User talk:Sdkb: Difference between revisions

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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

	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]

	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]

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]

@OnSpeech, for controversial topics, Wikipedia operates under a consensus model. I'd recommend that you discuss the issue with the other editors on the article's talk page (see our intro to talk pages) and calmly present your sources and explain why they support your edits. Let me know if you have any questions. Government of Rhodesia was deleted as a suspected hoax following this discussion. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to /edit/change my user name but I can't see anywhere where I can do this. Can you help? --Volunteer Centre KC (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Volunteer Centre KC! There's information at Wikipedia:Changing username. Given that you don't yet have any history under your current username, the easier path is probably just to log out and create a new account under the name you want. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You are very hardworking. Keep it up! V. E. (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Visnelma! Is there a particular edit of mine that you saw that prompted this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am just randomly sending love messages to other Wikipedians to motivate them. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Visnelma, gotcha. For that purpose, the foods probably work best—save the barnstars for when we've truly earned them! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb, I am not trying to start a fight or continue an argument here, but I noticed your WP:SNOW close on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Adding spirituality as a group of people that shouldn't be targeted by personal attacks and just wanted to point out WP:SNOW#A cautionary note, which I feel is borderline relevant here -- two days is not really that long for less-active editors to get involved and it's not clear that their views are going to be aligned with those of very-active editors. It is true that the discussion so far was very one-sided though, so I am not disagreeing with your close, but maybe just a suggestion that it probably wouldn't hurt to leave things like this open for another day or two.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the polite note, Sasha. I do realize I closed that discussion after a fairly short window. The standard I try to use is whether or not I could envision any possible way of the discussion turning around and reaching a different result, and for that discussion I just couldn't. The invitation at WP:VPP meant that at least some of the !voters were not watchers of that particular talk page, and the nature of the proposal was simple enough that there wasn't really room to tweak it or for understanding of it to evolve. The tradeoff is always between trying to save editor energy from discussing something that won't pass and the possibility that continued discussion will be of some benefit. In this case, I made the call that a SNOW close was warranted. That said, there is never any prohibition against post-close comments, so if you want to make one, you're welcome to do so. I also won't object if other editors feel that the discussion ought to be reopened. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning, of course I respect your judgment on that. Best wishes, CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdkb:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

The article Pomona College you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pomona College 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 HAL333 -- HAL333 (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the present life of Ali Ayaz (who is also known as Mero), Constantly keeps growing on specific platforms and gains huge amount of appreciation, and love.Other then this ,Ali Ayaz got verified on the platform “TikTok” a week ago, which hooked the interest of bug campaigns.Ali Ayaz gained huge attention, in which the campaign audiences viewed Ali Ayaz’s social, and popular platforms. The popular campaign ended up deciding to send Ali Ayaz an email which was a request from the company, this request presented Ali Ayaz a different opportunity and way of growing.After analyzing the looks, behavioral actions and actions of Ali Ayaz, the campaign decided to send Ali Ayaz a formal request, which is optional.The company requested Ali Ayaz to perform and step on the stage as a Model, The company itself is still waiting an answer from Ali Ayaz. Mero Daily News (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mero Daily News—I don't understand your comment. Do you have a question? If you are hoping to create an article on Ayaz, please see Help:Your first article. Please note that you will have to change your username, as we don't allow accounts with organization names. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do not know if there are more editors who will be willing to update this template. In recent months, it has already become more challenging to edit the template. Will it be possible to use Wikidata for several countries? I am aware that this bot updates some relevant pages, but it does so more than one day after new figures are released. However, using the bot is now more preferable because it reduces the need for editors to open a lot of sources several times every day. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LSGH! The fact that COVID-19 data has been decentralized rather than consolidated into a centralized venue was an ongoing source of frustration for me until I eventually just gave up. At that time, Wikidata wasn't really being the centralized venue it ought to have been, which was creating problems when we tried to source from it, as @Naypta and I did for per capita data (some discussion about that is here; he stopped editing pretty suddenly last August, so I hope he's alright). I haven't been following since then, so perhaps the bot you link has improved the situation. Overall, if you want to dive into that area, best of luck, but I'm unfortunately too burnt out to be of much assistance. Eventually the pandemic will end and we'll stop having to constantly update the numbers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do hope that the pandemic will end soon. I also need to deal with other problems in real life. I checked some of the related Wikidata pages, and it appears that only a few of those pages are being constantly updated manually by some active editors. As far as I know, the template contains fetch codes for India and Indonesia only. It's difficult to do a lot of manual updates every day, and some countries release figures irregularly. Is it okay if more fetch codes will be placed in the template even if several of those Wikidata pages are not updated manually? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LSGH, you'd have to discuss and see what the consensus is. I know @RayDeeUx was active in the area a while back, but I'm not sure who's there nowadays. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked an editor who used to edit the template several times every day, but he has not replied yet. If using Wikidata will not be possible and other people cannot help, then what else can be done so that editors can edit the template less often? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that anything can be done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Unearthed (publication), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that undercover journalists at the Greenpeace publication Unearthed tricked an ExxonMobil lobbyist into revealing the company's agenda by posing as job recruiters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Unearthed (publication). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Unearthed (publication)), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did see you are editing on wikidata so maybe you could help me with a problem I have.
I have asked here but not yet received an answer.
This file Huaynaputina tephra fallout under Structured data/Wikimedia username, as an example.
I'm adding "Wikimedia username:" to my works here. I then get a "!" where it's stated "citation needed constraint" and that I need to add a reference.
I have read and tried numerous variations of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Goran_tek-en but no one has been accepted.
What am I supposed to put there? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en, hmm, interesting. What seems to be happening here is that statements on Wikidata generally allow references, but that functionality hasn't been imported for the use of Wikidata for structured data on Commons, as most things added there wouldn't need a reference. Because of that, there doesn't seem to be a way to get the exclamation mark to go away.

My suggestion would be not to try to add your username to the structured data in the first place. It's technically incorrect, as Wikimedia username (P4174) is for people, not for images; the image itself doesn't have a username. You'll still be recorded as the uploader on the main file page, and if that information is ever transferred to structured data, it'll likely be imported automatically. I hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining although I didn't fully understood all of it.

• You say not to add Wikimedia username, but my problem is that a bot is doing this in this way (with out exclamation mark) and in doing so it adds an incorrect creator with Wikimedia username so I have to correct it. This is due to that I have stated |author=[[User:Goran tek-en|Goran_tek-en]], requested by and knowledge from {{U|x}} in the information Template so the bot takes the last username and add it as creator, this is what I'm correcting now. Also I have now changed the way how I state requested by and knowledge from {{U|x}} to avoid this problem.
• I understood it as this was the Wikimedia username of the creator, but you say it's not. So then the bot is also doing something which is wrong, that is serious as it affects many images.
• If this is not the name of the creator I don't understand how it can be added by the bot under "creator/". This is so complicated and hard to grasp. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can see what SchlurcherBot is adding regarding name etc, here.I will also contact the user for that bot. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en, so the bot appears to be working correctly as far as recording the data in the proper format. It's adding Wikimedia username as a qualifier to creator (P170), which is the correct way to do it: the image doesn't have a username, but the creator of the image (i.e. you; it records it as "some value" since it doesn't know of a Wikidata item for you as a person) does.

Adding the wrong username is definitely an issue, though. I'd definitely reach out to the bot operator, as they're expected to be communicative about that sort of issue. They also probably know more about structured data than I do. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 18:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Debra Cleaver, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that donors withdrew $4 million in funding from Vote.org after its board fired its founder and CEO, Debra Cleaver? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Debra Cleaver. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Debra Cleaver), 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, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have been active in the archive template area (With your TfD of {{Auto archiving notice}}) and thought I should notify you that I have TfD'd {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} for merge with {{Archives}} here. Terasail^[✉️] 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite; commented! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to Wikipedia. 1RingFB (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 1RingFB! Is there a particular edit of mine you saw that prompted this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me find the video editor. I used it earlier today. I am surprised to find my edit from earlier today is now replaced by someone else. I have not prepared another edit yet, but after 10 edits and 4 days, I can edit the criticism in the Blue Lives Matter article. --TravelerEditorRealChanger (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TravelerEditorRealChanger! I'm not sure what you mean by the video editor; I'm not aware of Wikipedia having any in-house video editor. Regarding your edit, it looks like you did a good job including a reference and it does not appear anyone else has reverted it. Let me know if you need any further help. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for mentoring. I meant to ask how to find the visual editor I used earlier today not the video editor. Text editors show us hand code, maybe, but visual editors allow us to type as if in a word processor. Difficult to see how to reply to your answer, too. --TravelerEditorRealChanger (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TravelerEditorRealChanger: Oh, VisualEditor! Yes, to enable that, just change your preferences as shown here. Feel free to let me know if you have any trouble. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is a good way to find that visual editor. I also used my settings to choose it by default when possible. I think it is beta, but I like it. By the way, I never wrote those sentences using reference 11. I used that reference with one shorter sentence that is now gone, but no complaints. Curious about who changed it. Added another sentence just now with citation [12]. --TravelerEditorRealChanger (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TravelerEditorRealChanger, you can view the page's history here; page histories can be complicated, but there's a quick intro here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note: on the article [1] I added a sentence and the editor removed it with the comment "unnecessary". The email says I can contact the editor (Magnolia677) with a provided email link or a provided wiki link. Trying the email link gets me a note saying the editor does not accept email. I see no way to use the wiki link to contact the editor. I am OK with the change, but for that same month, other entries show talk about "investigation" (6/27) and camera recordings (6/28). My sentence presented information about those two things in the case of the incident of June 10, 2021. --TravelerEditorRealChanger (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TravelerEditorRealChanger: if you want to contact that user, you can do so on their talk page, but I'd recommend taking a discussion about an article to that article's talkpage where others are likely to chime in - you can make a new section on Talk:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2021 to discuss it. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pomona College, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that students at Pomona College are traditionally thrown into a fountain on their birthday? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pomona College. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pomona College), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sdkb – It would be a great help if you could review the list "United States presidential elections in Arkansas", and provide me with few comments on its FLC page. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kavyansh.Singh! I remedied the lack of a short description. Is there a particular reason you reached out to me? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb – Not any particular reason; just saw you reviewing other lists at FLC. Thanks for adding short description. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I can't make any guarantees, as there's a long queue of articles at FLC and all of us reviewing are of course just volunteers, but if I get a chance to do more, I'll stop by. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a little query. You changed staff to administrative staff, but the number shown are not all administrative staff. The number includes lecturers, tutors and professors. Can you explain the change? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denisarona! The parameter has been displaying as "administrative staff" for many years, even though it appeared in the wikitext on that page using the alias of "staff". Recently, concerns have been raised about the impreciseness of who is included in "administrative staff", so we're going to add a new variable for |total_staff=, which we'll encourage as an alternative. In preparation for that, I'm working on deprecating the alias |staff= to prevent confusion. The edit I made at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore‎ and other pages changed the wikitext but not the display, so if the information is incorrect, that means either that someone misused the parameter when they added it to the page or that past maintainers of the template inappropriately changed it without updating the affected pages. I hope that helps explain, and please let know if you have additional questions. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally in agreement with using Total staff. Hope it succeeds. Denisarona (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HLW --ABLHACKER (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --ABLHACKER (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ABLHACKER: Hello! Do you have a question for me? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, do you really feel that the community needs to weigh in on the papers of record? At first glance, it seems you are just making a point. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, as I noted at the top of the Australian discussion, I'm working on improving the {{Find sources}} module, which currently only includes The New York Times, and has (justifiably imo) drawn complaints that for most non-U.S. articles, that isn't the most appropriate publication of record. The publications of record that we choose for the module will be shown on thousands of talk pages, so I feel that it's important that there is firm community consensus behind their reliability, namely an RSP-greenlisting. That's why I've opened the discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just so you know, you're swimming upstream a bit at that noticeboard. Regulars are often exasperated when editors bring up sources that aren't involved in a specific dispute. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm definitely getting a strong impression of that haha. I hope that the meta discussion doesn't end up distracting too much from the actual discussion, but if others continue to complain, I might have to reset. I was a little oblique in how I talked about the project, which was since it's still at an early technical stage and I want to save the bigger discussion for once it's ready to deploy, but perhaps that was an error. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the intention is to have a parameter for the location which will then put in a search link at that location's paper of record? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current approach is to use the Wikidata item for an article to automatically determine which country it's in, and then choose based on that. {{Talk header}} has more than 500,000 transclusions, a significant percentage of which have associated countries, thus why I'd like to affirm consensus for each of the publications used in the prototype and why we'll be seeking consensus for the selection overall before anything goes live. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool stuff. It's on my watchlist and I'll look out for ways to help. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I reversed the edit request template because it does not fit within the usual criteria for this process -- straightforward matters that one editor can review and decide by themselves. I prepared this in a format for multi-editor discussion. I'm all in favor of appropriate notifications to relevant projects but I don't want to derail multi-editor discussion. What do you think? BC1278 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BC1278: Whether you have the COI edit request tag or not is up to you, but Talk:NBC News is not a heavily watched page, so even with the invites, you're not guaranteed to get a response unless you have it or an RfC tag, which is what you'd really need to get a large multi-editor discussion going. But RfCs are required to be brief, which your post is definitely not. You may want to separate your comments into straightforward fixes that can be done via an edit request and more complex issues that require discussion.

Personally, I am going to recuse myself from responding, as I am still too outraged at your employer's egregious conduct to be able to approach the issue dispassionately. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there is a a spelling mistake "Bronfebrenner" in the reference section but is a hidden cat.

Help

C --Cstapff (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cstapff, thanks for pointing out that typo! I've gone ahead and corrected it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think those redesigned icons on the Graphics Lab in the "Proposal 1" subsection of the "Good article and featured article topicon redesign" section look good. Where was the proposal, and what happened? DesertPipeline (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow failed to notice the hatnote in the "Proposal 1" section. My mistake; sorry! DesertPipeline (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with this, but I am new to Wikipedia. I want to edit a page (Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig) that uses the infobox university. I noticed that you recently edited the page to that infobox, and am hoping you might help point me in the right direction as to how I can go about making changes to the content on the skg page as found in the infobox. PaulRSawa (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PaulRSawa; it's no bother at all! Yeah, infoboxes can be one of the trickier things to edit for newcomers. To improve the infobox for Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, you can look at the documentation at Template:Infobox university, which lists and explains a bunch of the parameters available for that infobox. For instance, one parameter currently missing from the article is the "students" parameter, which gives the number of students who attend the institution. If you can find that number, just go edit the page and add a line to the infobox code as explained here. For the students parameter, that would look like e.g. |students = 4700. Feel free to let me know if you have any difficulty, and I'll be happy to help. Our coverage of indigenous educational institutions has a long ways to go, so I'm glad to see you working on it! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re recent "find sources" stuff, just found this, and thought you might find it useful, too: List of academic databases and search engines. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Woah, that has a lot! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb!

I'm a PhD student at UCL, studying the way knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. Would you be happy to talk about your experience as an editor? If you wish to know more about my project, you can look up my userpage, and/or ask questions. Thanks! ElenaFalco (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello what do you know about khan sir --The Mysterious India by Aditya Mishraxxxx (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Attention theft, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that your attention can be stolen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Attention theft. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Attention theft), 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	My attention was stolen... Clever! Thanks for all you do around here. It makes a difference Eddie891 Talk Work 22:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Got me too! Wonder how successful that hook is gonna be. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! I have high hopes for it, but we'll see what the numbers say when they come out! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 views. I'll take it, especially given it was in a middle slot! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move my sandbox article to public under the title "Mercy Law Resource Centre"? I do not have the option. --HughMLRC (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HughMLRC! I recommend that you submit the article through the Articles for Creation process. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb. I asked a question at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Template:Sub judice about the Marilyn Manson situation but it hasn't been answered yet. At this point I expect to oppose deletion of the templates, but I am not set on that, and have been holding off to see if further info changes my mind. I'm mentioning it here just in case you haven't noticed the question. Cheers, Nurg (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that comment; I've replied now. Thanks for prompting me! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there an encyclopedia with users who can anonymously ,arrogantly and irrevocably delete my sandbox ? Isn’t there a more hands-on approach? I protest ! I require a speedy review. I have a published material that was clearly enough to avert whatever useless reason for such erratic behavior from an anonymous user . I use the same name across social media platforms and a dimwit can find proof by just googling my username. I require my user sandbox to restored immediately. Or I require proof of violation of terms of license. I have a right to publish my personal biography without getting kicked out dimwits who seem unqualified. Boufflord (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I require a proof that my edit was in violation of terms of deletion and I will present proof of published materials across third party. Do you employ dimwits? Boufflord (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Writing my own autobiography is strongly discouraged.. it’s not disallowed! Then i would require some proof that my edit (which is why I’m even on here) was deleted speedily. Even after providing information that proves published material across third parties . And again! Who gives them permission to delete my autobiography without my consent! ? Or proof that I violated the terms of agreement? This is injustice! I’m a public figure and any one with google can figure it out. It’s not unlawful to edit my own autobiography if the article is correct to the nth. I demand a copy of the article and it’s my intellectual property. This isn’t a real job you guys have. You’re making life difficult for people who have real jobs. Why can’t you verify the edit and then contact me prior to whatever nonsense action that you want me carry out? Couldn’t you edit the autobiography? I demand a copy of my intellectual property sent to my inbox ! Right away. --Boufflord (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boufflord—it sounds like you're quite frustrated, which is understandable, but to speak directly to what you said, no, you do not have "a right to publish my personal biography". We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, and if you'd like your biography to be included, you need to demonstrate that it conforms with our policies. Your sandbox page was deleted by Fastily because it appeared you were using Wikipedia as a web host for a personal website, which is not allowed. I can't see the page because it's been deleted (I'm a volunteer who edits because I believe in Wikipedia's mission, not someone "employing" anyone), but if it's a draft biography, here would be my advice. First, read Help:Your first article to understand what our standards for pages are, and Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) to understand what is required for a person to have an article. Then, if you feel the biography meets the notability standards, go to Wikipedia:Undeletion requests and give your reasoning. If the page is restored, you can then use {{subst:submit}} to submit it for review. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 February 2021, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 178#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. On 12 April 2021, you closed it, finding consensus for a trial of WP:PENDING protection.

After that trial, on 26 June 2021 I opened an RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#RFC: Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. On 30 August 2021, Jc37 (courtesy ping) closed it, finding consensus for a 30-day trial of auto-semi-protection.

Can you advise on how to get that second trial underway?

(I only fight vandalism if I chance to fall across it; though I don't overlook the opportunity. However, a good number of experienced editors put thought and effort into setting out reasoned arguments in those discussions, and it would seem a pity to let the matter drift into limbo.) Best, Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Narky Blert, and thanks for the note! After my April close, a discussion was begun at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/Archive_14#Pending_changes_TFA_trial, and Anomie had their bot perform the protection. I'd suggest opening a quick discussion at WT:TFA noting the new close, and perhaps Anomie might be able to help with this trial as well. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most helpful, thank you very much! I have posted at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Semi-protection of TFA. Narky Blert (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry about replacing the text. I didn't realize that I was not integrating the text properly. I actually wrote the page myself and upon creating the page, I realized that a page already exists for him. So I just copied all of my text and pasted in the page you had created. I will fix the page right away.HRShami (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HRShami; much appreciated! I've had one or two instances myself where I've begun creating a page only to realize it already exists. I'm sorry I didn't think to create the redirect from Doug Underwood (academic) where you created the duplicate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article atm is essentially entirely about Originalism as it applies to the US constitution, and to be fair much of the most visible legal scholarship is about the US, because that is true of many topics. Regardless of those facts though, Originalism, as in "an interpretative method that interprets based on the original understanding of words/concepts/etc as they were at the time of adoption that American Constitutional Originalism is a subset of" is not unique to the US and is used, by name and with the exact same arguments for and against, in countries all over the world. Australian constitutional interpretation often includes major Originalist analyses for example as their constitution is also over a century old and subject to the same debates. The article is not really representative of the fact that rest of the world has to deal with the same interpretive difficulties and uses the same approaches in their analyses. Khitrir (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Context for any TPS) Thanks for that info, Khitrir! I'm not a subject expert on Originalism, so it might be worthwhile to start a talk page discussion to see if others want to discuss how we might best cover Originalism outside of the U.S. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! I would like to update the headshot picture for our bosses Wiki page. How do we do that? --Consultedit (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Consultedit! Well, the first step is taking a new headshot :) After that, you'll want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, our image repository. It's important for copyright reasons that the photographer themselves do this, as they are the one who holds the copyright to their work unless they're released it. Once you've done that, let me know the name of the file, and I'll be happy to update the picture for you (assuming it's better than what we have currently). You shouldn't edit the article directly because of the conflict of interest. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard McKirahan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need to hit the studio --Lil Babie (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil Babie, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? I don't understand your comment. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I found you in wikipedia and noticed lots of experience in editing wikipedia for a long time. I have a request to create a wikipedia article about him Mohammed Shanooj. As a music listener and fan of him, i tried to write about him by collecting datas from several resources. But all got rejected by users saying that "written not in neutral point of view" , "written for living people of musician, singer, composer" and also "written like promotional or advertisement" even in Mainspace Article and Draft too. Can you help me to Publish the article about him? I will start new draft and can you complete the finishing point by moving from draft to Mainspace! Please Reply as kind... Thank you Welcome 103.05.23 (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Welcome 103.05.23—the article was deleted because it did not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Please review Help:Your first article, paying particular attention to notability guidelines, in this case WP:NMUSIC. If Shanooj does not meet the guidelines, we will not publish an article about him. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, I completed about 200 short descriptions for the good articles. Here is my history. Adhiven123 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adhiven123, left you a barnstar! I see joining the collaboration was some of your first edits, too—welcome, and I hope you continue to find areas to edit! Feel free to reach out anytime if you have questions {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, could you help me creating a Central Discussion for "Policies and Guidelines"?

Please take a look here: Wikipedia_talk:Protection policy

My objective for each page:

• either try to standardize the wording by using one term ("editor" most of the time),
• or publish "contributor=editor=Wikipedian"

My only aim is to improve readability, and yes, some form of standardization is sometimes necessary. As stated in my post: "contributor" and "editor" are not synonyms, and until my recent contributions, there were virtually no mention at all on Wikipedia that a contributor is an editor (and vice-versa), not to mention Wikipedians... — Antoine Legrand (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with JohnFromPinckney that the terms "editor" and "contributor", as used on Wikipedia, are synonymous; that's it's not a problem to have some language variation; and that if an editor's English skills are so poor they get confused by this, they shouldn't be editing here. If you want to copy edit project pages to improve their readability, fine, so long as no one objects. But the community's tolerance for bold (i.e. not backed by a talk page discussion with consensus) editing runs out quickly when it comes to mass edits, so if anyone objects, stop and discuss the matter in a single centralized location to avoid talk forks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "single centralized location"? I was asking you to help me create a Central Discussion, as suggested by another editor. Could you provide me with further details? Thank you for your help — Antoine Legrand (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Single centralized location" just means you hold the discussion in one place, not in a whole bunch of places (as has been happening a bit so far). You could try Wikipedia talk:Project namespace. Keep your proposal concise, and list a particular outcome you want (if it's a rule, be prepared for WP:CREEP objections). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, could you help me creating a "Please see" for "Template:Essay" on "Wikipedia:Wikipedian" Talk page ? Thank you. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antoine Legrand, the code you want is {{subst:Please see|wikilink to discussion}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Joel Fagliano? LOL

Sourced my material, so why do you keep deleting it.

Shades of plagiarist crossword editor Timothy Parker editing his own page to remove all the bad stuff that kept getting reposted, sources in 2016. LOL.

Funny how The Times went after Timothy (a Black man) for this, when "it is happening again...."

Since you keep deleting sourced content (what more do you need?), notifying others of this Wiki edit war, by Joel, Will, ...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:2a01:b5a4:612e:76fb:4862:2216 (talk • contribs)

Hello IP. Please do not edit war to add non-neutral, inadequately sourced information to a biography of a living person, or you will be blocked. You can raise suggestions for the article at its talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Motley Coffeehouse, 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 occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdkb,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I made a couple of tweaks in the sandbox version to restrict tracking to articles only. I also changed the conflicting parameter check - it was not allowing affiliations with athletics_affiliations, but affiliations is actually an alias now for affiliation. If this looks good to you, can you make the change. Thanks. MB 22:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MB,  Done. The categories are named "pages" rather than "articles", but we could clarify on the category pages themselves that they'll now be just articles. If someone reverts, note that you can also use AWB's filtering option to get a list of only articles. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Hi there! I am new here and don't understand how to do anything.. Can you please help me? --JxngkookiesGF (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JxngkookiesGF: Welcome! I'll leave a note for you on your talk page with links to helpful resources. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marilyn Manson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop your disruptive editing. You have repeatedly abused templates, misquoted other editors, added inaccurate nutshell descriptions to essays you have cited in content disputes in preference to genuine policies, and have been generally argumentative and uncollaborative in your interactions with other users. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The non-admin closure clearly states that "the sentence should be updated as more reliable details about the story and its impacts continue to develop.", which is what I did. There was clearly no genuine consensus in the RfC to add your misinterpreted WP:MANDY version to the article. I will be disputing the non-admin close. In the meantime, stop the edit warring. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: This template comment is completely unnecessary. ––FormalDude talk 01:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, I would never have posted such a thing. But considering my interactions with this user these past two months, I stand by my comment, and believe all my statements here to be accurate and appropriate. I could hunt my watchlist for diffs, if anyone's interested... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: I don't need diffs, I read the whole discussion at the RfC as well as the discussion that prompted it. It actually made me believe there is valid reason for someone to open an ANI on your disruptive behavior. I was and still am considering doing it myself. Please slow your roll, there's two sides to every dispute, and you are casting aspersions on other editors conduct simply because they don't agree with you. ––FormalDude talk 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context for anyone following along: I began an RfC a month ago proposing that we mention the sexual abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson in the lead of that article. Homeostasis07, the top editor of the page, argued strenuously against it, but following a CR listing the RfC was recently closed with Consensus to add one sentence along the lines of "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.". Homeostasis then modified the addition to give more weight to Manson's denials, I reverted a single time, and Homeostasis dropped me the above note. I would advise them to consider finding other topic areas to edit in which they are less invested. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: FormalDude has slightly modified their close in a way that gives some latitude for Manson's denial to be included in the lead. I think that's a fair reading of consensus and hope that will allow us to put the issue to rest. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a completely uninvolved editor who has reviewed the issue (having been the one to close the RfC in question), I can say the Sdkb's summary here is fully accurate. The only part they did not mention is that Homeostasis has been edit warring since late August with multiple editors at Marilyn Manson. ––FormalDude talk 02:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create a profile wiki page for my Grandfather, it is to honor him as he recently passed away. The edit page option isn't allowing me to add any photos of him or create a profile as you would see in other on wiki. Any help would be much appreciated he is a known person, Jim Snook he was well loved and it would mean the world to his survivng wife and children to have his story out there --RockyPointSnooks (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RockyPointSnooks: hi - I'm sorry for your loss of your grandfather. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a memorial site, and the standards for inclusion are notability. Are there multiple reliable independent sources (such as newspaper articles, books, etc) discussing your grandfather and his works? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, he is a notable character. I will include some notations here : https://obits.oregonlive.com/us/obituaries/oregon/name/james-snook-obituary?pid=200207798

https://www.newspapers.com/search#query=%22Jim+Snook+cartoons%22

I am aware that this is not a memorial site, he is a well known artists, he has been mentioned in news papers, interviewed at art shows, he has had many featured paintings in art shows in the area. I have clippings of his mentions over the years. He was a notable member of the community. --RockyPointSnooks (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RockyPointSnooks—I want to offer my condolences as well for your loss. My suggestion, though, would be to at least wait before trying to submit an article. Writing your first Wikipedia article is a difficult task, and I wouldn't want you to have to deal with your initial attempts being declined while you're still mourning. Best wishes, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a consensus can be declared with an equal number of people in favor and opposed. Also, there was no objection to moving the article to the simpler title Sewanee. I request you to undo your discussion closure, and perhaps to relist it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BarrelProof; thanks for reaching out. Reading through the discussion again, I think it's more of a no consensus, so I'll revert my close and leave it open.

To give you a little further explanation, in my evaluation of the discussion, the main support argument was WP:COMMONNAME and the main oppose argument was WP:NATURAL, both part of the article titles policy. I gave a little more weight to the opposes, as natural disambiguation is done even in cases where there is a more common name, so I read that when I closed as weak consensus not to move. Regarding the alternative of moving the page to Sewanee, the discussion participants apart from GreaterPonce seemed pretty ambivalent (not opposed but not supporting either), so I would read that as no consensus. In order to get the move, you'll need affirmative consensus, so it may make most sense to let the RM be closed as no consensus and then start a new one specifically proposing the move to Sewanee. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a draft. I want to add that draft information on another page. How do I do that? --MrA2121 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrA2121, could you clarify what you mean by "add that draft information on another page"? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the wikipedia page named "Shiraz City Of Iran", there is a section named "Famous People". Inside that section, there is another subsection named "Poets and Authors". In that, there is a name "Firoozeh Roohibakhsh". But it is in red because a Wikipedia Page of her name doesn't exist. I have read her books and want to write about her. How do I do that? MrA2121 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrA2121, ah, thanks for clarifying. It looks like you've already started a draft page for her at Draft:Firoozeh Roohibakhsh. The next step is to finish the draft. See Help:Your first article for instructions on that. The most important thing you need to do is to demonstrate, through the sources you add, that she meets the biographical notability standard. Once you're ready, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page and click publish. Another editor will come along to review it, and if it's accepted, it'll be moved to Firoozeh Roohibakhsh. At that point, the link at Shiraz, Iran will automatically turn blue and point to her page. Does that help answer your question? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. If you take a look at a recent SdkbBot edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_command_and_control&diff=1046066322&oldid=1045516767&diffmode=visual, you'll see that it removed a pair of square brackets around "Revised" in a book title.

This is an error. The book title contains "[Revised]", i.e., with brackets, in the title. Reference 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_command_and_control#cite_note-Handbook_2-2, shows it correctly, as does the Web page to which it points, https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm//NMHB2020rev/chapters/chapter2.html, where "[REVISED]" appears in the upper left of the page along with the rest of the title.

Unfortunately, it is not practical to revert SdkbBot's erroneous error, but I have taken the liberty of restoring the square brackets in the hope that they will not again be improperly removed. Thank you for your attention to this issue, and best regards! Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon editing, I see that SdkbBot actually added square brackets, which not only removed them from "Revised" as read, but also wikilinked the word. This seems doubly incorrect to me. Anyway, I have restored the word to the status quo ante. Note that a wikilinked Revised redirects to the disambiguation page for Revise. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Larrykoen! The change the bot made there was part of the WP:GENFIX set, a group of automated changes that are supposed to be uncontroversial and are made regularly by both human editors and bots using AutoWikiBrowser. It looks like the revision just before my bot got to it had an erroneous double bracket, i.e. The current Nuclear Matters Handbook 2020 [Revised]] defines it, so that triggered the FixUnbalancedBrackets GENFIX task, because the program thought that there was an intended link just missing one of the opening brackets. With the way you've corrected it now, there should be no further issue. If you do encounter any further issues, you should report them here, as my bot likely won't be the only editor coming by the page to make GENFIXes. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The bad double "]]" (hoping nobody notices this odd construction) was my error that I fixed shortly thereafter. Perhaps the bot scheduled it after noticing the error but before noticing my fix. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for declaring a preferred date format on several articles, for example here and here. Are you using one of AWB's built-in functions to do this? If not, would you be able to add |date=September 2021 to your find-and-replace statement? That would save the bot from having to do it, doubling up on the edit load. Of course, you'll have to update it every month. Brainstorming: perhaps AWB will let you use {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} instead. Thanks! – voidxor 19:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Voidxor! I started with this PetScan to get this list, and I then used the AWB prepend feature (with 1 new line and "sort metadata after" checked) to start going through the list. I did consider the date parameter, which it'd be easy to add in the way you suggested, but I'm not entirely sure if I should. According to the documentation, |date= signifies the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and fixed any found. I haven't been doing that full check, so idk if I should be adding a date. I'm not sure if it's corrected in the GENFIX set or if it's corrected when AnomieBOT comes along after. Would you (or any of my other friendly stalkers) know the best way to approach this?

Also, to forecast where I'm going with this, I'm planning to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers soon seeking consensus for a bot task to add the mdy dates tag to a bunch of articles with clear strong ties to the United States. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about checking the article for consistency. I too commonly add engvar and dates tags and recently read that documentation myself. My takeaway was that the date the tag is added is essentially day one, and perhaps it should be periodically checked for consistency from there. I take it the intent for that date parameter—as with maintenance tags—is so that interested Wikipedians can focus on fixing the oldest ones first. However, the articles you are tagging wouldn't have been in the "check me for date consistency" queue for longer than the {{Use mdy dates}} tag has been present.

Moreover, if you don't date it, the bot will. So you might as well, which is why the template documentation mentions suggests {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}. – voidxor 20:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely makes sense as one way to look at it. I just ran a test/looked through AnomieBOT's contributions, and it appears that there's currently no automatic correction, so I've opened a discussion at WT:AWB to try to get some more input. For now, if I continue with the AWB run, I'll include the date parameter. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't help but notice the now-RevDel'ed discussion on your talk page yesterday. I don't agree with the IP's allegations, and certainly won't partake in any of the "outing" they were attempting. But in the midst of their mess, the IP did raise a substantial issue pertaining to Conflict of Interest. Your response that you had "never met or contacted" this person was not, semantically, an exact denial what the IP was accusing you of. So... do you have an undisclosed connection to that person? Furthermore, you do identify yourself as a professional journalist on your user page. As such, have you ever sourced your own published content while editing this website? These are substantive issues which need to be addressed in a serious manner. All users must indeed disclose any potential CoI to the appropriate venue. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, I gather that you remain very disappointed by the Manson RfC outcome (see also above), but badgering me by picking up the now-blocked IP's amusingly inept attempt at outing is not a good look for you. In case never met or contact somehow didn't make it clear, I have no COI with the person, and I abide by WP:SELFCITE. I will regard any further posts or replies from you on my talk page as a violation of WP:HOUND and will take appropriate action. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically made it clear that this was in no way an attempt to "out" you, but that the IP did indeed make one valid point. "I have no COI with the person, and I abide by WP:SELFCITE." also does not address the issue at hand. WP:SELFCITE does specifically mention that "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason", so that could be inferred in a particular way. You are the one harassing and threatening me at multiple venues, while deliberately misconstruing the outcome and your own behavior of an entire situation and refusing to answer a simple question directly. Are you that person? Yes or no. That was the only purpose of this discussion, per the template at the relevant noticeboard. Any further uncivil outbursts by you will indeed result in appropriate action. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]