Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Sdkb, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Mollifiednow (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Mollifiednow (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas how are you doing Chidiebera (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 66 § Flags for Bulgaria and South Korea at the Olympics

 – {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I meant the articles for Summer and Winter Olympics. In the 1948 Winter Olympics for example Bulgaria used the flag from 1948 until 1967 they changed to that flag three days prior to the games. South Korea's flag at the 1948 Winter Olympics they used the 1945 flag until October of that year and they also used the same flag at the Summer Olympics. South Korea used the 1949 flag at the 1984 Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics until they changed flags in October of that year. Sincerely yours, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 66 § Flags for Bulgaria and South Korea at the Olympics

 – {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The articles which i spot the wrong flags is in the countrys own article for the specific Olympic Games. en:Bulgaria at the 1948 Winter Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1948 Winter Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1948 Summer Olympics, en:Spain at the 1980 Summer Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1984 Winter Olympics and en:South Korea at the 1984 Summer Olympics. Yours sincerely, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021! I hope you have a good rest of the year. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Thanks! Already planning for 2022... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For [1], I hereby award you the EEng April 1 Platinum Medal of Honor First Class, with Embedded Chrysanthemum Beryls and Oak Leaves. EEng 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

On 4 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Archimedean Excogitation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the rolling ball sculpture Archimedean Excogitation (pictured) has almost 30 moving or sound-producing components? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Archimedean Excogitation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Archimedean Excogitation), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw from the talk page that you were involved in adding the feature that generates automatic short descriptions for articles which use Infobox song, so I was wondering if I could ask you a question: Why does it generate the inaccurate short description "2021 single by The Beatles" for I'm Down? –Paul1337 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I see "1965 single by the Beatles" on that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul1337 and Jonesey95: I added the release date to Wikidata, which I presume fixed it, but it should've been able to detect the absence of the information previously and not tried to generate a description. I'll investigate what happened when I'm free in a bit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so investigating, it looks like it's likely related somehow to a set of changes Wbm1058 made to the template and to {{Year}} in late January. What's supposed to happen is that the template checks to see if there's a Wikidata value for the release date and if {{Year}} extracts a valid year from it, and only moves forward with autogenerating the description if all's good. That was/is (I temporarily unadded the date from Wikidata for troubleshooting) failing in this case—there's no Wikidata value, but it's moving forward anyways, and when {{Year}} is used on an empty value, it returns the current year, which is why we're getting 2021. Wbm1058, could you perhaps clarify what the modifications you made were aiming at and see if you can help us pinpoint exactly what's causing this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox song/doc hasn't been updated to document this functionality. It doesn't explain that this template retrieves a "short description" nor how it does that. This functionality may also be counter to MOS:ORDER that says short descriptions should be placed at the top of the page, before hatnotes, maintenance templates, and infoboxes. I've seen pages with multiple short descriptions, one at the top of the page and one coming from inside the infobox. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: You're correct about the documentation. Sorry that wasn't already present; I've now added it. Regarding MOS:ORDER, there are plenty of other templates that generate automatic short descriptions, and I'm not aware of the community having any concerns along those lines, but you could try asking at the short descriptions WikiProject. Back to the issue at hand—do you remember what your were trying to do with your edits in late January, or what specifically is going wrong at I'm Down? If not, we should probably revert to go back to the stable version of automatic short description generation that we confirmed was working properly when we implemented it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As documented at Template:Short description#Testing I've enabled my Special:MyPage/common.css to show me short descriptions. It firstly tells me that Yesterday (Beatles song) is a "1965 single by the Beatles" and then on the next line says "2021 single by the Beatles". I see that Happening (song) says "2012 single by Medina" and gets this from {{wikidata|property|P577}} which returns 14 September 2012.{{year|{{wikidata|property|P577}}}} returns 2012. For the Beatles song {{wikidata|property|P577}} returns nothing. You could check first to see whether {{wikidata|property|P577}} is null before passing that into {{Year}} and intentionally generating an error that I patrol for any try to fix. I added parameter {{{2}}} to Template:YEAR so you could use that to check for errors when extracting the year from {{wikidata|property|P577}}. Errors that #iferror detects are errors that I detect and you shouldn't be demanding that editors edit Wikidata to fix Wikipedia errors. It's lot easier to just add a {{short description}} template. All this increased complexity is making things harder to maintain.

What I did only effects results from non-blank data. Note the difference Error vs. error. I must have done this because there was non-blank junk coming back from Wikidata somewhere but I don't recall the details. If you first check for null data and find that, then you're done and attempt to generate a short desc can be aborted without even calling {{year}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: I don't follow exactly what you're proposing, but if you want to make edits to the template(s), feel free to do so, and if it fixes the error we're good. If it's going to take you a bit, we should undo your late January edits in the interim, as we don't want to let all these articles sit in a broken state for too long. It's unfortunate they've been this way for as long as they have already, but I'm glad Paul1337 discovered it and raised the issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the code change that implemented this. The first check is "Is infobox in lead"? The first thing to ask should be "Is {{wikidata|property|P577}} non-blank?" If there's nothing there, it doesn't matter whether there's an infobox in the lead because you can't generate a short desc without data coming back from {{wikidata|property|P577}}. wbm1058 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed it now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the new code will completely omit the short description if there is no date in wikidata. Is that what is wanted? I would think that if there is no year, there should be a short description saying simply "[type] by [artist]", instead of no short description at all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Wbm1058: That seems like a somewhat messy fix, and I'm not sure whether it handles all edge cases (such as when the value returned from Wikidata is "18th century"), but I guess we can see if it works. I'm going to bow out at this point—I took responsibility for getting the functionality working smoothly at the time I implemented it, but I can't take responsibility for resolving issues arising from subsequent modifications; those are the responsibility of whoever makes the modifications. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Jonesey95 is asking for would be an enhancement that was not supported in the Sdkb original version. Adding that capability would make the code even messier. I think it should be possible to code this more cleanly in a Lua module but I've yet to find/make time to become sufficiently proficient with Lua to tackle that. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RTGame 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/RTGame (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

-- ferret (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, do not make comments about other editor on article talk pages. This comment violates talk page guidelines and does nothing to bring about consensus nor does it strengthen what ever argument you are attempting to make.[[2]] Springee (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you many chances to demonstrate good faith, Springee. At this point, WP:SPADE applies, and advising other editors to stop arguing with you will improve the discussion if they listen. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any examples of what ever you are claiming. Your comment was not WP:FOC. If you aren't aware that making comments about editors instead of about the topic is a violation of talk page guidelines then perhaps you shouldn't be editing AP2 topics. Springee (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{If extended confirmed}} doesn't seem to work. Too tired right now to figure out why. Primefac (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Hmm, I'd guess there's been some change to common.css that's caused it. I'll take a look; thanks for the heads up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Just getting to this, but when I checked, it seems to be working properly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, because I'm not technically ExCon. This could pose problems if there are uses other than at WP:UAL or random user pages (depending on its intended use). Primefac (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Hmm, I thought that the way we set it up included admins. I'll adjust the template; the alternative would be to adjust the underlying class it's based on. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just closed this discussion and noticed that there is also Template:Welcome6 which looks a lot like Template:Welcome. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sunshine Protection Act, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sunshine Protection Act would make daylight saving time in the United States become permanent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sunshine Protection Act. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sunshine Protection Act), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly stuff like this needs some work. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See if you think I did enough to warrant removal of the tag. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: Since you've read through the parts you've edited more thoroughly than I have, it's your call if you think it's good enough to remove the tag; feel free to do so if you think it's warranted.
    Regarding the short description, the reason I changed it was that the current one is far too long (per WP:SDFORMAT, the target is 40 characters, whereas right now it's a whopping 103). Also, "national memorial" is technically incorrect as a description, since it's not official like these. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll tweak it some. It's the whole "Lynching memorial" thing, it sounds a bit disrespectful--and I know that I created it as such, but I've come back from that somewhat crude shorthand description. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies: Would Lynching victims memorial in Montgomery, Alabama, United States be acceptable? I don't think anyone would mistake it as a monument to the practice of lynching, but adding "victims" makes it extra clear. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	random act of giving you this barnstar for doing so much for the covid 19 project Sitaphul (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitaphul: Much thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the word "unencyclopedic" that you typed should be replaced with "non-encyclopedic", because I've consulted Lexico and can not find unencyclopedic at all. Please proofread what you type carefully before submission.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert to transclusion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been meaning to do a TFD with {{Decade readership}}, {{Page views double}}, {{Annual readership}} and {{Graph:PageViews}} for some time now, but I need template editor rights do start the nom. Since you have said rights—would you people to help me do so? Here's what I'm thinking for the nom rationale:

Banner blindness is a real thing ([3] [4]) and results in important information (arbitration notices, controversial warnings, talk header etc.) being overlooked or ignored. These page views templates are prime examples of unhelpful cruft that clutters the talk page. The information is already available in a more sophisticated, customizable and accessible format, available at the top of the revision history page ([5]).

Then maybe something about how little help it is for both readers/editors? I'm sure this will be a huge nom so I want to get especially convincing wording, let me know if you have any thoughts. Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24! As we've discussed in the past, I'm definitely in agreement about reducing the amount of talk page banner clutter, and if I were dictator of Wikipedia I think I'd agree with deprecating them. But given current reality I have to say that this TfD might be a heavy lift. Recently I've found that they seem not to be working (is that the case for everyone or just me?), but if they were, they'd have at least a small add in convenience compared to accessing pageviews through page history, and I think many editors will be reluctant to give that up. To get them fully deleted, you'd have to argue that they shouldn't be placed even in a collapsed banner holder on a page with high pageview fluctuation. Is there some more modest goal we could pursue, such as a bot task to automatically move them inside the {{banner holder}} whenever one is present, or even just a big notice on the documentation page advising spare use? That said, TfD discussions can be hard to predict and I've been wrong in the past, so we could always try and it might turn out that there's an unexpected level of support.

Regarding the permissions, if you decide to make the nom at TfD, you can go ahead and use Twinkle, and I think it might make an edit request or just encounter a partial error, but if the latter myself or another editor will handle placing the notice. Also, if you meet the criteria at WP:TPERM, you might want to think about requesting the template bit for yourself at some point! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt in general if the community is ready for more banner blindness nominations. My {{Not a forum}} TfD went really poorly and that was what I thought would be the least controversial one which would have a significant impact. Perhaps this one has a chance just because how poorly they work though. Make sure to mention that there is a built in, reliable graph at Page information if you nominate it. --Trialpears (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky one because I find it difficult to formulate a convincing argument in support of the page view templates at all. I don't know that the convenience of having them there even helps; since they're so limited, if one really wanted to get a full understanding of the page views, they'd have to go to the off site one anyways. Plus if the purpose of talk pages is really "to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article", then I struggle to see how the template helps. ProcrastingReader said something similar about the success of big TFDs lately, maybe it would be appropriate as a pump proposal instead? I've found they tend to attract a more informed audience in the past—perhaps the pure scope of the TFD would suggest it should be a proposal anyways. It is tempting to go for something more moderate, but if we're really trying to clean up talk pages, such a route may be too timid to have any effect. This being said, to Trialpears's point, I could certainly wait to do so if the community has had too many banner blindness noms thrown in their face recently. Aza24 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the issue with TfDs is that they're actually too narrow in scope, since they're only able to look at a single template or at most a group. To get to a point where talk page banners are consolidated into just one or a few, it'll be necessary to work on {{Talk header}} and others so that they're capable of presenting lots of potentially desirable information cleanly. The recent talk banner success that comes to mind, Reference search tools talk page templates, succeeded I think because its functionality could be taken over by Talk header. Applying that to here, perhaps editors would be more amenable to getting rid of the pageviews templates if we added a link to the xtools pageviews (the link could even be over an estimated daily views) somewhere on {{Talk header}}?

Also, one piece of low-hanging fruit that might be easier to tackle is {{Auto archiving notice}}—it's very widely used, and could be merged into talk header where it'd take up a fraction of the space, something like this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the {{Auto archiving notice}} idea! I've long had a vision of making archiving trivial with Talk header being the only template involved. Bots would take their configurations from there and it would be possible to just put {{talk header|auto_archiving=yes}} to get a good setup with sophisticated defaults considering the namespace and possibly amount of archives already existing. Would be a lot of effort and I doubt all steps could get consensus and significant changes to the archiving bots and I don't see {{Archive}} ever going anywhere, but it sure would be nice if it ever became a reality. --Trialpears (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

beep beep! Just driving by to suggest {{100-day readership}} for consideration, while you're tilting at windmills. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, consolidation is the other factor here. Getting the templates all merged together might make it easier to someday get rid of them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha—I've returned! Apologies; these all sound like great ideas. I almost wonder if someone should intimate the page views merge and then we hijack it saying to delete them all :). Sdkb, your auto archiving format thing sounds great, where would we bring up such a proposal—TFD? The only thing I wonder is if the "Archives: 1" could stay center, maybe some of the formatting at the bottom of Template:Ars nova could help with that. Aza24 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I agree, the archives should definitely remain centered. I just tried toying with it using the example of Ars nova, but I can't quite get it to work. Time to call in the HTML big guns—BrandonXLF, any chance you might know what we need to do to Template:Talk header/sandbox to get the auto-archiving line to display correctly (i.e. right-aligned, forcing archives to wrap if needed, but not pushing it to the left) at the test cases here? Once we have the working prototype, I think a TfD might indeed be the way to kick everything into motion. It'll require some additional work to implement, but a merge notice on talk header will certainly attract all the attention we need to make consensus clear. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, I've manged to get it to work like Template:Ars nova (the issue was you were trying to directly put a div element inside a table element, which is not allowed). The only remaining issue is getting the archives to wrap when needed without overlapping the auto-archiving period label. – BrandonXLF (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great Brandon. Sdkb, where are with this—do you have any plans to set up a nom? I'm sure we could "wait for a better time", but with things like this, I feel like such an obvious time might not. Feel free to use some of the diffs earlier if you want to demonstrate how unproductive talk pages can be. Aza24 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, thanks for the nudge. I agree that, even though the prototype isn't fully functional yet, we're ready to go ahead with the nomination. I've made it here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Template:Auto archiving notice. Courtesy pinging the others who have commented here: @Trialpears, Jonesey95, and BrandonXLF:. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! I will keep a potential page views nom in the back of my head—maybe late in the summer. We'll see how this one goes first though Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb! Thank you so much for bringing to life the article I started about Joel Fagliano! It looks great! – Kekki1978 talk 02:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent cinema.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. Queen Animie (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen Animie: I'm not sure what page or practice you're referring to. I see you're new to editing; please keep in mind that clear communication is essential for succeeding here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sandeep Mukherjee, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that for his 2015 mural Mutual Entanglements, artist Sandeep Mukherjee instructed the gallery to install the 10 panels in whatever order and orientation they wanted? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sandeep Mukherjee. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sandeep Mukherjee), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, mentor! This is a Growth team member making sure the Growth features work as expected. --Martin Urbanec (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdkb

This is a test message, using the Mentorship module located at Special:Homepage.

I just posted a message at the project page with steps to enable the Homepage and Help panel for yourself, so that you can try the tools. --Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Frederick G. Slabach has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Fram (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are a New Page reviewer and you create an unsourced BLP? Congrats on berating me in the edit summary for pointing out the issues with your own creation (an unsourced, uncategorized, unlinked one-line BLP). Fram (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Wikipedia:Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify? Sheesh. Fram (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: PRODs aren't for "pointing out issues", they're for proposing deletions. You indeed failed WP:BEFORE; pointing that out in my summary isn't "berating" you. And before you accuse me of WP:POINTiness, the reason I create pages like that from time to time is that they're a net plus that I wouldn't otherwise be bothered to write; the fact that they offer a reminder about how quick reviewers are to bite non-perfect content is just a side benefit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPRods are for pointing out issues which, if not solved, will lead to deletion. You should never create an unreferenced BLP. Deliberately doing this is a WP:POINT violation. Fram (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DINC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay. Anyway, if you continue creating unsourced BLPs, I will suggest that some of your advanced rights get withdrawn, as people who do NPP or have autopatrolled shouldn't be doing this. Fram (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quickly reflecting on this a month out, I think I erred in creating the page without references, particularly since it is a BLP. I bolstered the sourcing and content at Frederick G. Slabach when I revisited it a week or two ago, so it's now a much more solid stub. I do stand by the reasoning I gave here endorsing the WP:Make stubs philosophy, but I don't plan to try creating any unreferenced pages again in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and wish to commend you editors on the great work you are doing responding promptly. Bibihans (talk)Bibihans — Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibihans: No problem; glad to be of help! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reza Zafari 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/Reza Zafari 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.

nearlyevil665 06:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reza Zafari 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/Reza Zafari (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Sonofstar (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cruz Reynoso, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 17:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Post Senning, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Daniel Post Senning studied molecular biology and modern dance but ultimately became an expert in etiquette? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Post Senning. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Daniel Post Senning), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joel Fagliano, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The New York Times puzzle editor Joel Fagliano published four crosswords in the paper before he finished high school? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joel Fagliano. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joel Fagliano), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sdkb — thank you for reaching out! I'm so excited to be a part of the Wikipedia community!

I just finished writing my first article and I was wondering if you could review it and let me know how I can improve it. I look forward to hearing your feedback!

All the best, Elady12345 --Elady12345 (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elady12345! Thanks for reaching out. So the first task for any new article is to establish notability via references. For Draft:Made in NYC (nonprofit), the New York Times article is a fantastic reference, but we need one more. Has there been other media coverage of the organization? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I just went through many pages of Google and I was able to find an article from the New York Business Journal, an article from the House Beautiful magazine, a report from the U.S. Department of State, a NY Times article referring the the "Made in NYC Week" event, and an AMNY article. What do you think about these sources? Thanks again for your help! Elady12345 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elady12345: At a quick glance, the New York Business Journal article looks good; I'd add that to the end of the first sentence. The next thing to do for the article is to fix up some style issues. The external links within the body go against Wikipedia style, so they should be removed (or in some cases converted to references or moved to an external links section at the end of the article). The long quotes also go against summary style and should be trimmed. Once those things are done, the draft will be in much better shape and have a better shot at surviving in the main article space. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! This was a real help, Sdkb — I appreciate it! Elady12345 (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kelly Perine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bad Love.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Thank you again for all your advise for how to improve my writing and editing — the article I wrote got moved to the Mainspace yesterday! I'm just confused now because it seems a different user moved to the Draftspace again. Is there something I'm doing wrong? Would you happen to know how I can improve the article? Ha, I thought it would be a fun project to try and write an article but it sure is turning into a whole mess of confusion. --Elady12345 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elady12345, sorry about all the confusion you're encountering. I saw you replied on your talk page with a ping to the editor who redraftified; that's what you need to do, so the ball is in their court now. You haven't done anything wrong; the underlying thing here is just that editors tend to get very jittery about organization articles (even nonprofits) created by new editors, because often those reflect a user with a conflict of interest trying to sneak advertising onto Wikipedia. You've clarified when asked that you have no connection, which should help allay the concern. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. Sorry to bother you so much, but I appreciate your help with all of this! Haha I guess I should find a less controversial topic to write about in my next article. Or just stick with editing.

All the best,

Elady12345 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elady12345: It's not a problem at all; feel free to ask if anything else comes up! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sort of new here and I just created a page for my artiste friend. I have just recently moved, but I've been trying to also find the page on Google - which I didn't. --Fkatheserpent (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fkatheserpent: Lifestyle Szn is highly unlikely to remain published (in mainspace) in its current state. There are a number of style issues, and you have not included any references. Please review Help:Your first page for some basic tips. Because you are creating a page for your friend, you also have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose. I would suggest moving the page back to your sandbox to give you some time to work on it, and then once you think it's ready, submit it by placing the code {{subst:Submit}} on it. To answer your specific question, new pages do not appear on Google results until they've been patrolled, which can take up to a few weeks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand now, thank you for your assistance. Fkatheserpent (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am far more of an exopedian[6] than a metapedian[7] and have only recently begun using RfCs. Please bear with me. soibangla (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Locke Olson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Tahir R. Andrabi, is not suitable as written to remain published.He is certainly and unquestionably notable by WP:PROF because of the named professorship,. But what you wrote was a directory entry, not an encyclopedia article

An encyclopedia article is not a CV. Make sure the article contains, first, the basic biographical information such as birthyear and birthdplace, then the full sequence of degrees and professional positions in chronological order, with dates. Next, the 5 or so most cited peer-reviewed articles, given in full with coauthors, full name of journals, and links, with the number of citations to each of them from Google Scholar of Scopus or ISI; any national level awards--(not junior awards or awards from their own university) Add major national-level outside positions, such as president of the major national organizations, and any positions of editor-in-chief ; Membership or minor offices in most societies, and service on editorial boards, do not count for much & are better omitted. Very sparse articles attract skepticism. as do those using vague claims and superlatives, or those that list all possible internal and external committes. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's standards] and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page00notify me on my talk p. and I will give it an accelearated review. . DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thanks for articulating your rationale. I have to disagree, per the reasoning at WP:Make stubs—our ultimate goal is to make a comprehensive record of the world's encyclopedic topics, and a directory-style entry for a notable topic is a net positive that moves us closer to that goal than having nothing at all. I'd also add that getting an article launched is often the biggest hurdle in its lifespan; once it exists as a stub, others are often encouraged to expand it. I like to get topics over that initial hurdle. Often I do more, but per WP:VOLUNTEER, that cannot be required of me or demanded to get an article undraftified. Keep in mind that, per WP:AFCPURPOSE, likelihood of deletion is supposed to be the sole AfC evaluation criterion, so notable articles should not be kept in draftspace.

For this case, in the spirit of cooperation I'll expand the article a little bit before moving it back to mainspace, but I hope the above is helpful for the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are stubs, and there are sub-stubs. I look at NPP as they come, without checking who wrote them unless it looks like promotionalism. There was no third party source (tho the source there was is reliable enough for the professorship), and no indication of published work to confirm it. I've seen stubs like that get deleted, whether or not they ought to be. The best chance to get an article like this expanded is right at the start, while you have the CV visible.

But I did make. an error--I moved too rapidly--it would have been better for an incomplete new article to have waited day or two before moving to draft. But there's so much pressure from the new articles coming in that it's easy to get impatient. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb, this is a test query to a mentor to try out this side of things - please give me a response to try it out! --Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Hi 👃🛍️🐻; here's a response! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for reach out to me. I am so glad to hear from you, it’s my first time here today. So I need to take some knowledge about Wikipedia rules. --David Ayuel Monykuch (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Ayuel Monykuch; nice to connect! Let me know if you have any questions about anything. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I tell you it’s my first time to be a member with mentor. So I think I can help you with new user, who want to created their first Wikipedia article. I mean to help other users with great editing in their page. --David Ayuel Monykuch (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayuel Monykuch, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. Do you wish to mentor others yourself? It appears that English may not be your native language, so you may wish to edit in your native language and eventually become a mentor there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to ask about Wikipedia articles as you have editing more Wikipedia Users page. I have create my own Wikipedia page through sandbox, because I don’t want it to be block from others. Can you please help me to submit my Wikipedia sandbox here is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Ayuel_Monykuch/sandbox

You can help me with correct editing and spells, before I submit it. Thank you. --David Ayuel Monykuch (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayuel Monykuch, please see WP:Autobiography for an explanation of why it is a bad idea to write about yourself. The article is currently unreferenced and will be declined if you submit it now. If you choose to proceed anyways, you can submit it by copying and pasting the code {{subst:Submit}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth arguing about jokes, but I thought that other guy's addition to the page was quite amusing. Consider letting it be, even if you don't personally find it funny, we sure did.

In the end, though, it doesn't really matter. It's a great little page, btw, very laugh, much funny.

Also, nice to meet you! Joe (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you appreciate the page overall! And yeah, sorry to be a stickler on this, but I'm pretty firmly opposed to jokes about buying people like [8] given the legacy of slavery. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a non sequitur, but what do you mean by 'the legacy of slavery'? You may not know, and it may distress you to learn, that slavery is still very much a thing:

If one were to make a joke about murder, and someone came along and said, 'best not make that joke, given the legacy of murder,' one might be a bit confused. Perhaps you know all this and you just mean something else by it, in which case I'm lost. Doesn't matter one way or the other for editing purposes, I'm just confused. Joe (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think it's probably a U.S. thing; the word "slavery" without any other descriptor is used here to mean slavery of black people prior to the U.S. Civil War. There is indeed still slavery happening elsewhere in the world and in the U.S.; sorry for seeming like I was implying otherwise. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get it now. No worries. Joe (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, I like to support articles on notable academics, for there are someo ther editors who tend to be quite skeptical. . You can help by giving the necessary indications of notability in thefirst edit or very soon afterwards in the next hour or so. If you need some additional time, try placing a tag reading {{under construction}} at hte top of the page, which will hold off deletion or draftification for at least a day or so. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The two steps I try to consistently take are to note in my edit summary when creating the page that it is notable through WP:NACADEMIC criterion 5, and to include in the article body text the named professorship that the person holds so as to make it clear that NACADEMIC 5 applies. Is there anything else I ought to be doing that would help? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. You would do more to help if you created more than the very minimum. If you write such minimal articles, they may be listed for deletion, by those who do not accept WP:PROF. I don't think it wise to give them an opening. Creating barely minimal stubs , though permitted, is generally disapproved of. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: As I said above, often I do expand them more, but per WP:VOLUNTEER, that is not a requirement. Draftifying articles that are properly formatted/referenced just because they're short is not an appropriate course of action; if anyone nominates them for deletion, I can let them know about NPROF and they will presumably withdraw the nomination. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and specific suggestions regarding notability on the Jim Levy(Author) page. I will take your suggestion and look for secondary sources. Thank you. On the whole Taos, New Mexico has a large art community, per population which is fairly well documented (1920 - 1950). However, documentation regarding its more recent artists (1960-2000) is somewhat lacking. Some artists and writers like John Nichols (writer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nichols_(writer) have had their works produced by Hollywood etc. so I believe notability is easier to show in those cases, thus I will keep looking. Thanks again for you comments and suggestions as I'm still new to the wiki-world. Taostlt (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sweetgreen logo (2018).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 editnotice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot upoload a file to wikimedia commons69.142.223.188 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)69.142.223.188[reply]

Hi IP! What specific issue are you encountering? The more detail you give, the better chance I or another editor will be able to help. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You are doing a tireless job Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vhhhhjhgy: Thank you! Eventually I'll need to sleep more... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite § WP:BCAST (from User talk:Sdkb)

 – {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless. EEng 12:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, maybe not. See recent posts. I somehow feel there's possibility for real change if we can get those two key ideas enacted first.. EEng 16:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, false hope. I was right the first time. EEng 05:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng, I appreciate your efforts in the area. I wasn't very optimistic going in that there would be appetite for the sort of reform at DYK that you or I would like to see, but I'm actually reasonably pleased with the fact that there's been such a robust discussion. There's the adage to consider that goes something along the lines of "if they're arguing with you, that means they're paying attention". I hope the effect of this will be to establish the idea of radically reforming DYK as firmly within the realm of discussion, and that might pave the way for a trial of something new actually gaining consensus down the line. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could be so sanguine. But call on me next time and I'll do my best. EEng 10:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi --Articles about me. Only (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Articles about me. Only! I see you've been making some test edits to articles. If you'd like to experiment, you can do so in your sandbox. Just please don't actually write an article about yourself. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ... since communication seems to be a completely foreign idea to the powers that be at Wikipedia, and there seems to be no way to "contact" anyone ... I wanted to let someone know how frustrated I have become with the site before I go. I have attempted to edit articles several times and each time, the article reverts back to the way it was previously with no explanation as to why it was reverted. Sad to say, my experience on Wikipedia is that there is ZERO communication to users attempting to contribute ... nothing, nada, zip, zilch. My time and effort in trying to improve content has been a COMLETE waste of my time! ... something I will never be able to get back. I'm not sure why I have kept trying. Regrettably, I am done trying to contribute to this site. It's obvious that the site does not really want people to contribute for the benefit and knowledge of all ... what a terrible disappointment! Sadly, I have become disheartened by the site and will no longer use it nor speak well of it. NJPWN (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NJPWN, I'm sorry you're having such a dispiriting experience editing. The way communication works on Wikipedia can be tricky to figure out, and we don't always do a good job of explaining it to newcomers, so it can sometimes be easy to miss.

I took a look at your contributions, and it looks like the two articles you've edited recently are Generation Jones and Baby boomers. For Generation Jones, no one else has edited since you did, so your version is the live one. For Baby boomers, it looks like one other editor, @Some1, edited after you. You can see the history of that page, including a record of your edits, by clicking the "view history" tab or going here. According to their edit summary, Some1 "moved the recent additions to another section", so if you search the page, it may be that the content you added wasn't deleted, just moved. If you disagree with any changes they made, you can ask them and I'm sure they'll be willing to explain their rationale and discuss; you can do that just by including {{ping|Some1}} in any talk page message.

I hope that info is helpful. If you have any further questions about communication on Wikipedia, you can ask me here and/or look through our introduction guide to talk pages. If you find the page history confusing, there's info about that here. Again, sorry you've had such a rough time so far, and I hope your experience editing improves from here on. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all three moves per your request. I didn't leave a redirect at Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/history as I wasn't clear on your intentions, and obviously couldn't do the page protection (apologies). Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Frost: No redirect from /history is fine; thanks for the quick help moving them! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reader-facing page has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Spicy (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may be interested in this task. SVcode(Talk) 15:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVcode awesome! Let me know how it goes. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb I got someone else to work with me, so is that okay? SVcode(Talk) 14:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVcode: Yep, that's totally fine. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find my information when i search my Name in Google. I complete my user page already... Suggested me a solutions Thank You 💓 --Jahidul Haque Tuhin (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahidul Haque Tuhin: User pages are not indexed by search engines. It's a bad idea to write about yourself. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to find My article in search engine? I'm already post a article but when i search it on Google, i can't find it? Why? How many time takes to post a article? --Jahidul Haque Tuhin (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahidul Haque Tuhin see my reply above. Read WP:SEI if you really want. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb! I was motivated by your nomination for merging the AAN template with the talk header one, as well as the discussion above. I am interested in getting a discussion going to merge a whole bunch of history templates into {{Article history}}. Many of these templates listed are already covered by Article history, but it would be best if all or most of those were deprecated in favor of Article history. As many of these templates are also used in other namespaces, it may be necessary to rename it to something like {{Page history}}.

List of just some of the templates that have the possibility of being merged:

• Deletions (Old XfD multi, Old CfD, Old MfD, Old prod, Old RfD, Old TfD, Oldcsd, Oldcsdfull, Olddelrev, Oldffdfull)
• Merges (Afd-merged-from, Afd-merge to, Afd-merge from multi, Afd-merge from, Merged-from, Merged-to, Mfd-merge from, Mfd-merge to, Old merge)
• GA/FA/etc (FARpassed, FailedGA, GA)
• Moves (Old moves)
• Peer-reviews (Old peer review, Oldportalpeerreview)
• Uncountable edit drive templates
• Miscellaneous (Oldpuffull, On this day, Published, Stable version)

These are just a handful of templates I've picked out. The main arguments to merge are because of banner blindness and to provide a clearer historical timeline of that page, template, or category.

Do you think you could help develop this discussion or co-nominate it? Many of these templates are template-protected, so I would need an admin or template editor to add merge templates to them. SWinxy (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SWinxy! I'm glad to see efforts in this area continuing! There are a few questions that come to mind: Should these nominations be done separately or all together? Should we seek consensus first, or first make a bot and then seek consensus to operate it (having a ready bot might make consensus easier, but there's risk of wasted effort if it's rejected)? For the article history stuff, my intuition is that the best path is to build bots that handle these things, and only try to deprecate the old templates once we've managed to get them out of use. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrc, the FAC/FLC bot converts existing milestones to article history when they're promoted (or not?). I wonder if we could get the same thing going for the GA/DYK/OTD etc. bots. I must also add my appreciation for SWinxy in continuing this endeavor! Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! No clue about the existing bot situation. iirc the GA process is partially automated, and we'd need to change the bot(s) that adds the deprecating templates, as well as discuss with the GA/DYK/... teams. But for already existing uses we might have to build our own bot to move them. SWinxy (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we could nominate them in two batches: the first being the ones that already have parity in {{Article history}}, and ones that have not, and—if there is support for it—split them down further to merge in batches by type (e.g. first deletions, then FA/GA, etc). For the process of deleting, I suggest first moving the transclusions over, then once that's done, mark the templates as deprecated. Then, wait a few weeks to see if any more discussions pop up or to see if some bots' owners need to be notified, and, if not, mark them as deprecated for removal. Then, delete if we feel that it has been a reasonable amount of time. I don't think turning them into redirects is a good idea. Doesn't feel clean.

As for the bot, eh? I dunno. There was more pushback than I would have expected with the auto archiving notice (feels weird that it only closed less than two weeks ago), but then again making a bot before the discussion would give credence to our determination or something, just to show that we've thought this through thoroughly. I've not made a bot before, and I expect some things we'll need to do manually if any of the templates were used weirdly. SWinxy (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Sdkb:, do you have plans to move the sandboxed version of the talk header to the main template? The auto archiving notice can't really be moved until the archive parameters have been added. SWinxy (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SWinxy, it's in process at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. I'm generally not too involved there, but it'll get done in a few weeks or so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sdkb! I hope you are well. Just wanted to ask you how to write a good article? I hope I’m not wasting your time! Just ping me back any time. --The Unknown 0012 (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Unknown 0012: It's no trouble at all! See Help:Your first article for basic tips on creating a new page, Help:Introduction for general editing tips/instructions, or Wikipedia:Article development for advice on improving existing pages. Keep in mind that creating new pages from scratch is a difficult task, and you might want to try some other things first to get your feet wet. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed this edit by SdkbBot. If AWB genfixes are being bundled with the edit, it will be helpful to indicate it in the edit summary. Otherwise it can be misleading about what the bot is actually doing when seeing diffs like this. Thanks. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: That's a good thought. I had left it out since not all edits the bot makes will involve GENFIXes and I didn't want the false positives, but I think you're right that the false negatives are the bigger concern. I'll adjust the summary for future edits. Maybe at some point it'll be possible to differentiate it based on whether or not it does a GENFIX. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Debra Cleaver 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/Debra Cleaver 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.

Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidency of Donald Trump, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Holmes and Fiona Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object so much, if you'd chose another place in the Donald Trump article, to link to Presidency of Donald Trump. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Linking in another place would defeat the goal of having as prominent a link as possible to the article probably most relevant to the majority of people who visit Trump's article. The RfC at this point is just waiting for a close, and both sides have made pretty much all the arguments we're going to make, so I hope we can just let it sit and work on something else until that happens. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never going to get through to you on this topic, am I? You're held bent determined to have your own way. Like I said, it's been nearly a whole year. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pomona College you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HAL333 -- HAL333 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you in Independence Day. I’m a historian and not too experienced with Wikipedia. Added quite important facts about the Rhodesian people after 1980 and about the Government of Rhodesia. All under heavy fire as if the bush wars would have never ended… The users just clicked on the most convenient (and least important) links (now deleted because not essential) and started a campaign to return to the version of history which is political, not scientific. Could you have a look, please? Thank you, University Professor for History (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]