User talk:Sdkb

This is Sdkb's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 90 days

RfA debrief

Hi Sdkb, thanks for writing the RfA debrief. I found your point on conferences and building trust there interesting. It's a topic that has crossed my mind quite a few times, and instinctually it makes me unsure, as I wonder how conferences might muddle the perception of on-wiki work, positively and/or negatively. For example, it comes at a slight cross-purpose to the anonymity and gender/pronoun point you make (which I happen to agree with and also try to practice, although I've never to my recollection seen anyone else say they do this before). Anyway, it's something that I would be interested in reading a fuller write-up on at some point, if there is more you have in mind on this brief bullet (noting I have also seen your comments on various pages about conference funding before). Best, CMD (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found your debrief interesting too. It's also a reminder that I should probably start drafting mine out 😅 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

😅 Sdkb ^talk 15:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found the debrief interesting, and happy to muse on this!

Wikipedia is fundamentally a weird environment — I cannot think of any other situation in which I could have a fairly deep working relationship with someone and yet know them only by their username, with no clue where they live or what they look like. It's also limited to text communication, which lacks all of the additional information that you'd get even from someone's tone of voice and facial expressions over video chat, let alone in person. Those elements make it a hard environment in which to build trust. One possible lens for why fears of sockpuppetry have come up at several recent RfAs is that, beyond the (understandable) skittishness post-Eostrix, there's a baseline (also understandable) hesitation to trust the internet stranger. By de-anonymizing editors, conferences can help break through that.

They also work well as RfA breeding grounds because they concentrate a ton of interaction with a group of editors over a short time, and because someone's very presence at the conference is evidence of their commitment to the project.

The community has a hesitancy around doing Wikipedia-related activities off-wiki. Part of that is for justifiable reasons — we've seen the difficulty reconciling policies like WP:Outing with Wikipediocracy and even Discord, and further down the off-wiki path is the affiliate world with all of its ineffectualities. But another part of it is just that Wikipedia talk pages are our home comfort zone, and sometimes we need to push ourselves to step out of it (this applies also to e.g. emailing article subjects). The purist "everything should be public on-wiki all the time" view has limits, particularly around things like RfA preparation. Overall, I view conferences as an instance where activity off-wiki can directly lead to benefits on-wiki, and we should embrace that.

That said, there are certainly tradeoffs/risks. Bias in who ends up at conferences is a big one. The existence of scholarships (where they are given out...) removes some of the socioeconomic barrier, but even so, people need PTO and the ability to travel to be able to attend. And then there's the geographic factor — due to systemic bias, a disproportionate number of admins/functionaries are in North America, so editors who get to attend WCNA have access to more possible nominators than those whose regional conference is, say, WikiConference India. And as you allude, the de-anonymizing that happens at conferences also raises the possibility of discrimination based on ethnicity, race, physical attractiveness, etc. compared to online.

Given that, I would certainly never want to see conferences become the only path to adminship. But in our present world, where we just need more admins, I do think we ought to make more use of them as one option. Does all that help speak to your thoughts? Sdkb ^talk 06:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the considered musings. Your use of "purist" is especially noted, as during my drafting of the above message I at one point had "this might be a bit purist" or similar. Alternatively, perhaps I am institutionalised into the existing system, as I found the equalising power of the anonymity an attractive feature in my early days here. I have not considered that trust aspect before. I do trust some editors on-wiki purely due to their writing, but thinking about it now it does not remotely scale up to the needs of RfA as we are all working within our small areas (perhaps also on immediate reflection one of the reasons I hesitate to contribute to most RfAs).

I find myself agreeing with the thrust of your description about off-wiki activities. I have also found them fundamentally weird, having first learnt how everything works through activities on-wiki. I would posit an addition to your thoughts on regional conferences, that perhaps a big difference between your North American experience and mine (non-North American experiences) is that the North American experience may focus a lot more on en.wiki, while other regions have a a much more diverse focus on various language projects. Would this ring true? If so, that might be a reinforcing element of the systematic bias you mention.

Despite all this, I have enjoyed the few off-wiki meetings I have attended, and really came away feeling I'd learnt and met some great people. There is also the moral boost of actually meeting others who do similar activities and face similar challenges; the social aspect of editing doesn't really happen much on here. I would be interested in whether and how much the conferences do affect nominations. I do again suspect the North American experience may be quite different in this regard, and certainly isn't something I'd thought about in my initial reflections to your debrief. Best, CMD (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct that WCNA had a fairly strong focus on English Wikipedia, which I suspect might not be true of other conferences. Sdkb ^talk 15:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's a really interesting point about conferences and scholarships. I've never attended one, because they're so distant and expensive – and that's speaking as someone who could probably get my work or an external grant to cover it. In academia, though people aren't pseudonymous, we do maintain a lot of working relationships at a distance, through written communication (I've written papers with people I've never met, for example), and in-person conferences are an essential an essential social release valve. The onus really should be on the WMF to actively fund and encourage participation from the communities as well as the affiliates.

Relatedly, though it's no longer a very popular view, I still think there is a lot to be said for editing under your real identity and "humanising" your user page with a photo and personal details – recognising of course that it is a privilege to be able to do so, and that those who can't should not be in any way disadvantaged. I think it was a mistake, inherited from early internet hacker culture, to make pseudonymity the default on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Wikipedia did used to be more "humanised" before and became more anonymous with time. I've seen a bunch of old-timers with their photos out (like you) but hardly any newbies who are that way. Everyone wants to be anonymous on the internet - now more than ever before. If I edit under my real name I might have have Hindu nationalists on my ass (and possibly outside my window) in no time, even though most of my content work is hardly controversial. A majority of the world's population lives under such regimes, although maybe not the core enwiki editor base. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 13:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

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

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

Bureaucrat changes

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Boikemisetso mokase (20:24, 6 June 2024)

Hello 👋 How do I create a good story --Boikemisetso mokase (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boikemisetso mokase. I'm not sure what you mean by "story" — if you are referring to articles, see Help:Your first article. If English is not your native language, you may wish to contribute in the wiki for your native language. Sdkb ^talk 20:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Reuben Solo

On 8 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reuben Solo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during a comedy routine Reuben Solo drew a graph plotting the audience's reaction to his routine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reuben Solo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Reuben Solo), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brainstorm: how reducing banner clutter (re: VA merger) links up with an article table generator

Your ideas about reducing banner clutter in the Vital article Tfd merger proposal (which I only just now discovered) resonated with me, especially the part where you proposed the concise version, with your example of VA-3, and I wanted to link this up with something I've been thinking about and get your feedback on it, as there may be some beneficial cross-pollination avenues here.

I have long been thinking about how to efficiently represent article page characteristics (such as article quality, length, protection level, etc.) so that WikiProjects and other similar pages can have lists or tables of articles and economically represent such metadata without heaps of repetitive text bloating the list or table rows. This led to creation of Template:Article attribute decoration which uses icon images or unicode characters to graphically encode such metadata.

Somewhere along the way, I discovered Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist working on a table summarizing which language Wikipedias have articles on Transgender history or trans rights, to be added at some point as a monitor or progress tracker perhaps at the WP:LGBT WikiProject or somewhere, and I proposed some ideas that might be useful to her table idea using the {{Aad}} template. Since then, there's been an on-and-off collaboration going on, and the single-table idea has morphed into more of a platform idea to assist editors who want to develop any kind of table or list of related articles as a tracker for their WikiProject. Having short symbols or icons, like your VA symbol, fits right in with this scheme.

And that's where you come in. I think you are ideally placed to be a third member of a small dev team geared to developing some tools or a platform or whatever it ends up being, to lower the bar of entry for others who might like to build tables or lists to track or monitor groups of articles, in the way that, say, Trans articles by region2 tracks and compares trans history and trans rights articles across Wikipedias. For a glimpse of the power of the (then current) version, see the (surprisingly brief) wikicode, and the config file at {{Trans articles for region/config}}.

I've been away for a bit and just got back, so YFNS may have updated it or taken it off in a different direction by now, but it's still very much a work in progress, afaik. Anyhow, if any of this intrigues you, I know I'd welcome your participation as you have a lot of strengths in envisioning what would be most useful for a project and coming up with just the right approach, and critiquing current ones or seeing the essential points in something of this nature, and I think YFNS would agree. Have a look around, and see what you think; would love to hear your thoughts about it. YFNS may have some newer/better links for you. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot! Great to hear from you, and that seems like interesting work!

My overall view of icons is that they present a tradeoff — on the one hand, they take up less space and are cleaner/easier to understand at a glance than text, but on the other, if you don't know what they represent, they're confusing, which can add to the barriers newcomers (or any of us, for newly introduced icons like the contentious topics one you included) face. Tooltips can partially mitigate that; I see you've used them for some of the icons already.

There's some existing infrastructure at {{Icon}} and related pages that it might be good to check to make sure there's no template duplication going on/integrate your new system into the existing documentation to make it discoverable.

Good luck with this work! Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 17:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best-designed icons are self-evident or nearly so, but as with international road signage, they generally require a legend that describes them, and that is the approach I am following. If iconic enough, the description is easily associated with the icon and thenceforth they are no longer needed. Come to think of it, I should have the template generate a legend upon request as well. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Escape page link from within

Template:Escape page link from within has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Chester Whitmore

Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chester Whitmore, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DandelionFluff (04:16, 12 June 2024)

Hello! I just made some edits to the page of Lynn Conway. Sounds like there's a lot of that happening right now as she died over the weekend. Just wanted to make sure I did all right! (I've done some editing in the past, but I just established a username.) --DandelionFluff (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DandelionFluff! Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for checking in! Your edit looks fine to me at a quick glance. Biographies of recently deceased persons often see a lot of editing activity; feel free to edit boldly, and if there are any issues another editor watching the page will be able to help out. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 04:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DandelionFluff (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Longform.org

Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Longform.org, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice/doc#Namespace key Off-topic

At 03:25, 17 June 2024 in [1], you undid my {{off topic}} tag, saying it was an "unexplained tag." However, I already explained it 2 hours ago at 1:39, 17 June 2024‎ in [2]. Since you do not feel the section is off-topic, could you explain, on the actual documentation page, the relevance of all those namespace IDs? 184.146.170.127 (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Generally, editors are expected to explain their edits in the edit summary (which can take the form of see [wikilink to talk page thread]). I did not see your talk page comment and did not understand the removal, thus the revert. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Men's colleges

Hi there - I see you cc'ed me. Is everything all good? It seems like you did some redirects but I don't quite work a ton on that part of Wikipedia. As you can see I've been trying to work cleaning up the page and also giving more nuance to the incorrect assumption that Catholic (and other religious) seminaries are always men's only colleges. The reality is some are, some aren't. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jjazz76! Thanks for checking in and apologies I didn't explain further in my summary of the edit. I created List of men's colleges in the United States as a redirect to Men's colleges in the United States § List of men's colleges a while back. I recently noticed that a bot tagged the redirect as broken (no longer going to a valid target section name), and that the page no longer had that section as a result of your reorganization, so I removed the section link. Everything is good; the ping was just so you're aware. When doing major restructuring of a page, it can often be a good idea to check the incoming links (available under the tools menu) to make sure that nothing is being messed up. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks! I will definitely do that in the future. And thanks for noticing/fixing it on the backend! Jjazz76 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Newspaper of record

Template:Newspaper of record has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kang Ticino X Fabi on User:Kang Ticino X Fabi (21:13, 23 June 2024)

Hi --Kang Ticino X Fabi (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floquengrump

I don't actively object, but I still ... I guess "passively" object to people altering the way I chose to add myself. As far as I know, there is no policy, guideline, essay, or even good reason not to add the vote count. I certainly didn't boldly add it for others, without their OK, even though I think it's useful. Yet you and someone else (who I won't look up to avoid getting annoyed again) felt fine just overruling my choice. It's not like I accidentally did it and you're fixing it (for example, I love it when people fix my near-constant screwups). I know it wasn't the intent, but it sure felt disrespectful. I'm honestly not sure if it's a problem with your approach or mine. Probably mine; I'm increasingly annoyed at more and more stuff I see here. Anyway, the "Floq" part i don't actually care about, so feel free to change to "Floquenbeam" if you prefer. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Diff for reference) Thanks for the note, Floq; that's helpfully clarifying. Until pretty recently, the debriefs page had a mix of links to debriefs and transclusions of debriefs, which I found suboptimal as it gave unfair prominence to some over others and just made it harder to navigate the page. So myself and a few others discussed and arrived at the format now used. I'd say the reason for using only the percentage support rather than that and also the !vote counts is (a) that it's more concise (while still communicating the degree to which an RfA was contentious) and (b) that another editor didn't want it to replicate the format of WP:RFAY too closely. It's not the biggest decision (which is to say that we could easily have gone with something different), but once we have a format, the reason to use it consistently is just to make the page more easily scannable (combined with a tidying impulse, which, uh, is a rather common trait among Wikimedians

). I think the other editor and I assumed you'd just miscopied the format rather than deliberately deviating from it.

Overall, the formatting stuff is minor compared to just ensuring that debriefs are listed — I enjoyed reading yours and am glad that others visiting the debriefs page will be able to discover it! Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 16:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted links

Hi Sdkb, hope you're well. I've just cleaned up Musopen, which really took off after funding from a Kickstarter campaign. I'm trying to link to two Kickstart links from 10+ years ago, which include important information on the nature of the projects. Alas, it seems the links are on Wikipedia's blacklist. Is there anyway around this? Aza24 (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza! I think MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist may be what you're looking for? Beyond that, I'm not sure; good luck with your efforts! Sdkb ^talk 04:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I think so, thank you! Aza24 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backstory to Special:Diff/1231608002

I don't have a strong opinion about the edit either way, but to provide the backstory to my edit that you reverted: I added the additional text because that page is transcluded in another page (WP:REFBEGIN) where another editor redundantly added a link to WP:RSP in the "See also" section (which I reverted) despite the link being in the transcluded text, which led me to wonder if the transcluded text needed to be clearer. Apparently not! Biogeographist (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Moore moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Thomas A. Moore. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and there is another person with the same name at ASUA who has a high h-factor (if there are no overlapping papers) so there is nothing to demonstrate his publication notability. His page shows no significant, peer recognition awards. Please establish these and go the AfC route rather than creating it directly.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, as mentioned in the edit summary when I created the page, the relevant notability criterion is WP:NPROF #5, as he holds an endowed chair. I am reverting the move, and suggest you familiarize yourself with or check the applicable SNGs before draftifying in the future, as not all editors will know to revert and draftifying can bite them or deprive us of notable content. Sdkb ^talk 13:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the recent discussions on academic notability #5, just having an endowed chair does not qualify. As many have said, someone who is notable has many other achievements such as peer recognition APS fellowships, FRS, major awards, high h-factor etc. His page has nothing, and as I said above there is no other proof. I will hold off temporarily from an AfD to let you add the material requested. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I am on vacation until July 5, but I'll do a deeper dive for sources once I return. Sdkb ^talk 20:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

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

Administrator changes

Technical news

Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Thomas A. Moore for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas A. Moore is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas A. Moore 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

check ur dms

jp×g 🗯️ 20:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Motley Coffeehouse

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Motley Coffeehouse".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Hunan Grand Theatre

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Hunan Grand Theatre".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Donald Bentley

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Donald Bentley".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:White Pearl

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "White Pearl".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Bot Changes

Hey @Sdkb. One of your bots made a change to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Blackburn_Historical_Plaques to correct some dates to Wikipedia standard format. The affected text was taken from the plaques in question, so the changes made the text inaccurate.

I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia, so asked in Teahouse if there was a way to protect some content from automated bot alteration (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Scooby359-20240714172200-How_to_protect_content_from_bots). They suggested raising it with yourself to let you know of the issue, and see if there's any way to resolve it.

I've now been made aware of the {{nobots}} tag. Is there any other way I could flag this content to protect it from bot alteration?

Thanks, Chris. Scooby359 (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scooby359! Thanks for raising this. Those edits were part of the general fixes set, which is a collection of normally uncontroversial edits that my or many other bots will make in the course of other edits. Normally, GENFIX would recognize and ignore text in quotes, but in this case there are no quotation marks so it did not identify the quotes as such.

@Mathglot's advice to use {{as written}} on the quotes rather than {{nobots}} on the whole article is solid, as it's a much more precise way to target the issue.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 14:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb That's great. I've changed the page to use {{as written}} so hopefully should be ok going forward. Thanks for explaining and teaching me something new!

Cheers, Chris Scooby359 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

Hello. I'm reaching out because of your (semi) recent discussion at the article Talk page concerning the photo collage on the article, and changes being made to it without consensus. There's been a strange rash of revisions to the thing over the past four days, unilateral and without Talk discussion notwithstanding the request in the article source code, and my efforts to steer matters toward conversation and consensus. TBH I don't really care much one way or the other about the collage, but do believe that an FA deserves better than thrice-weekly revisions by editors who have decided that they like, or don't like, the photos at the top of the article. If you have the inclination I could use a bit of support on the issue of process at least - helping get interested editors talking about what the article's photo collage should look like, in the hope that we can find something agreeable to everyone, and stable. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out! I've found collages to be a notoriously hard area to maintain — for whatever reason, there's a strong tendency for editors to want to make changes to well-composed collages that make them worse. It looks like the stable version of the D.C. collage has been restored, and I commented briefly on the talk page. Best, Sdkb ^talk 04:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't much care if it's updated or not (though I think the existing version is *fine*) - but it does matter that changes be made deliberately and thoughtfully, taken from among suitable photo candidates, and not just something that caught a random editor's eye. JohnInDC (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culinary Institute of America photos

Hi Sdkb, I was able to get some additional photos for the Culinary Institute of America article. I've linked to them in my response on the Talk page. Was curious if you had any additional thoughts. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for arranging to have the photos uploaded! I added the one of students in the kitchen to the history section of the article, where I think it's a nice addition. I'll leave the task of integrating the criticism section into the history section to someone else, as I unfortunately don't have the capacity at the moment to handle it myself. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 20:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for adding that! And no worries, I appreciate the feedback and work you've put in, and I saw Melchior responded about the criticism section. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK mistake

Hey Sdkb, there's a supposed image of Chopin floating around, which seems to be disproved as a fake ([3]); that is, an edited detail from a 20th-century painting.

It's been removed from the associated Wikipedia articles, but apparently it was featured on the main page as a part of DYK. See Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January#9 January 2024. Do you think its worth starting a discussion on DYK about checking the chosen images more thoroughly? I don't know if this really relates to a larger issue or not. I suppose at the end of the day, its still an intended depiction of him, but I doubt DYK would have used it if they knew it was a forgery. Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24, I would absolutely bring it up. There is a prior instance in which a photo of the wrong person was used, so this isn't totally a one-off, and brainstorming about how to prevent it from recurring might be helpful. Sdkb ^talk 04:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just got a conversation going here – Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Growth News, July 2024

Community Configuration

The Growth team released Community Configuration at all Wikipedias. You can access it at Special:CommunityConfiguration.

This new special page replaces Special:EditGrowthConfig. For now, all Growth features can be configured using Community Configuration. Configuration for AutoModerator (T365046) and other features will be available in the future.

You can help with translations. The interface translation is done at Translatewiki.net. You can also help translate the documentation.

If you attend Wikimania 2024, please join us for the session about Community configuration's future!

Current work

Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module

We will add a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version available to beta wikis. We will conduct an A/B test at our pilot wikis using the new Metrics Platform. We still welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.

Future work

Increase constructive activation on mobile

As part of the Growth team 2024/2025 Annual Plan, the Growth team will explore various ways to increase the percentage of newcomers who successfully start editing.

Editing a Wikipedia page requires too much context and patience. It means many trial and error for newcomers to contribute, meaning a steeper learning curve and potential discouraging reverts. To support a new generation of volunteers, we will increase the number and availability of smaller, structured, and more task-specific editing workflows (E.g. Edit Check and Structured Tasks). The Growth team will primarily focus on Structured Tasks, while working closely with the Editing team to ensure our work integrates well with Edit Check.

Stay informed

Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible issue with rmCloser?

Hey Sdkb, I noticed that on Special:Diff/1238025322, the rmCloser reverted the archive wrapper and re-added the RM dated template. I'm just curious if you noticed anything peculiar with that edit and are not surprised to see this message, or if you didn't and there might be something wrong with the script. Courtesy ping TheTVExpert. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice anything unusual when I made that edit, so yeah, there may be some sort of script issue. Thanks for noticing/fixing! Sdkb ^talk 19:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

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

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Abdulrahman nura (16:19, 12 August 2024)

Hi mento how i create my wekipedia page indeed --Abdulrahman nura (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abdulrahman nura — see Help:Your first article. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Abdulrahman nura (17:08, 12 August 2024)

How do i create citation --Abdulrahman nura (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abdulrahman nura — see Help:Referencing for beginners. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol \| September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from RICHAOBO1 (10:17, 27 August 2024)

Hi Sdkb, what's your best advice for someone who's new here and wants to learn how to edit and publish new articles? --RICHAOBO1 (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is not to start with creating new articles; go build up some experience with other tasks first. Then, when you're ready, read Help:Your first article and follow its advice, particularly about sourcing. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 13:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

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

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]