Your GA nomination of Jean Walton[edit]

The article Jean Walton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jean Walton for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

how are you, User:Sdkb can you review this article Draft:Suzana Joumaa and If it is good article, can you move it to the main space --Wikipeida From Saudi Arabia (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipeida From Saudi Arabia, I've submitted the article for review on your behalf. Another editor will come along and assess it. The length of time can vary a lot, as there's no queue, so please be patient—sometimes it's hours, other times months. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, are you aware that this is a sockpuppet of a banned editor? Pahunkat (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahunkat, I wasn't, but not exactly shocked to hear that lol. I've G5'd the draft. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came across this account earlier in the week, considered if they were a sock for the canvassing and then decided that I was being to harsh to the newcomers. Facepalm. Pahunkat (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

I consistently enjoy your contributions and efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers! JBchrch talk 00:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JBchrch! I've appreciated your work on cleaning up the Main Page to remove portal links, and I hope that'll be completed in the future! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newspaper of record[edit]

Are you still developing and deploying {{Newspaper of record}}, or is it abandoned? A group of us are going through reports of untranscluded templates to clean up the template namespace, and this one is on the list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still has the possibility of being developed and integrated into {{find sources}}, yes, so I'd oppose deletion. I've put it temporarily on pause, though, since I'm doubting whether we should be including as many links in Find sources as we do, and how that fits in with things like the WP:Library. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Obird61 (15:12, 14 January 2022)[edit]

I can no longer access the Post Tribune daily electronic version of the newspaper, which I have a paid subscription to. Can you help me? --Obird61 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Obird61: That would be a question for the Post Tribune staff, not for us at Wikipedia. We have no affiliation with them and no control over your subscription. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft categories[edit]

There's no rule that merely disabling categories is preferred over removing them entirely. There are, rather, a lot of complicated considerations that go into the choice, so there's not necessarily a right or wrong answer.

For example, sometimes people try to add drafts to redlinked categories that don't even exist at all, such that there would be absolutely no benefit to leaving that category on the page in disabled form. Or they add drafts to categories that wouldn't be the correct ones even if the page were allowed to be in categories, such as adding a musician directly to Category:Music, again with absolutely no benefit to leaving that category on the page in any form.

Or the editor who's cleaning up bad categorization of draft/user pages is processing a large batch all at once, and can't be expected to take on added steps that make the job longer than necessary. For example, if I'm cleaning up a large batch of 30 or 50 drafts all at once via AWB, that tool offers no way to actually verify whether all of a page's categories actually exist, whether they're all the correct categories, and on and so forth — so the only thing I can do in that instance is either a blanket "remove all categories entirely" or a blanket "disable all categories but leave them there even if they're wrong or non-existent".

And while there isn't any 100 per cent foolproof way to totally prevent the readdition of categories by the page creator at a later date, in my experience it is a lot less common to see people readd categories that have been removed entirely than it is to see people re-enable categories that merely have been disabled — for example, one of the pages I removed categories from a couple of hours ago did feature categories that had previously been disabled by another editor and then re-undisabled by the page creator, while none of them featured categories that had previously been removed from the page and then readded at a later date.

So yes, I do also wish that there were a technical solution in place to automatically keep draft and sandbox pages out of mainspace categories, so that we wouldn't actually have to give a flying honk whether people were adding categories to draft or userspace pages or not — but there just isn't a rule that categories on draft or user pages have to be disabled rather than being removed, because sometimes both are necessary under different circumstances. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bearcat! If we have to choose between mass-disabling vs. mass-removing, I think it's better to go with mass-disabling. While there are indeed many incorrect categories in draftspace, often they're a start, so better than nothing. Also, it's easier for editors working in draftspace to have their work altered as little as possible. This is especially true for newcomers who may not know how to access the page history to recall their category work if they've forgotten.

Hopefully there's a Phabricator ticket somewhere seeking a solution to draft categorization. I'll go search for it, and if I can't find anything, I'll open one. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat, I created the ticket at phab:T299286. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A list in Draftspace[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your contribution at State Public Libraries (Spain). Keep up the good work. Cheers! - Hatchens (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hatchens! I'm glad to have been able to help with it a little bit, although it was MJSB73MP who did most of the work to get it restored to mainspace! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for telling me how I had to improve the article-list. Cheers! --MJSB73MP (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks[edit]

Hello. This change is not desirable. In Persian, like French, guillemets is used as quotation marks. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @4nn1l2, and thanks for pointing that out! I've restored the guillemets, but the change to them came from the WP:GENFIX set rather than anything specific to my bot, so it's likely that the next time anyone using AutoWikiBrowser comes by that article, they'll restore the error unless the GENFIXes are corrected. I'd recommend reporting the issue at WT:GENFIX and creating a Phabricator ticket so that it can be handled from there. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That may be a feature rather than a bug. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not quite sure, since there is the except when such marks are internal to quoted non-English text exception. Maybe ask at an MOS/project talk page for clarification if there's uncertainty. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:California Metrolink link logo[edit]

Template:California Metrolink link logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piyoosh Yadav (02:08, 19 January 2022)[edit]

Hi How can add fotos when we r editing --Piyoosh Yadav (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piyoosh Yadav, see Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/1. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surname hatnotes[edit]

What's been going on lately with surname hatnotes? A while back it seemed like there was some movement to move that stuff to a footnote (which I support). Is that still ongoing? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crossroads! I'm still interested in moving forward with that; I checked with Primefac a few weeks ago about the technical end of things, and now the next step is crafting a big proposal for VPR laying out the rationale. If you'd be interested, it'd be great to have help drafting that; we could work on it in a sandbox somewhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll have time to help draft it, but I definitely appreciate the effort you and anyone else can put in. Please ping me when this goes to VPR, per WP:APPNOTE. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads, as you asked to be notified, the proposal is live at VPR. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait credits[edit]

Continuing the conversation (not specific to infobox person}}, I recall one discussion I had about crediting the artist and cited MOS:CREDITS, and they said they believed all paintings should be captioned with the artist per MOS:ART#Image captions. What do you think of a hatnote there along the lines of

MB 03:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB, hmm, it seems like we have some conflicting guidelines there, as MOS:ART says it's necessary to include the artist but MOS:CREDITS discourages it. I'd recommend opening discussion to try to resolve the disparity. I'm a fan of hatnotes between guidance pages, as it helps tie them together and can be a step toward consolidation. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mishka NYC[edit]

hello im writing you to ask why you edited Mishka NYC page with false information. Mishka was founded in 2003 not 2013. They were founded in Brooklyn New York and currently Headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Greg Rivera, the co founder of Mkishka is actually my brother and was just curious as to where you got that false information. Tfromm09 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tfromm09! Thanks for reaching out to report the error. I looked at the revision history of Mishka NYC. I came by it and made a semi-automated minor copy edit in October, which I presume is why you're coming to me. More recently, on December 29, an anonymous user from Indonesia vandalized the article. Most vandalism is quickly caught and reverted, but unfortunately in this case it was missed and lingered. I see you already boldly edited the article to correct it; thank you! If you'd like to make further changes, feel free to let me know or to place {{Requested edit}} on the article's talk page, but beyond simple factual corrections, I'd advise you not to edit it directly because of your conflict of interest as the founder's sibling. One other thing: articles on businesses are required to have sources establishing that they are notable under this guideline; the sources previously in the article weren't sufficient for that, so I added a few. I hope that helps explain; feel free to ask if you'd like to know anything else, and I hope you go on to make more contributions elsewhere! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the reply. i learned alot from what you mentioned. im not a big editor i just stumbled upon some wrong info and decided to change it. if i came across as rude i apologize. thanks for the clarification and contributions. greatly appreciated Tfromm09 (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For making {{uw-ewsoft}} (permanent link) the perfect information template, in teamwork with Generalrelative. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ToBeFree! It was a pleasure to work with Generalrelative, and I hope the result helps steer editors along a non-warry path. In general, I hope we devote more effort to improving user warnings—if they're designed well, they don't have to come across as impersonal the way many of them still do. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Want a bio I've summarized[edit]

Publication assistance Aajayi27 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aajayi27, you'll need to communicate much more clearly than that for me to be able to help you. If you're looking to write a new article, please see Help:Your first article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Model article[edit]

Template:Model article has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot oil for SdkbBot![edit]

	Bot oil
	Your bot comes across my pagewatchlist sometimes. I think it deserves some motor oil so it can keep going like the energizer bunny. Just pour it in the gas tank. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC) (Edited because of lack of caffeine at 20:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@I dream of horses: Caffeine is definitely the bot oil of humans Hope it's not cluttering your watchlist too much! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's the truth! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for your edit on Template:Happy Birthday! I usually attribute, but forgot to on this one

🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
[reply]

@EpicPupper: Thanks for the kind feedback! I'm always happy to have more kittens Revamping {{First Edit Day}} right now. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navigating Wikipedia[edit]

Hi this is User:Nick Moyes I've just created a brand new account for understanding the current new user experience, and from which I'm contacting you. I've just followed a few links at Help:Getting started including Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia. It struck me that the information at the top of Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/6, which explains what the key elements that I see when logged in are, really ought to have much higher priority, as they're incredibly helpful to understand what one sees when one is logged in. It could even go into the lower half of an expanded version of Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/1. I was wondering what you thought? Regards, Nick. NM Demo 2 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick! I agree those are definitely important, and should probably have higher priority. They'll be changing soon when New Vector rolls out, so that might be a good time to change some stuff around. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SdkbBot blanked three pages[edit]

SdkbBot blanked three pages: Célestin Harst, Catherine Dumas and Canton of Gordes.

These seem to be incidents, as other edits managed to be saved properly. —Mainframe98 _talk 12:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mainframe98: Hmm, thanks for bringing that to my attention; that's quite odd. I've paused the bot and will investigate. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved here at VPT. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Dandelion Program[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Dandelion Program has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Lead contest 2021[edit]

Thank you for participating in the Take the Lead contest. You are one of the winners and to sort out the prize could you email me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to coordinate. Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Marc Los Huertos[edit]

Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Marc Los Huertos, 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) 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

Hi. Can you perhaps help, and point me in the right direction? I'm at a loss as to where to post this request, and you seem to be a contributor to a related page.

I drafted an article, which was published a few days back. Stephen Kovacs. The fellow died in prison this month. An official report as to cause of his death will be announced when the immediately initiated investigation into the matter concludes. That could well be any day; in recent parallel situations, announcements were made within a week or two of death, from what I can see.

I was initially puzzled as to why when I google the name of the person who the article is about, the article does not appear in the google search. I'm told, and this is all new territory for me, that though the article went through the AFC process, that doesn't mean it was seen by a "NPP reviewer or admin" (I'm not sure what an NPP reviewer is, or how to post to them this request). I'm told that (it was my bad luck?) the reviewer was not one of those.

I'm also told that the article has to be marked as "patrolled" (the "magic word" added?)

Otherwise, it will not be picked up in google searches for three months.

While I understand that nobody at the project has to do anything, and that we are all volunteers, I was wondering if there is a place I can post where someone can perhaps help me, if they have time or interest?

As it is an article of current interest to our readers, and will be even more so quite imminently, I was hoping I could make the entreaty somewhere.

Thank you very much. 2603:7000:2143:8500:EC64:FB79:7C07:7BDE (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! NPP refers to "New Page Patrol". For any unfamiliar acronym on Wikipedia, you can find out about it by typing "WP:" and then the acronym into the search bar. Here, that'll take you to WP:NPP. I happen to be an NPP patroller, and since the article looks good and your request is reasonable, I've gone ahead and marked it patrolled, so it should be indexed by search engines shortly. Thanks for your contributions! I hope you'll consider registering an account and continuing to contribute elsewhere. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mail[edit]

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested wishlist items[edit]

Hi talk page stalkers! I have misgivings about the decision to run another wishlist this year when so few items from last year have been resolved, but since it's happening, here are some items I've supported:

• Allow wikilinks and formatting in TemplateData
• Show editnotices on mobile
• Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations
• Limit which namespaces are allowed in a category on the category page itself (fixing WP:DRAFTNOCAT)
• Make the edit request process easier
• Tool to add Wikidata to an article
• Better diff handling of paragraph splits
• VisualEditor should use human-like names for references
• Formatting columns in table
• Advanced table tools on Visual Editor
• Include section links in WhatLinksHere
• Table sorting on mobile
• Allow adding sitelink to redirect in Wikipedia section (Wikidata)
• Floating table headers

I encourage you to support these, too! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mkibona Signpost article[edit]

Hello Sdkb,

Thanks for giving the Mkibona kerfluffle a write-up in The Signpost. I wasn't sure why Clark was mentioned by name in the article, while the AfD nominator was not. Was it an editorial decision not to name minors? If so, it may be worth explaining this in an editorial note. I suspect this may get coverage in other news sites. Schierbecker (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy link to the article) @Schierbecker, yes, it was an editorial decision given the overall context of the situation.

On off-wiki coverage, honestly, I really hope that doesn't happen. I wrote the article since I think it's an illuminating incident pertinent to our work as experienced editors, but I think non-Wikipedia readers would likely find the situation a lot harder to understand, since for them questions like whether the article on Black Women Radicals was within policy aren't clear the way they are to us. It's also one thing to shine the relatively moderate spotlight of the Signpost on an issue, whereas it would be very much another to pick it up elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evylena Nunn Miller[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeslieCompton (talk • contribs) 00:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pair of wire clippers for you![edit]

Thanks for defusing the situation at It's Elementary's TFA nompage—that could've been bad. I hope this pair of wire clippers helps with future defusals :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Theleekycauldron! It's an important topic, and it'll be nice to see some LGBTQ representation as TFA. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Montrea?[edit]

How did your 24 October 2021 VisualEditor edit manage to mangle the link to Montreal?! – wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm good question lol; thanks for fixing it! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stay aware with LTA Albert20009......[edit]

Sir, stay aware with LTA Albert20009...... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Albert20009 AdhiOK (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 years[edit]

Thank you! Love the portrait you've drawn of me... GiantSnowman 18:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman, my pleasure; congrats! Link for anyone else curious. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actors' names in plot summaries[edit]

On Dec 26 2021 you supported me when I asked about removing actor's names from plot summaries (see Teahouse/Questions Archive 1136 topic 68). User Marchjuly then left a long critique, and a strong response supporting me against them has been deleted before the section was archived. The upshot is user Beyond My Ken has just reverted all my many edits and has asked me to "not continue doing this."

They say on my talk page that "FILMPLOT is a MOS style guideline and not a mandatory policy. Many of us feel that having actors' names in the plot section is a service to our readers..." How do I find out is "many of us" is actually a consensus? (I guess there's no way to retrieve the deleted support for my suggestion.) -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete; thanks for reaching out! Link to the Teahouse discussion is here, for reference. I've left a reply to BeyondMyKen at the discussion at your talk page. To keep everything centralized in one place, let's continue further discussion there. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! How do we know Beyond My Ken will see your response on my talk page? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles, whenever you mention a user's name in a signed comment, they get a notification (as you will for this comment). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That merchandise giveaway nomination you made :-)[edit]

Hi Sdkb! I hope you're doing well! I was just archiving some old user talk page discussions from my talk page, and I remembered that you left this message for me back in December. :-) A random fun fact: I'm still waiting for Seddon (WMF) to reach out to me in order to send me the shirt that I was nominated and approved for about four years ago... LOL! Oh well, no big deal - I wouldn't want to give the guy a hard time over something so small. I guess we'll see what happens with this nomination... I was just checking the nomination page, and it looks to still be active! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Yep, that nomination is still active! I hope you get your shirt one way or another—it'll be well-deserved! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, after I left this message on your talk page, I went and (gently, of course) poked the bear. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences#United_States_(135_articles)[edit]

the general consensus on vital article talk is that this list needs to be trimmed a lot, but I'm not sure which ones should go. (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out, @Buidhe. Yeah, I've looked at that list before, and it's intriguing but clearly not fully optimized. The fact that the list is organized by sports conference rather than geography or something else makes me a little suspicious off the bat. Some articles like Xavier University don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them apart from being part of a Division I conference. There are a lot of music/arts schools—as elite as places like the tiny Colburn School are, I'm not sure we can justify nine articles there rather than just Julliard and maybe a small handful of others. There are also clearly some omissions. I added women's college way back, but the absence of any individual women's colleges sticks out—Wellesley College would be the obvious candidate. I'm not sure there's a particular standout member among HBCUs, but I'd certainly prefer to list the article for the group over plenty of institutions that are currently listed (we should also probably list Higher education in the United States).

I'm more familiar with smaller schools than I am with larger ones, and there's rightly only a few of those listed, so I'll call in ElKevbo here—would you be interested in helping refine and prune the list? Buidhe, do we have a target number? For reference, the U.S. currently has 12 out of 32 articles at level 4 and 135 out of 303 at level 5. Overall, I think we're justified in having the U.S. overrepresented to some extent given how dominant it is in global higher education, but not to this extent. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. I totally agree that sports isn't the right way to organize universities since most are not "vital" for sports-related reasons. I don't think there's a target number, just reducing excess and bringing it in line with the coverage of other countries. See the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Split the "Society and social science" category, and relevant changes (t · c) buidhe 21:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about what exactly is meant by "vital" in this context to be immediately helpful. In other contexts, it could be reasonably interpreted or defined in many different ways: highest ranked, oldest, most influential (no, I don't know how to operationalize that), most alumni, etc. I agree that many of the common metrics do have blind spots; any list of the most vital few hundred articles about U.S. colleges and articles that doesn't include Howard University and Spelman College, for example, has some critical shortcomings. On the other hand, many of the oldest, wealthiest, and largest institutions have indeed had an outsized influence in the nation and the world so just having them overrepresented isn't necessarily unreasonable. ElKevbo (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo, see WP:VAFAQ for the definition of vital. It's somewhat amorphous, but one way to frame it is if had to choose only 100ish articles to keep, which would we choose? I think factors that we can consider include size (maybe have a cutoff enrollment?), history (e.g. College of William & Mary as second oldest), prestige in a particular domain (e.g. MIT/Caltech as the best known tech schools or Julliard for music), and uniqueness/extent of appearance in popular culture (e.g. Brigham Young University as a Mormon institution or Arizona State for its reputation for partying). I pared down the list to only the schools I'm familiar enough with to judge and think should be included, which takes it down to a base of 59, but I think there are probably lots of others to add to it. Maybe add all AAU institutions above a certain enrollment, all flagship universities above some higher cutoff, and all universities period above some higher cutoff? Feel free to tinker with my sandbox to show your preferences. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe and Sdkb: Thanks for being interested in WP:VA/L5 and your constributions there but I would avoid from massive removals of all houndrets coat of arms and national flagues. While some users have agreed each other that most (if not all) Coat of of arms are not vital and I will probably not councur that anymore then some also pointed that national flagues can be vital at this level (for example, user:DaGizza or User:John M Wolfson on level 4 talk page). We did not remove all video games by WP:Bold but we are slovely discuss this stuff even though on academic perspective TVseries or Video Games seems be much less vital than national flagues! Online Encyclopedia Britannica has article about every single national flague from China to national flag of Tuvalu, and a lot of countries which are listed at the level 3 have own article on Britannia (Great Seal of the United States currently has 57 references on Wikipedia and own article in Britannia). If you review outlines on Britannica then Flag and Anthems of the World is something about 10% bigger than List of games (combinetly all games from anient games, golf to modern video games). What do you think to we make difference proportionally (of course 50 000 articles is not the same what say 250 000 on Britannica but should not we have proportionally more nationa flagues and anthems than games? What is problem "proportion" of flagues or fact that there is everywhere too many non-vital articles and sometimes list more remind encyclopedia of 300 000 articles than 50 000?). I would consider articles like National Flag of USA or National Flag of China as important part of culture. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawid2009 We recently delisted some flag articles at WP:FAR. It turns out that it's actually really hard to find RS coverage on flags sufficient to support a featured article. IMO, very few flags (US and China might be an exception) have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify vital status. (t · c) buidhe 11:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo, just quickly following up, let me know if you plan to take a look at the list in my sandbox. Having a good representative vital article list would be helpful for us at WP:HED at times when we need to focus our efforts. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would require a lot of thought and work. Maybe start with the members of the Association of American Universities (perhaps the founding members if that's too many institutions) and the institutions listed in the Black Ivy League article. I don't know what comparable group there is for liberal arts colleges (Little Three is in the right direction but much too small and regional; Annapolis Group is too large...). But that still leaves a lot of important types of institutions unrepresented e.g., community colleges, tribal colleges, regional universities. Maybe the list should include representation from each of the Basic Carnegie classification categories? I'll think about this some more; it's an interesting question.

I also think that it's insufficient to solely include articles about U.S. institutions. There are some critical U.S. innovations and developments that should also be included. For example, the Morrill Land-Grant Acts should be at the top of that list as a unique U.S. contribution to the mission and development of colleges and universities. I think it would be acceptable to include that in the "General" subsection of the "Education" section; I see at least one other country-specific article listed there already. I also note that associate degree is missing. I'm sure if I spend some more time I can come up with other suggestions and questions. I'd also be curious to know why some articles are included (e.g., Master of Business Administration) but others aren't (e.g., Master of Arts). And nothing about tenure, accreditation, financial aid, student affairs, and athletics? ElKevbo (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mentorship[edit]

Hello Sdkb,

I found you in the list from the Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list which I went through completely and chosen you mostly by your tech affinity. I'm specialized in IT topics and work in favor of civil rights and privacy as you can see as part of my self-introduction on my user page. Now I'm looking for a mentor to have a starting point here in the community. ARoseWolf is sadly not technical and thus I would flood her with IT topics.

Are you available for mentorship? Are you by chance available on IRC?

Greets GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gavriila! It looks like you've asked several editors to be your mentor. I'm happy to answer any questions anytime, but I wouldn't say I'm particularly knowledgeable about technical IT topics. One forum you may wish to know about is the technical village pump, where a lot of technical editors hang out and can answer advanced questions. For encyclopedic content on technical topics, there's WikiProject Computing and its associated talk page, although it doesn't look particularly active. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:If administrator[edit]

Template:If administrator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tahir R. Andrabi for deletion[edit]

Yousef Raz (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News[edit]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Welcome![edit]

Hello Sdkb!

I'm getting used to this! Thank you for the welcome. I might lean on your expertise as we work on our projects. --AyitiKiskeya (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)AyitiKiskeyaAyitiKiskeya (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AyitiKiskeya, absolutely; best wishes! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sandew LA on User:Sandew LA (07:16, 19 February 2022)[edit]

Hi! I would like to know if there is a article of something already, can't I creat an another article that related to it. I create an article of Glassy Tiger Life Cycle but it was deleted because there is a page named Glassy Tiger already exist. Can I create an Article related to it ? I hope you will help me with this question. --Sandew LA (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sandew LA! Wikipedia generally only wants one article on any given topic, since having multiple articles is an unneeded duplication that increases the amount of work it takes to maintain the encyclopedia. Since parantica aglea already exists, I'd generally recommend just improving it instead of creating a new article. If you're writing about a subspecies or something else different, the calculus becomes a little trickier; in that case, you could ask what to do at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera. I hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SdkbThank You so much for your help! Sandew LA (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TFA[edit]

Hello. Would you be able to move your nomination of Pomona College to the 8th? I've listed beaver for April 7 which is International Beaver Day. LittleJerry (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleJerry! I'm sorry to see the date conflict there. I nominated Pomona for the 7th earlier this month because the topic has a strong tie to that date, which unfortunately would be lost if I moved it to the 8th. I would certainly love to see beaver on the Main Page—as I've mentioned you before, I love how you've worked on so many TFAs for popular animals—so I'd suggest nominating it for another date or for April 7 next year. My apologies again—to make it up to you, I'd be happy to take a look at one of your open FACs and leave some comments (just let me know which). Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, how about looking at red panda? LittleJerry (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry, absolutely! I'll get to it shortly. Thanks again for your graciousness on this! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Marc Los Huertos[edit]

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Marc Los Huertos".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bad page for beginners[edit]

Template:Bad page for beginners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your insights and input[edit]

Hi. If it is okay for me to do so, then I would like to ask if you could please kindly provide some input. Are there any conditions under which I could please ask you to support the template below, perhaps here, or at the discussion at Village Pump? The proposed template is below.

Please note, I will gladly make any, and all changes and revisions to this template above that you may request, seriously. I simply want to get the basic concept and idea behind this template into a working form, namely, to approach the goals listed at Village Pump.I would like us to really try to reach some positive consensus on this. I will welcome any revisions that you may request. Is it possible for us to please have a collaborative dialogue on this, where we might work through any possible issues and problems,. and arrive at a mutually beneficial consensus, that allows us to add this as a positive community resource?

I would welcome any input you may have. Please feel free to reply. thanks.

Template:

Thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900, just as it is not possible to save a non-notable article no matter how much one edits it, you won't be able to make adjustments to that navbox that would cause me to support it, as the fundamental issue is its existence: we do not need a new introductory navbox, as we already have {{Basic information}} and several others. Myself and several other editors have patiently explained this to you at the village pump discussion and deletion discussion, but you continue to ask questions that we have already answered (e.g. here) and seem determined to persist, which raises concerns that you are not listening. Please take in the advice you have been given and drop the proposal to create this navbox. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, fair enough. I have begun to create a revised version of Template:basic information, in my user space, as you recommended. below is the draft so far.

--Sm8900 (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona College scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Pomona College article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 7, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 7, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your requests for spoken articles[edit]

Hello. I see you've requested several prominent articles be spoken allowed by someone willing to read them. I recently joined the Spoken Wikipedia project, and rather enjoy doing so. I've read only one article, and one stub so far: Tehachapi_Energy_Storage_Project and I rather think I mangled some of the sentences and especially the last paragraph. I've been looking for feedback on my work but it seems no one is really willing to listen to a thirty minute talk to criticize it for speech errors, myself least of all. Before attempting any of the rather large articles you've requested, I do hope to get some feedback, or perhaps even assistance in finding and editing out any problems in the recording, as well as any suggestions for improvement. Finally, may I ask your opinion on whether articles such as English_Language should be broken into multiple recordings or posted in one long blast? It is my intent to keep all original audacity files for future modification as needed. Thanks for your eyeballs, and perhaps for your eardrums. Gallomimia (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gallomimia; thanks for reaching out! I have to say that my thinking on spoken articles has evolved somewhat since I posted those requests. Fundamentally, the issue is that (as you've discovered) it takes a ton of work to create them, and consequently they almost never get updated, thus going out of date and diminishing in value over time. Given that text-to-speech technology is constantly improving, I think the best thing we can do for spoken Wikipedia is to encourage developers to pursue support for machine reading of articles and to promote practices good for accessibility like image alt text, rather than reading out big articles ourselves. If we're going to read out any more articles manually, English language is probably the one that'd be most useful (I'll happily offer the {{Spoken Barnstar}} to anyone who reads it), and I'd say single files are better than multiple. But overall, if you're trying to find a high-priority task, I'd have to say you'd be better off looking elsewhere. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb Thanks for getting back to me! It's actually my finding that actually speaking the article and recording it is very easy; it is the refining and editing mistakes that takes a long time. Or at least, I think it takes a long time, because I have not done it yet. The article I linked as an example, my first try, took just over an hour to complete, and I like volunteering for this specific work in order to make a resume. So, I will plod on, and hopefully anyone who listens might point out errors in the text which I can revise. Gallomimia (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

​ Best wishes! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts[edit]

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Cdjp1! Was there a particular edit of mine that prompted this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's for your collective edits to the article COVID-19 pandemic. I've been going through COVID related articles and giving stars to some of the most prevalent editors helping to expand, verify, and maintain the articles. --Cdjp1 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it; thanks again! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
31,875		Kyiv offensive (2022) (talk)	Add sources
82,857		War in Donbas (talk)	Add sources
12		Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations (talk)	Add sources
576,524		Volodymyr Zelenskyy (talk)	Add sources
14		Feza Gürsey (talk)	Add sources
95		Oor Wullie (talk)	Add sources
114		History of the Jews in Afghanistan (talk)	Cleanup
9,507		2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (talk)	Cleanup
85		Hasty Pudding Theatricals (talk)	Cleanup
9		State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (talk)	Expand
417		U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking (talk)	Expand
485,519		Russo-Ukrainian War (talk)	Expand
420		Attack the Block (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
204		Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
170		Wikipedia in culture (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,741		Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (talk)	Merge
329		Criticism of Wikipedia (talk)	Merge
1,784		Molon labe (talk)	Merge
3,812		Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk)	Wikify
16		Cambridge Public Library (talk)	Wikify
45		Traquair House (talk)	Wikify
6		Mathieu Laplante (talk)	Orphan
1		Li Jindou (talk)	Orphan
6		Dipen J Parekh (talk)	Orphan
461		Turkey–Ukraine relations (talk)	Stub
77		State Street Bank and Trust Company (talk)	Stub
47		Tula pryanik (talk)	Stub
11		Moses Cabrera (talk)	Stub
3,472		Sergey Kozlov (politician) (talk)	Stub
373		SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those Little "I am a mammal" boxes[edit]

Please teach me how to do that... I've tried, just take a look at my user page... the formatting is off and I'm not sure what exactly I'm doing wrong... Please help... :/

Tschau, Dwightol102 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dwightol102! Those are called userboxes; see WP:Userboxes. The mammal one is Template:User mammal; to add it to your userpage, just place the code {{User mammal}} and save. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with English language reference[edit]

I have not paid a great deal of attention to the section of Russian information war against Ukraine about the Russian-language Wikipedia since this is the only part of the article that anybody else seems interested in editing, but in general, unless the Russian or Ukrainian source is clearly unreliable for what it’s being used for, I am letting the sources in these languages stand and adding additional sources in English. I am not concerned enough about this to go see what happened with this particular source, but please be aware that I am not necessarily in favor of replacing sources, even POV sources, unless there is a clear reason to do do. So please do discuss if you feel a need to do this in the other article sections, as the entire article is about POV pushing and the references are often used as examples. That said, if you speak Russian or Ukrainian I do encourage you to help in the rest of the article. The talk page is full of questions Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elinruby! I've followed the Mark Bernstein arrest fairly closely and read the coverage of it both in English and (through Google Translate) in Russian/Belarusian. The reason I made this edit was that, per the WP:NONENG policy, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance. In this case, I felt that the Verge article was a comprehensive overview of what's known so far, so I replaced the other sources with it. I hope that helps explain! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree with your reading of that policy, especially for this article. However, Verge is offhand fine, and I have not looked at the Russian article. That section is a small subset of the article that seems to have a lot of volunteers and there are more urgent fish for me to fry. I am simply asking that if you work on other parts of the article you refrain from doing this without discussing as there are many many foreign-language sources which have non-Anglophone points of view and that is usually why they are still there. As to this edit, I left a message for the editor who used the Russian-language reference, and as far as I am concerned if he has an issue you two can discuss. If he doesn’t then great. I am happy to have somebody working on at least that part of the article and am going to go back to figuring out what to say about all the closed, deplatformed and blocked media outlets on the various sides. TL;DR the article needs help but is being actively worked, so please discuss any other changes and by all means feel free to opine on some of the questions on the talk page. Elinruby (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Endurance (1912 ship)[edit]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for getting the ball rolling again on the main page portals. It's looking like a very high likelihood of passing :D

A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
[reply]

Growth Newsletter #20[edit]

17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the all mighty Sdkb[edit]

Sdkb!! How are you? I recall seeing a map where one can use a blank map and put down markers for important locations. It was different than the map you have in the Campus section of the Pomona College—but I could have sworn I saw you using it somewhere. Do you have any idea what I'm talking about? I'm working on Josquin des Prez#Life where there is a dispute over his birthplace, so I'd like to have a map of France/Belgium with some markers for the candidates. Though it would be preferable, I can't find a suitable pre-made map of the area from his time on the commons unfortunately. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24 all mighty? Not sure about that haha 😅 But to your question, I think you're probably looking for {{Location map+}}; is that it? Wikipedia:Maps for Wikipedia has some other options. All else being equal, {{Maplink}} is the newer and more capable format. Best of luck with the article! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I may try and commission a map, otherwise I think {{Location map+}} will work well. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation[edit]

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Gog! It's an interesting area and I'm happy to be able to help! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2022 Fukushima earthquake[edit]

Removal of {{current}}[edit]

I noticed you made a BOTREQ for this a while back, that Naypta dealt with by filing Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yapperbot 2. Seems the task is currently not working (?), as {{current}} has ~190 transclusions. Am I missing something or do I presume that bot task is dead? If so, I can probably file a new one to run Naypta's code since it is open source, but just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something before filing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProcrastinatingReader! Naypta hasn't been around since 2020 (I've missed them!), so I'd presume that any tasks their bot was handling are inactive and in need of resurrection. Thanks for taking this on! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, hope they're doing well! I've filed the task at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 10 to take over using their source in the interim. The utility of OS bot tasks reminds me I should get around to doing the same with ProcBot at some point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely—open sourcing is such a huge WP:ENDURE consideration for any bot. Thanks again! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I know I just replied to you, but looking back through my responses today I might be coming off as a bit abrasive (I am quite tired) and just wanted to apologise if I have come off in that way. Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 18:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Terasail! No worries—you didn't come off as abrasive in the discussion at all. I agree with you that the current icon is rather lacking, so it makes sense you'd want to use a different one. Hopefully someday Wikipedia's iconography will get a more comprehensive reboot and standardization. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For a well cultivated, detailed, and helpful response to a comment at RfA. ––FormalDude talk 22:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FormalDude! I try to help where I can. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Dru C. Gladney[edit]

Photo Request for Bay Area Figurative Movement[edit]

Yes, all the examples for Bay Area Figurative Movement were stripped out for WP:NFCC back in 2019. It's a real shame. --Knulclunk (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Knulclunk, indeed. I came across the issue when trying to put together a gallery for the new Culture of California#Visual arts section I just added. There are unfortunately no examples of funk art, either, unless you count this (that's a FfD link) or this (and I can't bring myself to use as the representative artwork for a state with 39 million people a piece that failed to clear the legal threshold of originality lol). I'm not a copyright specialist, but I feel like there's probably a fair use rationale for adding at least something for the Bay Area Figurative Movement—funk art does so for its lead, and an article on an art movement cannot be complete without an image. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Protection Act[edit]

Hello Sdkb,

I wanted to ask you about changes made to the Sunshine Protection Act article. Recently, you reverted my edits to this article, but I did not understand why.

The reason you gave is "Reverting removal of well-sourced claims and addition of redundant see also section." I can see that the 'See also' section may be considered redundant - that much I understand. However, the mention of "well-sourced claims" isn't correct. Two specific of the sources, as I mentioned in my edits, put forth false information relating to the 'unanimous consent' procedure. Many of the sources did not have a neutral point of view. Some of the claims cited comments from lawmakers despite those claims pertaining to researchers. At the very least, it is untrue that these are reliable sources.

I had explained my rationale for removing some of these dubious claims in the Talk page. The discussion as to whether to adopt standard time or daylight saving time is far from settled, and the article on the Sunshine Protection Act ought to reflect this. In its current state - the state which you have reverted - the article contains some mention of suggested benefits of daylight savings time. This is inadequate considering it presents a slanted viewpoint to readers.

The article Permanent time observation in the United States has a rather more thorough investigation of the same matter. So, it would be sensible either to modify the Sunshine Protection Act article to contain a broader discussion of daylight time versus standard time or to excise the relevant parts of the Sunshine Protection Act article. I had done the latter since it seemed, to my judgment, most sensible.

In light of what I have described, then, I do not see why you would revert the entirety of the edits to the Sunshine Protection Act. Perhaps you have another reason?

A248 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A248; thanks for reaching out! I missed that you were also the one who posted to the talk page a few days ago; I'll take another look at things when I next have a moment, and I'll reply to you on the talk page. Source-text integrity and neutrality are both important qualities we should be monitoring as the article develops. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Improvements[edit]

Hello, thanks for giving your feedback (such a detailed comment!) already. I was hoping you would see my announcement on the Village Pump. What do you think, where could I write to make it even more visible? I'm asking about the English Wikipedia pages, specifically. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SGrabarczuk (WMF)! Hmm, I think the village pumps where you've already posted are the main places I'd expect to see an announcement like that. A post to WT:Usability wouldn't hurt, but I don't think many others actively follow that page. The next step up would be a watchlist banner like you did for previous prototypes; that'd only be necessary if you wanted to get dramatically more feedback. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		For sticking up for readers. Over time, I've noticed your advocacy for changes and policies that make Wikipedia better for everyday readers, not just for us editors. I think the reader's experience is too often overlooked, so I wanted to give you this! Ganesha811 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Ganesha811! I think it's crucial work and I'm glad to do what I can Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost editorial affirmation[edit]

In a poll in The Signpost newsroom you said "I do not think it's appropriate for us, as the house publication of Wikipedia, to take sides in any dispute not directly related to the encyclopedia's purpose". I agree with your statement, but fail to recognize how you are judging the Ukraine War to be unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose.

There is blocking of Wikipedia in Russia, the killing of Ihor Kostenko while photographing for Wikipedia, and the Detention of Mark Bernstein. I agree that The Signpost is generally not a place for taking sides in disputes, but this particular war seems to include opposition to Wikipedia.

What is the nature of your opposition? If you posted thoughts elsewhere, I did not seem them in your edit history. Thanks. Also, thanks for commenting at all, because whatever you are thinking and feeling I expect that other people also have the same view. I want to understand. Bluerasberry (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bluerasberry; thanks for reaching out! I agree that there are aspects of the war that are related to our purpose, and I think it's fine for us as a community to speak up about those—indeed, I considered opening up a community statement on Bernstein (although the political/legal sensitivity of that situation ultimately made it more prudent not to). The Signpost editorial, however, went beyond just open knowledge issues and instead ran the headline We stand in solidarity with Ukraine. That sort of blanket statement is what I objected to. I hope that helps clarify my stance. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User's RfA[edit]

Are you planning to continue work on {{User's RfA}}? There is a group of us trying to tidy up untranscluded template pages, and this one popped up on a recent report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jonesey95! It's a functional template with a plausible usage, so I wouldn't see any reason to delete it. The main limitation is that it relies on {{If in category}}, which is very expensive as it requires a string search. Hopefully at some point it'll become easier to search a page's categories, as there are myriad possible applications. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Pinging SPECIFICO. I am currently dealing with a pattern with an editor that suggests a possible problem. Looking back at some of your comments, I noticed this one that stood out to me [1]. Can you tell me more about how this comment came about, or if there is some history to it? No allegations please, just facts and or diffs. Thanks for your time. DN (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DN; thanks for checking in! Republican Party (United States) and similar pages, e.g. Donald Trump, unfortunately have a quite strained editing environment. While I try to assume good faith as much as possible, when you spend time monitoring those pages, it becomes pretty plain that some editors (on multiple sides) are there to POV push by reverting any information they don't want present and forcing others to go through an entire RfC for each fact. I don't have time at the moment to collect a bunch of diffs, but if you search through the talk page archives, you'll find plenty of examples. A few admins have given out warnings to some of the most blatant offenders, e.g. [2].

For this particular issue, the initial argument presented, that the Republican National Committee somehow wasn't qualified to speak for the Republican Party, was so absurd on its face that I found it difficult to parse as anything other than an attempt at status quo stonewalling. Editors later pivoted to a more plausible-sounding WP:UNDUE argument, but by that point the mask was off.

Overall, I'm increasingly coming to the view that it's not the best use of my time as an experienced editor to engage much with pages like that, since progress is just so slow when you have to fight over every change. When folks are that tense, even something as banal as adding alt text becomes likely to rustle feathers (for the record, I didn't mind the question linked there at all; I'm choosing it as a deliberately minor example). There will always be editors on each side, and the best we can hope for is that they'll balance each other out and that perhaps in the future, after the dust has settled, others will come along to neutralize biases and make improvements. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your take, however I am not much one for the laissez-faire approach when it comes to observing behavior that perceivably wastes other editors valuable time. It can eventually lead to the interruption in the improvement of an article all together, and then continuing on the next article, and the next, and so on. I'm confused as to why some editors also feel this way when there are clear-ish policies and guidelines in place to keep things moving? Yes consensus is important, but letting editors twist the rules into a backwards version of itself is abhorrent. I would argue that hoping someone else will come along and somehow balance things out (eventually) can be folly, but I also want to listen and learn from more knowledgeable and more experienced editors, such as yourself, even if I disagree with them. What if we are actually that editor that is supposed to shine the light on the inconsistency, inequity and convolution? How do we know? Thank you for taking the time with me today, it is very appreciated. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DN, it's definitely about finding a balance. It can be worthwhile to !vote on some discussions or engage with a problematic editor if it helps limit their future disruption. But the effort-to-reward ratio is lower. When I think back on all the editing I've done, I've had a much greater impact writing in neglected topic areas than I have in marginally shifting the consensus at a few politics articles. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:White Pearl[edit]

Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:White Pearl, 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) 08:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians assessed by WikiProject Users has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Wikipedians assessed by WikiProject Users has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 1[edit]

The new citation template is one of the best 1/4 efforts I've seen. Thanks for brightening up my day. Nthep (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Nthep! I've been informed by some extremely authoritative squiggles in a local outhouse that the launch of {{Cite bathroom graffiti}} has been a success {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For my talk page stalkers, my other April Fools pranks this year (and previous years) are catalogued at User:Sdkb/April Fools. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from McLoad 2 (11:33, 2 April 2022)[edit]

How independent are you ? Who pay's you and for how much, to prevent the truth ? --McLoad 2 (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McLoad, no one is paying us. Your edits at Talk:Michael Yeadon were reverted because they were vandalism. If you have a problem with that article's content, please make actionable suggestions for changes to the text supported by sources Wikipedia considers reliable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Major topic editnotice[edit]

Template:Major topic editnotice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Template:User time zone editnotice[edit]

Template:User time zone editnotice, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User time zone editnotice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User time zone editnotice during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Micro-Face[edit]

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Micro-Face".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my question[edit]

Hi, why you did delete my question I just asked a question and needed an answer.Simsala111 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) WP:VPP where you posted to, is not a place to ask questions. It is for developing and altering policy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Courtesy ping: Simsala111. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: @Vchimpanzee:I don't what courtesy ping means here and why someone replies to another person in a third person's talk page. then where is its the place for this question?! I brought it there as @Vchimpanzee: told me on my own talk page if it is not right place then transfer it to the right place not by deleting the whole thing.I just want my question to be answered. of course not by the same person.Simsala111 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simsala111 I can explain the courtesy ping. That was to let you know there was a response to your question. I see the practice of answering questions on another person's talk page all the time. If they can help, some people who watch other people's talk pages do so.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: But he also deleted my question from there and didn't redirected or gave me any help for doing it so.plus he is the same person that has different opinion from mine in this discussion so he could not be the best person to do that so.I need a neutral person.Simsala111 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That's not right. They didn't delete my question but eventually hid it. I've been told several times I was asking the question in the wrong place. And I don't know what the place is. It seems strange to me that someone with a policy question can't ask it in WP:Village pump (policy).

The only thing I can suggest is going back to the Help Desk and maybe someone will answer this time or say where to ask. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Simsala111! I see you've been redirected a few times, so apologies for that—I know that Wikipedia's bureaucracy can be really difficult to navigate, even for those of us who have been around here for a while. Ultimately, the best place to figure out how to approach a question about an article is in a single thread at that article, in this case Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup#Usage of dialects in parenthesis for name of the game for host language. Trying to bring it up anywhere else using anything except {{Please see}} tends to get messy, as unfortunately happened here, as it risks splitting the discussion.

I haven't read the full thread at that article, but from a glance, it looks like the discussion so far isn't going the way you hoped. I certainly empathize with how frustrating that can be—it happens to all of us—but Wikipedia works on consensus, so after you've put forward your best argument, there's really nothing to do except sit back and see if it resonates with others, and if it doesn't, it's generally best to just drop the issue and move on to something else. Discussions do sometimes turn around, but there's less likelihood of that the more sprawly they get, so it's best not to respond to every comment.

More generally, if any questions come up in the future, I'd definitely recommend posting at the Teahouse, which is a dedicated friendly space where editors can give advice and help out. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I left one very important detail out of my advice. Somehow there needs to be a way to ask before posting in the wrong place whether it is the right place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]