "by accident". Just now I stumbled upon the Wikipedia:Dashboard which is quite interesting and relevant to your question about ongoing discussion venues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that it's amazing what can be found "by accident" (a/k/a serendipitously), as you commented in your message to me on the 3rd.

You may be even more amazed when you see how in turn it could contribute in a roundabout way to untying the "knotty problem" I'll describe for you shortly as follow-up to your invitation to send that sort of thing to you to cut through. Augnablik (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull, I've finished writing up my knotty problem for you. It's a Word document of 2 1/3 pages that I was hoping to plop into this space, but I don't see a way to do that directly. Looks as if I'll have to just copy/paste. 🙁

Mike,

Here for your consideration is the knotty problem I’ve been facing. It involves the editing of an existing ̵Wikipedia article on noted Indian author Ramendra Kumar, known primarily as a children’s author for his books and stories, although he’s also written quite a bit for adults. There are two knots in my problem.

Knot 1

· The existing article is quite out of date because Ramendra has written many more books, stories, and articles that are not mentioned. Similarly, he and many of his books have received awards that Wiki readers would never know about from the article.

· Organizationally the article is in need of major editorial attention.

· More third-party sources are also needed.

· There’s also some interesting back story about Ramendra that many readers would likely find of interest but that doesn’t appear in the article, in particular his becoming something of a medical celebrity in India as a “cancer warrior.”

· The most logical way to update this article would seem to be a complete replacement. But for a still somewhat new Wiki editor (though at the level of Novice Confirmed Extended) to try doing that, I know the likely result would be outright rejection.

There is a concept explained at WP:TNT, which is self-explanatory. Normally, I'd be reluctant to suggest that but having looked at Ramendra Kumar I really think that's the best solution! The current version is a violation of the policy WP:BLP because it lacks inline citations and is very poorly sourced. Also, it has a large number of external links in the main text, which is against guidance. Actually, you seem to be in luck in one respect. Two editors, Thudinspecies (on article Talk Page) and Weliviewf (in edit history) are clearly interested in a major cleanup. I suggest you 1) create a totally new version of the article in your sandbox or, better, at User:Augnablik/Ramendra Kumar by clicking on that redlink. 2) Invite these two editors (via pings on Talk:Ramendra Kumar) to take a look at your new version BUT NOT EDIT IT (which would complicate the edit histories), instead making suggestions for changes within the Kumar Talk Page, so you are the only editor of the new version. 3) The aim is to gain WP:CONSENSUS that your version is OK, even if you have to remove parts of it to reach consensus. Incidentally, I'd ditch that long list of Kumar's books: they are irrelevant to his notability unless you include some reviewer's comment (cited, of course) or they won some prize, etc. Better for the moment to have "Selected publications" with just the most-commented-on and the ISBN for these. If you look at a featured author's article, like J K Rowling, you'll see that there is an {{Authority control}} template at the foot, which usually links to databases of works 4) Once the other two editors are happy, copy/paste your version into the current article, where editing can continue as usual. 5) Use the template {{db-author}} to get an admin to delete your sub-page where you placed the temporary version. I'll comment on COI later, below. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knot 2

· Although I’d never even heard of Ramendra when I came on board as a Wiki editor (June, 2022), or to this day met him in person, we gradually became friends online after I took on editing his Wiki article. And as that friendship developed, so too — I slowly came to realize — did COI.

· When I came on board with Wikipedia, I was also an online middle school English teacher. A few months later, as I was searching for a children’s story to use in a class project about India’s national independence day, I found one written by Ramendra that I thought would work well, so I adapted it into a skit for my students to perform for a small online audience.

· Before the enactment, I got the idea to write Ramendra to thank him for his story, mention that my class would be doing a skit based on it, and — although never expecting him to say yes — invite him to watch the performance as a hidden viewer and be introduced afterward. To my amazement, he did! After that, we kept in touch a little.

· As I got more involved with Wikipedia, one day it occurred to me that I hadn’t looked to see if Wikipedia had an article about Ramendra and so I decided to check. Finding that there was one, but with quite a few issues, I thought, why don’t I take on editing it — to clean it up and also to give me some in-depth Wiki experience?

· Although I had a general idea of what COI was and the need for Wiki editors to avoid it, I wasn’t aware at that point that it might extend even to the loose connection Ramendra and I had. If I had been aware, I wouldn’t have taken on the project.

· When I told him I’d decided to work on the article, he was very happy because he was quite aware it was out of date. That in turn was roubling for him because as a noted author he was often asked to make presentations and his hosts typically turned to Wikipedia — even though he often provided information — to get material for their introductions.

· To close the gap in the article about his publications and awards, Ramendra began sending me a lot of material. The more we interacted, I began to realize that we’d developed something of a friendship across the miles. Which meant I was now a Wiki editor with COI ... and a few related decisions to make.

· Over the year or so since I’d begun Wiki editing, I’d noticed occasional divergences in the official guidance as well as discussions in the Teahouse and elsewhere about (1) exactly what constitutes COI and (2) how editors should deal with it. I delved into everything I could find in all corners of Wikipedia about what to do. Must all the work I’d put in on the article go down the drain? After all:

o There hadn’t been what seemed real COI in place when I’d begun editing the article. It just came gradually.

o Although I knew none of us can ever be 100% free of bias, I had much experience in objective writing in both journalism and academia.

o Lastly was a consideration that wouldn’t be of concern to Wikipedia but that was still one I had to face because I’d told Ramendra that I’d work on the article, and he was anticipating the revision to finally end the use by others of the out-of-date article to get information about him. How fair to him would it be if I had to pull out of the work?

· With all this in mind, I started a thread about COI at the Village Pump that attracted quite a few senior editors to a lengthy, often heated. discussion. I found it amazing to see such varying opinions about COI among editors at such a high level. I didn’t bring up my own dilemma, but I emerged from that discussion with the confidence that I could legitimately continue working on the article if I transparently laid out the connection I now had with Ramendra.

· Still later another idea struck me about further editing on the article: that perhaps I could find another editor willing to take on this project. It’s taken a huge amount of time just to get to where it is now and I have other writing and editing projects I should be working on. I’d be delighted to hand it off.

With a glimmer of hope that the Knot 2 issue may not be the obstacle it once seemed, the Knot 1 issue remains: whether my — or anyone else’s — edited version can simply replace the existing article.

This is where perhaps you, as a senior editor with enjoyment of dealing with knotty problems, in addition to your invitation to help, might be the magic key to finally get Ramendra’s article updated. Perhaps you know someone “at the top” who would agree that this is one of those rare articles that would simply warrant outright replacement than submission of edits in drips and drabs.

Incidentally, the work I’ve done on the article is on my computer rather than my Wiki sandbox, as I was more at home in Microsoft Word than in the unfamiliar Wiki ambience. Now I wish I had gone the sandbox route because of the need for citations directly made through Wikipedia rather than on a word processor. But I can send you what I have so you can compare the earlier version of the article with mine that I’d put aside for awhile. Augnablik (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take a fairly simple view. WP:PAID is a policy and Wikipedia's T&C's mandate a stringent set of rules associated with it, as explained at that link. You are not being paid in respect of Ramendra. WP:COI is guidance and, for me the key parts are Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith and Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. That can be done on the Talk Page of the article: a wikilink to this "Knot 2" text would be more than adequate, as you have explained here the nature of your COI. My suggestion (above) about how to proceed via a new version of the article gets round all the COI in this case, as two other editors (and me, probably!) will have already reached consensus that your re-draft is OK. The key is disclosure. There is a template {{Connected contributor}} that can go on Talk Pages of articles but in the case we are discussing here, I don't think that's necessary (others may disagree with me). In any event, it could be added after you have reached stage #5 of my above suggestions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I wonder if — in addition to your reply time-stamped 16:52 on the 15th — you sent another that somehow I missed. I ask because in the 16:52 message, you refer to "my suggestion (above) about how to proceed via a new version of the article." And to "stage #5 of my above suggestions."

I just don't see any "above suggestions." 😯 Augnablik (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are in my longish post just above your "Knot 2" header. I put that reply there to keep it near to your "Knot 1" issue to which it is my response. You'll see it in the page history as my edit timestamped at 16:30, immediately before the 16:52 one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found everything and pretty well digested it now. What useful comments! Thank you so much.

I learned quite a few new things in the process of reading everything you sent me, some of which raised questions in turn for me.

— I'd heard about TNT but somehow felt you'd have to be an editor at a high level to try it even if you had good reason to do it. This gave me increased confidence about Wiki editing. I think many of us newbies and semi-newbies get really worried the more we hear about missteps and their consequences, even if we come to Wikipedia with strong editing background. Negative feedback on our questions and comments, as well as on those of others, in the Teahouse can begin to freeze us in the headlights, so to speak.

WP tries to act as if there was no hierarchy and if you've reached, say, 100 mainspace edits you are already a "high level" contributor! We all learn by making errors and having them corrected by others in a, hopefully, polite manner: the guideline is WP:AGF.

— I had never thought to look at the article's Talk page — even though I was vaguely aware there was such a resource attached to articles — to see if any other editors had raised any concerns about the article that jibed with mine, and if so how what to do with them. It was a great surprise to know there were two such editors, and to get your insights on how to approach what had felt like an impasse in further editing the article. Augnablik (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Talk Pages are a fundamental interaction venue and sometimes have more content than the articles! When our current discussion gets focused on the Ramendra article, we should go to its Talk Page to continue, as that's better for the other editors who are interested in it and also means any discussion will get archived there rather than here.

Oops, I hadn't finished my reply but it got published and here on the User Talk page, I don't see a way to edit it. So, onward …

You can/could and this is easiest with the source editor. Follow the talk page guidelines, if you do. You have the greatest liberty on your own Talk Page but bear in mind every past edit is still in its page history.

— You suggested a Selected Publications section, as did another editor earlier when I asked something in the Teahouse about how to handle large bibliographies. (Ramendra has published 49 books and counting … and that's only the books!) Your suggestion gave me confidence in creating such a section even though it would mean omitting many other publications of his. So now a related question to make it possible for a complete list of his publications to be available on demand even though not housed on Wikipedia: could a complete list of his publications appear at his website and the Selected Publications section of his Wiki article link to that?

Absolutely. Links to subject's website are allowed in both infobox and as external links. There is also a more technical way to do this via the template {{Authority control}} you'll see at the foot of many biographies about authors. It gets a bit complicated as Wikidata maintains these links. Some editors here will be very suspicious of biographies that are mainly list of publications, which they assume verge on WP:SPAM.

— When you say that "two other editors (and me, probably!) will have reached consensus that your re-draft is OK," does this mean that you'd eventually weigh in at the article's Talk page? That would sure be great!

Sure, I comment all the time on other people's drafts via the Teahouse.

— At the same time, it makes me wonder all the more about something that's been on my mind for some time: is the best way to get things done in Wiki work — or let's put it at a higher level — is it an ethical way to get things done in Wiki work to become friendly with a senior editor and ask him or her to champion your cause?

Ethics are not relevant, building the encyclopaedia is. Anything that advances that goal is fine and the more you have a history of doing that the more leeway people will allow for a bit of banter. Just remember WP is not a social network and we are not here to advance causes.

— Irrespective of a yes or no to that perhaps controversial question, I'm just so grateful to have you as someone I can turn to as a mentor, even if not officially so designated. My assigned editor has interacted with me just once that I can recall, and he doesn't even seem to be active on Wikipedia.

Augnablik (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've remedied that by "claiming" you as my mentee: your hompage tab should now reflect that. Don't blame your previous mentor for not being proactive. We mentors each have about 600 mentees and would never get anything else done if we interacted with them all. We rely on those who want to do so contacting us via our Talk Pages. Most of my mentees have never done so, thank goodness, and those that have often immediately give up editing thereafter, e.g. when I point out that creating an account here just because you fancy having an autobiography article is a very bad idea. (Other comments interlaced with your questions. I suggest you start a new section for any further discussion so as to keep this one a reasonable size.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've adopted me?

🥲 Time out for a few tears.

Augnablik (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Article titling when the subject has made a name change, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Time zone stamping, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to suggest an editorial need within an article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Missing Wiki updating of user contributions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to organize posts in descending order, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]