User talk:Nick Moyes/Adoption/Clovermoss

Adoption
(thread moved from my main User TalkPage)

I'm thinking that I might want to become an adoptee given the amount of questions I ask and my plans to continue to edit on Wikipedia. I created my account in September 2018 (you were actually the first user to welcome me), so I've been around awhile. I've also made 518 edits (293 of which have been to mainspace). A lot of my edits have been adding short descriptions or fixing typos, but I'm quite proud of my edits to PC Optimum and Draft: Katherine Hughes (activist). SkyGazer 512 has been incredibly helpful for a lot of my questions as well as the Teahouse when I've had them, but being an adoptee might be a better long-term route for me. I guess the other thing I should mention is that I'm also a female editor; one of the interests is contributing to Women in Red, but I'm also interested in other topics such as video games and topics related to Canada (since I'm Canadian). Clovermoss (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: I fixed my ping to another editor. I also wanted to mention another one of my interests is translating French. Clovermoss (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello,, thanks for contacting me, and for the update. I'm flattered you want help and support from me. I might have said no, because I suspect our interests aren't a close match, but I am very keen to encourage any female editor to help redress the gender imbalance a bit here. So, I'll say a qualified 'yes' to helping you. Qualified, because I am extremely busy in real life right now (despite taking early retirement), and also because I probably wouldn't be able to offer you a structured approach to working your way around Wikipedia, and all its processes. I would quite like to offer that, but time constraints means I haven't actually put any programme together. But if you'd like general ad hoc help and guidance, and someone you can ask a dozen and a half questions of at once, without feeling guilty - and don't mind waiting a bit for an answer - then I'd be honoured to assist you to become an even better editor. My view of adoption is that it should be helping committed editors with a long-term interest in improving the encylopaedia across many areas, rather than investing time to help newcomers create their one and  only pet article. The Teahouse can help with that.
 * I gather you're in Canada (had a great family camping adventure there last summer, between Vancouver and Calgary!), so our time zones are going to mismatch a bit. If you're a French speaker, I guess you might be from or on the east side, north of Ottawa perhaps? (did a study tour of museums there some 35 years ago). God, that suddenly makes me feel really old! Not so ancient to still have one daughter in school, and another who's just gone off to university, mainly to get away from my awful sense of humour.
 * Anyway, maybe you'd like to tell me a little more about the things you currently find difficult, or the areas of Wikipedia editing that you'd like to get better at? Maybe also tell me the bits you really aren't interested in? So, for example, as well as working on your current draft, which I can help you with, are you wanting to understand about contributing to stopping vandalism, article deletions and so on?
 * Adoption is really a very informal process, and it should be fun, too. You and I are both free to say at any point that we don't want to continue. Whilst it's always nice to have an explanation why, you shouldn't feel obliged to do so. It's OK just to stop if you don't feel comfortable with the direction it's going in, or if you feel you've understood enough to stand on your own two feet. How does that sound?
 * I've seen you've been getting some answers from and at the Teahouse, and if he/she wants to chip in here, that's absolutely fine with me. You shouldn't feel you can't ask stuff anywhere else, of course. In fact, the Teahouse really is the best place for getting very quick answers. Adoption is more of a slow-cooking process, if you follow me. So how does that all sound? Let me know if you want to proceed. Regards for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds awesome! I'm fine with a non-structured approach. I think I might actually prefer it. The whole load of questions thing you described is pretty much the reason I was looking at becoming an adoptee in the first place. As for what I'm looking for in Wikipedia, I actually could see myself participating in a variety of things. As for interests, I think we might be more alike than you think. I'm a student and the main reason I'm planning on longer-term Wikipedia editing is out of a mixture of boredom and pursuing educational pursuits outside of everyday life that's basically obligated from me. East-coast is good guess! The most I'm going to narrow it down is Ontario; but it isn't Ottawa or north of it. Oddly enough, I've visited Québec city but have never traveled to Ottawa (it is somewhere I'd like to visit in the future, though). Thanks for accepting my adoption request - if I have any questions I'll come back here (or reply if replied to). I do ask a lot of questions, so new sections with some sort of organized approach might be ideal in the future. I don't usually like looking at walls of text, but I'm sure many other people share that pet peeve. Clovermoss (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear - if you don't like walls of text, you've chosen the wrong person in me then; I can talk/write for England! But I will mark each question with a ✅ symbol - if only to show me if I've missed anything. You do right not to reveal precisely where you're from, but I now have a good idea roughly where you're based. It's great that you're a student interesting in contributing. A lot of University lecturers preach that Wikipedia is unreliable and shouldn't be used, whilst nevertheless admitting to using it all the time themselves. What most people overlook is that every article contains references, and that it to these we would point all users who want to investigate or confirm the veracity of what a Wikipedia page says. As a student you're well placed to be able to access those sources and to improve content. I hope this works out well for us both! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

List of questions/topics

 * I have access to a rather extensive library. What are some of the most important things to know and consider about citing different types of media formats? I have only really cited online sources so far, but I'm specifically interested in learning how to cite books.
 * ✅ There are a number of different 'templates' available for adding different types of citation. e.g. web, book, news, journal, map, podcast, etc. The first four of these are offered to you by either of the editing tools you can use.  Look for the "Cite" button, then select which template is most relevant. I advise you first to try adding refs via our wikieditor. You can preview the reference and also show additional fields. You should get in the habir of giving each citation a "ref name" - a short name, like "TorontoStar" or "NYTimes" to help you identify which ref is which. You use this name to call up the reference if you want to reuse it elsewhere in the article.
 * Having got used to filling in different templates in wikieditor, you should then try it in Visual Editor. This has both advantages and disadvantages. The great thing about adding references through visual editor is that it has an automatic route, allowing you simply to type in either an ISBN number, a DOI number. or a Google books URL, and it attempts to automatically fill in all the fields of a reference for you. It's never perfect, so you do you have to insert and then manually edit the reference little bit afterwards. The downside is that it does not allow you to enter a rough night if you wanted to reuse the reference later on.
 * Your homework on this topic is now to read WP:REFBEGIN, noting the different sections listed in Contents, before working through this quite lengthy but important page. You can see all the different cite templates, with details how to complete them, at Category:Lua-based citation templates.
 * Let me know how you get on. I'll always be explaining things on the assumption that you are using wikieditor, not Visual Editor, though its easy to switch mid-edit by clicking the thick pencil icon in the top right hand corner of the editing page. I'll reply to you other questions later on, if that's OK. Please make sure you put this page on your Watchlist, lest I forget to Notify you of a reply. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Explaining things using wikieditor is fine since it's usually what I've been using to edit. I'll add this page to my watchlist, too. Clovermoss (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I  should add that there is no problem whatsoever in adding a citation to a properly published book. Usual information that should entered include author, title, date of publication, ISBN and the page within the book where the fact you are referring to can be found. If it's a 600 page book, you should say it's on page 227, and not leave the reader struggling to find the right page within the citation. Rather cleverly, if you are going to reuse that citation many times in one article, you can add the relevant page number to each re-use of the reference using the RP template. I can explain that later if you wish. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have some writing experience, but I'm hesitant about how much it applies. I'm used to writing essays, not writing encyclopedia articles. Information that is about expectations more relevant to Wikipedia itself would probably be the most helpful direction to go.
 * ✅ Having experience of writing essays will be really valuable to you, but it's not the same style of writing as we need here. With an essay you read sources, assimilate the information and then put down your own personal opinions of what those sources say. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable things. Everything here must be written in neutral tones, and in your own words to avoid copyright violations. But you must only say precisely what those reliable sources state. You can't introduce your own personal views, interpretations or personal opinions. You are, in effect, writing a museum label - precise, informative and interesting. Have a read of Five pillars for the essence of what Wikipedia is about. Nick Moyes (talk)}
 * Thank you. I knew that Wikipedia expected a different type of writing so it's nice to know those finer details. I have bee going through the directory links and have been able to find some things on my own, but I'm not always sure I get the "whole picture" of what I'm looking at. Clovermoss (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Special characters. Is the difference between spelling out Québec and Quebec important or is it like the differences between British and American English on Wikipedia (in the sense that it doesn't really matter on the site as long as it'sp consistent?). Clovermoss (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good question - I  really had to think hard before answering this one. The answer is actually, yes, the different spelling is very important, and on English Wikipedia, only the non-accented form of Quebec should be used. On French Wikipedia, it would be Québec, as that is the French way of spelling it. Think of like London versus Londres. You wouldn't use the latter in an article about London on en.wiki. The policy that guides my reply is WP:COMMONNAME. This dictates that an article title or name should be that form in common use within the English language. Having established that this is the way to spell the title, I would then expect it to use that spelling throughout the article. You aren't 100% right in what you imply about American and British spelling: Firstly, if the topic is Americo-centric or Anglo-centric in context, then we'd expect American and British spellings to be used, respectively. If there's no direct relationship to one region or another (and there are other regional spellings, too), we would follow the spellings style used by the original article creator. Making edits that simply switch from one form of regional spelling isn't ok, and we would warn editors who do that with this Uw-lang template, placed on their talk page. (We can talk about how you might place warnings for other editors and how we deal with vandalism later on). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I see that the article on Quebec mentions an organisation known as Transports Québec. Assuming it has no English equivalent name that is in common use, then deploying the accented e (I always confuse grave and acute!) is perfectly acceptable. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I know how to sign the posts I make and I have been doing it, but I was wondering why signatures and the need for them exists in the first place? Clovermoss (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Another good question! There are two main reasons. The most obvious one is simply so that we know who has said what in a discussion thread. Without a signature, it would be very hard to tell when one person's comment had ended and other person's had begun, or if someone had subsequently altered another person's comment. Some discussions - usually at main noticeboards, such as WP:ANI - can involve dozens of different editors. It would be a nightmare if we could see who posted a comment, and when.
 * The other reason a signature is required is if you want to notify or 'ping' someone by mentioning them in a post. If you include their username in a post, they only receive a notification/alert if you signature is included at the same time as the post is published. You won't ping them if you forget to sign, and then save the post and return again a few moments later and add it. The other person's username and your signature must be published together at the same time. Your next homework (!) is to read through Notifications to find out how the alert system works. I know you've struggled a bit with this recently, so let me know how you get on.Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Do I always have to ping a user to guarentee they'll get a notification? What's the difference between a ping and a special notification? Or are they interchangeable terms? Clovermoss (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ If you post a comment on a user's talk page, they will automatically receive notification of your post. Equally, you will receive one if they post on your user talk page. In other circumstances you would either have to ping them or mention their name on another page in order for them to receive a notification message.
 * So, the text would render as:
 * The reply text or  would render as:
 * You would also send an alert of a mention simply by typing either or User:Nick Moyes, which would look like  or User:Nick Moyes.
 * I have to admit to being quite surprised that I am not receiving notifications when you post to this talk page, as it is subpage of my userpage. That was one of the main reasons for moving our discussions to an adoption page here. Because of that, it would help me greatly if you could ensure you notify me whenever you reply or comment on this page, please.  Just use one of the methods like  or  . I intentionally turned off email notifications a few months ago because I'm so busy elsewhere that I'm rarely able to pick up emails. (It helps stop my webmail Inbox being swamped with watchlist notification messages.) I'll have to investigate whether there's some way I can ensure I get the usual alert notifications on talk pages of sub-pages like this one. Finally, I'm not actually sure what you mean when you refer to a special notification. Do you mean the list of all your notifications which you can find at Special:Notifications? If not, this might be something I'm not aware of, and need to brush up on - so do tell me more. I should add that I still feel I am learning how to do things here, even after some years of editing! But I am impressed by how elegant things are designed to work - I hope you will come to see that, too, in due course.Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, that's the end of my replies to this set of questions. How do you feel this has worked for you? Am I making any sense, or am I rambling on about things that still seem confusing. It helps me to know how well I'm helping you - so don't be reticent about telling me. I suggest you start a new topic for your next set of questions, and I'll use the template to mark when I've replied to each one, if that's OK with you. Cheers for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Highways in Quebec
I added a citation for national roads in the Highways in Quebec yesterday. The original reason I used the source is referenced on the article talk page:

"de routes nationales"; a better translation of this is "national roads," a reference to National Highway System (Canada), so I added a wikilink to that article and added a citation for verifying that information.

The wikilink is to the article about the National Highway System. The source is useful for what I used it for, but it's also useful as a source for additional information that is not found in the original French article. The source proves the information that national roads are part of the National Highway System.

However, the source would also verify the information that 5,649 km of national roads are in the province of Québec, which is specific information that is not currently present in the French article that includes national roads as part of the overall statistic. I want to improve the accuracy of the translation but I also want to try and improve the article itself if I can do so. I also don't want other editors to mix up to the difference between my translation and other edits.

I'm thinking that the best way to distinguish this would be to keep different types of edits entirely separate and then clearly define which is which in the edit summaries, but I'm not 100% sure if that is what I'm supposed to do. Clovermoss (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I'm a bit confused by this. Had you provided me with a 'diff' for each edit (see Help:Diff), I might have understood better. You said "I'm thinking that the best way to distinguish this would be to keep different types of edits entirely separate and then clearly define which is which in the edit summaries, but I'm not 100% sure if that is what I'm supposed to do" I would agree with you that you should save (i.e. publish changes) each different set of edits as discrete blocks, with a clear edit summary. That way you, or another editor, can scroll through and deal with each one in turn. And, if you later find one type of edit was wrong, you can then go back and find that individual one quite easily. You can also re-use a reference two or more times, or specify a particular page number in a long book - I think I hinted at how to do that in a post above. Let me know what specific help you still need on this. Sorry if I'm being thick! Goodnight. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's okay, you're actually explaining things quite well. I'm still trying to go through all of your answers. As for diffs, I know how to look at them/browse them in a history of an article, but I've never been able to link to them successfully. How do you do that? Clovermoss (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To paste in a 'diff' between two versions, first select which set of edits you want to differentiate via the 'View History' tab. Having displayed them on screen, go to the browser bar and copy the url to your clipboard. Now, the format for showing an external url in a post is: Open square bracket, full url, one space character, your text you want to display, and finally a closing square bracket.
 * Thus, this external link to the Toronto Star newspaper is created from this text:  Note that, unlike internal wikilinks, we only use a single square bracket for external links. See Help:Diffs for more details on this and other ways to show diffs.
 * I noticed on your userpage that you've put a number of links as memos. Although they all work, they could all be made as internal wiki links by using two square brackets in either end, and getting rid of the first half. I can explain further, if needs be.
 * Glad my explanations seem to be making sense, thus far. I've decided it might help you if I were to collate all the links to policies and guidance that we've covered as we go along on the main page at User:Nick Moyes/Adoption/Clovermoss. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that looks very helpful. I'm going to be fairly busy the next few days, but I do want to let you know I appreciate all the help. Clovermoss (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Toronto Star article
I edited the Toronto Star article, which |dff can be found here, and I noticed something about the article itself. Certain aspects of it just seems "off" compared to other Wikipedia articles. There's this whole section about "Atkinson's infleunce" and while he seems important (as one of the first editors of the Star), he's the only one who gets an entire section to himself. Is it really nessecary to include the Atkinson principles? It seems that just mentioning that they exist would be sufficent. There's also the sentance that states that "Atkinson had a social conscience," which doesn't seem to belong in the article. There's also sources for some of the statements about Atkinson, but some relatively substantial claims are left completely unsoured. Specifically, "that he became the controlling shareholder of the Star" and that "he championed many causes that would come to be associated with the modern welfare state: old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and health care." Do you have any advice? Clovermoss (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think I linked the diff right on here. What did I do wrong? Clovermoss (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The No Frills (grocery store) article also seems off, but in a more promotional way. There's two long block quotes that are very favourable towards the company and a lot of the article reads (almost) like an advertisement to me. Do you have any advice for what I should do when I notice things like that when editing articles? Clovermoss (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I don't reply for a day or so. I've a minor chest infection and headaches right now, making detailed concentration rather awkward. Will do so asap. (I did have a brief look at Toronto Star yesterday and thought the content was reasonably OK. Maybe not necessary to include all the atkinson bullet points. There as one line somewhere just before it which could do with a 'citation needed' note, but can't remember quite where offhand. Are you familiar with doing that? - If not see for details.)  Sorry to be so brief. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with waiting. I had the flu two weeks ago and it was absolutely awful. Anyways, I hope you get better. I'll take a look again at the Toronto Star article and add the citation needed. For the bulleted Atkinson principles, should I just remove them and mention something like "Atkinson created 5 principles" or something similar that mentions their existense (more concisely)? Clovermoss (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel up to advising right now, but my recollection was that the content did seem passably relevant to the article. In cases like this, I'd possibly take to the article talk page, explain what you're proposing to do, wait an appropriate time for any editor input, and, if none is received, make the change per WP:SILENCE. The alternative is to 'be bold' and just do it, leaving a clear edit summary as to why. I think the choice is yours.Nick Moyes (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your help. As I said, I hope you get better. If you can't concentrate or focus all that well, you should probably rest. None of my questions here are urgent or anything, I'm fine with waiting until you're not sick or at least feeling a lot better. Clovermoss (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry about the delay in responding. I'll try and work through your questions:
 * Atkinson principles: I've looked again at this. I think keeping it as it is is quite OK. The 'principles' seem to be sourced reliably, and seeing them there helps me understand the article. ON reading it, I found image alignment disruptive, so I have moved a number over to the right hand side, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. What I don't like is the long lists of staff which includes non-notable names, all uncited. I'd delete the black names, not worry about citations for the blue-linked names, and possibly 'add citation needed for the red-linked one. The rationale is that sections on 'notable people'/ 'notable alumni' etc should only list those people who have - or about to have- a page already about them on Wikipedia. The rest is just an unreferenced list of names and not encyclopaedic, except in the very loosest sense. I think you should remove them, explaining why in an appropriate edit summary.
 * No Frills. This is quite a lengthy article, apparently well-cited to non-online newspapers, which is fine. A small amount of trimming of unnecessary words could be done, but isn't essential. I suggest you remove three of the exterior views of the stores - more than two exteriors serves no purpose than to bloat the article (they all look the same). I think you were very perceptive in your comments about the block quotes. In fact, I didn't notice them at first, until I re-read your question. Yes, delete the last sentence in the first quote as unnecessary, and remove the second quote, just leaving in the citation.
 * Diffs: I'm not sure how you managed to create that diff - what you should have done was go to View History, select the 'radio button' below the first of your two edits of 30/31st March (i.e. the one next to the entry by Joeyyconnick on 26th March, and then selected the radio button next to your last edit. That gives this diff.


 * How are you getting on, generally? I was impressed you took an issue to WP:ANI yesterday. Well done for that, though I might not have done so myself. I notice that of the three possible sockpuppet accounts, one only edited in 2015; another only in 2017, and the third in 2017 with one very recent edit in 2019. As they weren't editing at the same time I'd be immensely surprised if they do get blocked for sockpuppetry. They could easily be the same person who locked themselves out after forgetting their passwords, and created another account of similar name, and then a third time. But I recognise that wasn't the issue you took them to ANI. But it shows confidence on your part; just balance that with a bit of investigative work and maybe even a direct approach on the talk page (of active editors, of course!). WP:TWINKLE allows you to leave single issue notices on a user talk page for COI and many other concerns, whilst you can also tag an article for issues that concern you like undisclosed WP:PAID editing. So my question now is, are you familiar with Twinkle, how to enable it, how to escalate warnings to one editor for repeated bad faith edits, and how to use it to flag up concerns, to welcome users, or to report them for administrator attention? And do you know ways to compare two or more editors' interactions on one article? If not, maybe these are things you might like us to focus on in the future? Regards for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In regards to Twinkle, I kind of understand what it is. I've reread the help page for it a few times, but it does so much and it's kind of hard to wrap my head around it all. Therefore, I'm kind of proceeding with caution until I feel more confident about actually knowing what Twinkle can do and what it cannot do. Honestly, a lot of things I've been doing I feel like I have a kind of mixed comprehension of. I've been teaching myself how to some things (the Wikipedia editor navigation at the bottom of the Community Portal has been immensely helpful). I know how to compare different links in the history and I've recently figured out what I've been doing wrong with the diffs. I was treating the URL like other wikilinks, which ended up showing the most recent version of an article (despite what I was trying to link). is an example of linking diffs that's worked for me (it's also something else interesting that happened while you were sick - it was my first attempt to report something to a noticeboard). Clovermoss (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't know how to do the latter things (or how to do them with Twinkle - with the exception of lookig at editor interactions through page history) but I would be interested in learning how. Clovermoss (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As for how I'm doing... life's "okay." It's stressful at the moment, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. In fact, editing Wikipedia has been a helpful distraction from thinking about some things that have been bothering me. I've noticed that I kind of have a tendency to be more serious on-wiki, but I'm actually a very outgoing person that can chat up a storm if I'm up to it. If you ever want to talk (or complain) about something like the weather, I don't mind joining the conversation. Clovermoss (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Misc - Wikiprojects, Adopt-a-user, etc
I noticed that I'm not listed under your current adoptees in Adopt-a-user. Since I'm mentioned in a userbox on your user page and we still communicate here, I'm guessing that the page hasn't been updated. Side-question: is there a limit to how long I can be considered "adopted"? Because I still find your advice to be incredibly helpful and I don't think that's something that will change in the forseeable future. ✅ Yes, I happened to notice that a couple of days ago when I deleted the entry of an inexperienced editor who'd added their name as an adopter. (See WP:HATCOLLECTING) I've now added you. Other questions:
 * I've seen edit-a-thons mentioned on user talk pages every once and a while. I couldn't find them mentioned in the Wikipedia Editor Navigation under the Community Portal. What exactly are they? From what I've been able to piece together, people meet up in real life and edit. Is there a page or a wikiproject for that? There seems to be a wikiproject for everything.
 * ✅ See Edit-a-thon for the wikipedia entry about them! I've been involved in running three now, and they are, quite simply, a gathering of people in real life to meet, talk, learn and cooperatively improve Wikipedia articles. They're often themed, and are also sometimes designed to introduce new editors. But those based at in museums may aim to bring museum experts and wikipedians together to mobilise resources. This was one of the first articles to be written collaboratively in a museum at an editithon.


 * I've been involved and looked around some wikiprojects, such as Short Descriptions, Women in Red, Typo Team and WP:Canada. However, a good part of wikiprojects I've browsed are listed as "inactive". To clarify what exactly my question is, what goes into the creation of wikiprojects and how/when exactly are they considered inactive?
 * ✅ Wikiprojects are on-wiki places for editors with shared interests to work to enhance a particular topic area. Some are very active; others far from it. Inactivity is subjective. If you find one that interests you that you'd like to participate in, but it has an 'inactive' notice on it, there's nothing to stop you kick-starting it by posting comments on its talk page, asking questions, listing articles you've worked on where you'd like feedback and so on. You might get no reply for a while, but if you care about it, keep at it. I'm interested in two fairly quiet ones, WP:ALPS and WP:Derbyshire. One can, if one wishes, add one's name to a list of supporters. Wikiprojects often collate tables of relevant topics, showing the quality assessment and importance, which can be helpful if you want to focus on improving the shortest articles with the greatest significance.

Clovermoss (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've edited the No Frills (grocery store) and Toronto Star articles after your reccomendations. Does it look okay to you and/or do you have any other suggestions?
 * No Frills looks a lot better. Reference 14 looks like it needs enhancing. I also couldn't find a mention of he store within it on a quick Ctrl-F search. Toronto Star also looks better without all those extra names, and sharper layout.


 * I was browsing through articles in the unreferenced backlog and found René Simard. Anyways, I kind of became inspired to add sources and ended up making edit. What do you think? Clovermoss (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ regarding René Simard, nice use of the 'diff' template - not something I've ever used myself. I must give it a try! You put in some good references there. The accusation about sexual assault should have been removed until such time as the reference you found was added. If you ever see allegations in an article about a living or reently dead article, but with no supporting reference, delete it immediately, leaving an edit summary explaining why. i.e. "per WP:BLP". I'd like to see the lead sentence briefly explain why he's notable. I think it's actually too short at present. I know it wasn't your edit, but I also don't like the quote with [f]or in it. Worth checking the source - I'd probably move that word outside of the quote marks. It's getting late now, so will to the question below another time. I'm pleased to see you using the Teahouse, too. I'll let my fellow hosts answer your two recent questions there! TTFN, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay! Yeah, I was kind of suprised at the lack of sources in that article and all of the information that was left completely unsourced. I tried my best to add to it. I think the main reason he would be considered notable is mentioned in more detail in the French sources - it seems that some of his songs have been quite successful. Wikipedia.fr probably has a page on him that's better with more references. I'm going to check to see if that's the case. For the sexual assault allegations involving his sister, that got a lot of media coverage, especially in French. I'm not sure how reliable the sources are, but that seems like something that needs a lot of sources to be kept in a biography of a living person. I'm guessing the reason it was previously included in the article was because the author of the Breaking Silence book, who interviewed Nathalie about all this, wrote statements about him that he didn't appear to agree with. Again, stuff that sounds it needs more than just one citation of reliable sources and extra care to be written with a neutral point-of-view. I'll take a look at the quote that you mentioned and a look at WP:BLP as well. Good night and thanks for all the help! :) Clovermoss (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the sources I used can be considered reliable but it doesn't hurt to extra catious and on the look-out for better ones. Taking a look through WP:BLP, yeah I'm surprised the were left in the article unsourced at all and that it went unnoticed for so long. Clovermoss (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I edited the White Pine Award article back on Christmas Eve and I'm thinking that certain parts of the article might be better formatted as a list. It is a fairly signfigant Canadian literature award (at least for literature aimed at high school students - it's pretty much the only one I ever heard of as an enthuisatic reader), but the winners of the fiction and non-fiction categories might be better formatted as lists. The current sources for the White Pine Award are not independant, but I know they exist (if not online, I know newspapers have covered the award at times; the annual conference usually gets at least some form of media attention). I was thinking that those sources (when I find them) could improve the article, even if I'm not sure what should be done with the information of the annual winners of each category. Clovermoss (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅I'll take a look and reply in full when I'm back on a keyboard, of that's ok. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay! Could you also maybe check out my edits to List of internet service providers in Canada when you have time? I've spent a lot of time hunting for references in the article itself and some editing on the listed articles as well. I also tried to make some improvements to the White Pine Award page. I've spent a lot of time editing Wikipedia today. I even created a new | draft! Clovermoss (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm starting going through your questions, having already apologised for the long delay in addressing them. Re the White Pine Award: I'm not actually convinced this article merits a stand-alone page. to be frank. The sources seem very local to the event, and some support the significance of the Forest of Reading, though I think a WP:REDIRECT to that page, with links to winners listed there would be better. I note that the Silver Birch Award was treated in the same way. Forgive me for now - I will work through the other matters you've raised later. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, I've now managed to look at your edits to List of internet service providers in Canada. You did just the right thing by adding references to support some of them, and to 'de-orphan' the page and remove the orphan template. Using the What links here tool on the left side of the page, I note you've added 'See also' sections to a number of those ISPs - a very good move. I'd make two observations on that List page (neither of which are your fault, I hasten to add). Firstly, there shouldn't be any redlinked titles there unless an editor is planning to create those pages in the very near future. A red link with a reference might be acceptable, but only if that source shows the provider is likely to meet our notability grounds, though one could argue that all ISPs are, almost by definition, going to be big and notable - but I'm not comfortable with that. Personally, I'd take out the redlinked entries and add them to the talk page with an explanation why the've been removed and hope someone creates a page on them in due course and then adds them back in. See WP:LISTS and WP:NOTDIR for more guidance on these areas.
 * You link to Draft:Danielle Younge-Ullman didn't work, but I found it via your contribution summary. The notability guideline WP:NAUTHOR will apply here and, based on the references there at the moment, I don't think their award and nominations are significant enough right now to get them accepted at WP:AFC, nor have they yet been written about in depth and in detail by independent sources. But there's nothing to stop you collating further references and working through them to build  up an article, especially as the exercise in page construction and layout is itself a valuable experience. But it can be demoralising to put in lots of effort to no avail. I think your Draft:Scotiabank Convention Centre will stand a better chance once it's progressed. You'll probably want to add an  hatnote to distinguish it from the related Scotiabank Centre. It is hard to comment on an incomplete draft (here's one I've been working since 2017 and it's still a terrible mess!
 * Oh dear - I've only just spotted your note of 3rd May on this page. You must think me awful for not replying immediately - I'm sorry. I think I'll address that next, then return to a couple of your other ones. Nick Moyes (talk)

Signpost
✅ I tried to write a Signpost opinion article. It's about WP:Canada and content coverage of Canada-related topics in Wikipedia, but I don't like how it is right now. I don't want to detract from the more signifigant forms of systematic bias on Wikipedia while covering this. Clovermoss (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted it and explained why in the edit summary when I did so. I don't think I'm ready to take on something like writing a Signpost article. I'm kind of disappointed in myself for what I came up with. It sounds kind of preachy and like I was climbing some sort of soapbox - which kind of scares me. Clovermoss (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was tired and dissappointed in myself when I wrote that, but a few day break from Wikipedia helped. Clovermoss (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you get tons of 'brownie points' for trying. (not sure if that's an expression that works outside of the UK?) Writing for the Signpost is not something I've ever considered doing. Maybe as well as the plain facts about Canadians and wiki editors it would have needed something to tease out what the concerns are and then put forward suggestions to address it - though I'm not sure what they'd actually be. So many times in life I've started something that fired me up, but when I sat down to tease out my thoughts it fizzled away into "meh!" You're not alont there; and you can always come back to it - the content is still there in page history unless you were to request total page deletion via . Stepping away from things that get a bit convoluted can soon make one feel a lot better - something to bear in mind should you ever get embroiled in an argument with another editor here. Speaking of being tired, I must go do some work. Just one more question (on archiving) still to reply to! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've heard of brownie points before. And thanks for the encourgament. Honestly, the current Signpost article about the 'gaps in our gaps' is an article that's much better than what I had and it was a very interesting read. I think I'm going to pursue other interests for now. I was kind of inspired after looking at the "we need writers" notice, but it's complicated and not something I think I'm ready for yet. Clovermoss (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Notices about # of edits
✅ When I had made 1000 edits to Wikipedia, why did I get a notification? I vaguely remember one at one and ten edits. I'm okay with it, I find it interesting, I'm just curious about why there's notifications for # of edits and how exactly it came about. Clovermoss (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If I remember rightly, I think editors receive an automatic notification when they reach 10 edits, then 1,000, and then at 100,000 and then at 1,000,000 edits. I don't think whoever decided that was thinking about the value of feedback in the real world. (I was quite miffed when I didn't get one at my second batch of ten thousand edits!) See here for details). Nick Moyes (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Age
Hey. After seeing your interactions with other editors in high school, I've decided that I feel comfortable sharing my own age. If you look at the very top of this adoption page, you'll notice that I only ever said I was a student. I'm not in post-secondary yet, but I didn't want to mention that for several reasons. I knew that you wouldn't be the only one to possibly see it (since anyone can see anything on Wikipedia), older adults don't always take teenagers very seriously and I wanted someone to think of my accomplishments, not my age. I don't really have the average interests of most teenagers either, but I'm okay with that. For all the French stuff, several years means most of my life. I'm not sure I mentioned French immersion on this page specifically, but I'm certain I mentioned it elsewhere on-wiki. I'll try to tread catiously with it - I understand French quite well, but I can have quite a bit of trouble communicating in it, despite well, being immersed in it for several years. Anyways, I did read WP:YOUNG. I actually mentioned a potential issue with it on the talk page after I had read it. No one's replied to it, so if you had any advice, I'd appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for telling me this - though there was no need, but it's kind of you. It's true that every one of us jumps to assess everyone else that we encounter, based upon minimal information, and you may have been quite justified to feel uncomfortable about revealing too much at first. My assessment of your work is/was based on its quality - I certainly had no reason to feel your weren't in further education/University. (Just as an aside, the other day I was looking at a longish article my 15yr old daughter had typed out as homework, and I asked her where she copy/pasted it from, as it was word perfect, and something I would have been pleased to publish. She was a bit miffed that I had jumped to conclusions and was effectively accusing her of plagiarism. Oops!) You must tell (berate) me if you think the way I relate to you changes - I certainly intend that it won't. The great thing about WP is that everyone can be anonymous. It's only in real life that I look at policemen and think they're far too young to be doing that job! You clearly have the makings of a great Wikipedian.
 * You did right to flag up your concern about WP:YOUNG. You'll see I've made a small change to it as a result. I actually think the whole essay could do with an overhaul - and it could probably benefit from having input from editors from the demographic it is actually intending to reach, too.
 * I wish I had a second language like you. I can get by on holiday with schoolboy French and German, but it's more a case of massacring the language, than actually speaking it. The family are debating whether to head off into France or Germany this coming summer, maybe here. I still can't persuade them to go here!
 * I will address the couple of outstanding questions (above) a bit later on - must go and do some work now. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I don't think it's awful that it took you so long to reply. I've been busy (homework and I'm starting to study for my exmas because I know that I shouldn't be procastinating that) so I don't mind all that much that it's taken a while to get a response. I was a bit nervous about what you might have to say, but I'm glad that it doesn't really change anything. In regards to WP:YOUNG, one of the first things I thought about was context. If I had read that my very first day on Wikipedia, I probably would've interpereted it as talking down to me. I wouldn't say that's the intention of it, just that a lot of stuff on Wikipedia is down-to-earth and helpful, so a guide like that is fairly typical around here. Other than what I already mentioned on the talk page, my only suggestion would be some form of validation and resassurance. Maybe this is just me, but even though I'm usually quite confident in my own abilities, reassurance and validation can go a long way when it comes to actually reaching the goals that I want to achieve. A lot of my peers al so struggle with their own self identity and wanting to fit in at the same time - finding a balance can be hard and I'd imagine that's also applicable to Wikipedia since there's this unique social aspect to it that's a very different evironment when compared to other online/offline communities. Clovermoss (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping you . I keep forgetting that I have to do that for sub-pages. Clovermoss (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. If I had my watchlist activated, I'd get an email to say you'd edited the page, but for the last 12 months I've had it turned off simply to keep down the torrent of emails notifications I get from so many social media and other pages. (I'm currently not using a mail client, so can't sort out topic related emails into separate folders like I used to.)
 * You make valid points about your peers (mine's going through that a bit at the moment) but is pretty sensible like you clearly are. And yes, it is a different social environment, where self-expression is limited to userboxes and a few lines, not pouty selfies a la Instagram, and a need to show off one's looks or clothes to one's friends so as to feel validated. Validation here comes from others seeing you as competent and constructive. So maybe something ought to go in the page to say that "a side effect of anonymity is that you might be surprised  other editors treat you as you are - an equal. That's normal here, but possibly surprising to some. If you feel you are being told off for making mistakes in a way that makes you uncomfortable but which might be OK were you an adult, you might wish to carefully point that out to the other editor. Most users here will make allowances for mistakes if they know an editor is young and inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia. But you may encounter other who are intolerant of anyone who isn't a perfect editor, no matter what age they are. Do enjoy being treated as an adult, and remember that self-validation here comes from others seeing you as a competent and constructive editor, not from a fancy userpage."  Thoughts? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that I couldn't have worded it better myself :) Clovermoss (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that's really nice of you to say that. Rather than some 'old fogey' like me trying to improve the WP:YOUNG page directly, why don't you consider making this suggestion yourself at the talk page and see what consensus there is to add it, or something akin to it? On re-reading its talk page, I note it was historically intended to be aimed at 10-14 yr olds -so that rules us both out! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusing talk page comment?
So, I'm a bit confused about the most recent comment on Talk:Vaccine hesitancy. It's an unsigned comment, but what I'm more confused about is the purpose of it. Another Wikipedia article is listed as one of the sources, but there also appears to be other sources cited in a last name, year format, with a collation of references at the end. I'm thinking that this is either an edit from someone who wanted to contribute to the article and edited the talk page, discussion about the topic itself with citations, or copy-pasted material from an essay. Any thoughts/advice? Clovermoss (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a weird one you found. I was confused too. I've just waded through it, added the author's signature plus unwound the refs and added some urls. All in all, I think it was an irrelevant post. My conclusion is that it was from someone who thought they'd raise their concerns about the current issue of people not getting vaccinated, but hadn't realise talk pages are only for discussing how content of an article is improved, and is not for getting a wider social conversation going. The editor has only ever made that one edit here - so I think it can be overlooked. I left an edit summary to explain my views on the post, but don't think it's worth engaging with the 'editor' further to seek clarification. I don't think it would help much. BTW: If you ever see an unsigned post and want to add the editors name so that others can easily follow a link to see who they are and what else they've contributed to, go first to View History and find which editor made that particular edit. Copy their username and then go back and edit the section they'd added. At the end of their post, Type , which gives: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs) There are ways to add the date and time, but I can rarely be bothered to work that out. See  for how to use that particular template. TTFN Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the unsigned template link, I remember seeing unsigned comments before/the template added, but I wasn't sure how to do it myself. Clovermoss (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This page in bytes
This is kind of a bunch questions bundled into one. I've noticed that this page is more than 56,000 bytes and that when I've seen other mentions of byte size, that's kind of huge. From my understanding, the reason byte size matters has to do with loading time and the time it takes to scroll down the page and that talk pages are usually archived past a certain amount of bytes/content/resolved discussions. I guess my question is, since this is a sub-page of a talk page, is this sub-page even possible to archive (or would an alternative option just be those "skip to the bottom" templates I see on some talk pages?) The reason I'm asking is that since notifications/automatic pings don't work for sub-pages and your actual talk page has archives, I'm wondering that if it's even technically possible to archive a sub-page. Maybe it's compared apples to oranges, but I'd like to know either way. Since I ask a lot of questions and this page will presumably get even larger with time, I'm just curious about how it's going to be manageable if other editors ever care to read our long discussions about editing Wikipedia. Clovermoss (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, . I'm not particularly strong on archiving, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing to stop me adding an archive to this sub-page. In time I guess we'll find out. (I might even consider setting it for you as a technical challenge!!) The issue of pings not working on sub-pages is completely different. I don't really think 56k bytes is particularly huge. Personally, I like to see a large chunk of my - and other editors - past discussion topics all in one go, rather than have to wade through lots of little broken up archive pages and their tables of contents (TOCs). My main talk page is around 175,000 bytes, I think, though it's probably only so large because I just go on and on so much! I should probably change my username to 'TLDR'. I don't think this page is anywhere near needing archiving yet, and I doubt anyone else would be interested to wade through all our discussions. Aware that they are rather rambling, I have tried to use our sub-page at User:Nick Moyes/Adoption/Clovermoss to succinctly list the various topics we've discussion by just giving their relevant page or shortcut link. That should help both you and me see what these more chatty pages have been covering. Bear in mind, this is a new way of doing things for me - so it could easily all go pear shaped! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Citations and 2019 in American music
I added more than 20 citations in the deaths section a while ago because there weren't citations for the deaths before, but I wasn't able to get through all of it and there's pretty much at least an edit every few days or so that are additions of deaths that are left completely unsourced. I realize that people are likely to add people to the list when people die, but it makes it hard to go through it and try to figure out if each person is notable/find independant sources for their date of death, if they're actually dead, etc. I understand that it's a dynamic list but that's part of the reason I think it's even more important it's sourced reliably (even the top of the page says expansion of reliably sourced entries) - people are likely visiting the page for current information. I also think that people are usually adding these people for a reason and I don't want to be discouraging because most of these additions were actual deaths that have occured. Clovermoss (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My view on this (not sure it's official policy, though) is that for 'simple' factual things like deaths, providing the person is notable and has a page here already, and providing that death date is in the target article's first sentence, I might be less fussy about demanding a citation on the summary page itself. I normally get quite frustrated when someone adds factual statements and a wikilink to another page where that factual statement is correctly cited and believes it's OK to force a user to delve deep to find evidence of its verifiability. I don't think it's acceptable to make a user bounce from one page to another to find citations - they must be shown in all the articles. That said, in the case of death dates, which are going to be pretty visible in the first sentence of the target article (or the infobox), I like to think they would be pretty soon removed were it false. So in the instance you give, I wouldn't worry too much to expect citations. If the target article doesn't specify a death date and provide a source, then you should immediately revert it as possible vandalism and a violation of WP:BLP. You could even warn the editor against adding uncited content - and Twinkle is great for this. How does that sound? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK -Katherine Hughes
I was really impressed to see you've submitted a DYK for Katherine Hughes (activist) at Template:Did you know nominations/Katherine Hughes (activist). You'll see that I've suggested an alternative hook for you. I checked page 123 of the Maclaughlin reference and I think you should expand the political activities section of her page, based upon it. If you can do that swiftly, I think the alternative hook might be chosen. I fear you did make one of two mistakes in the article, most notable of which is the use of the photo. How do you know the photo is of her? It is also used in the page about American James B. McCreary, which states he married Katherine in 1867 - well before our girl was born. It can't be used in two different articles, so I have removed it. DYK needs to be absolutely correct if an article is going on the main page. I was surprised the reviewer hadn't spotted you'd accidentally said she'd died in 1975, either. LOL Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops. I thought it was of her because of the file name (I saw at it Wikimedia commons when I tried to upload an archives picture that looked different, then decided against it), but I didn't check to see the dates/if it was even the same person, even though looking back on it, that was a really bad idea. The geography is messed up and there's no reason for me to believe that this was the Hughes that would have been a part of the Washington Sketch book. For reference, this is where I found an actual photo of Hughes. I don't know if it can actually be used on Wikipedia, but it was linked from one of the sources about Hughes. I messed up on the death date in the DYK? It must have been a typo, but it bothers me that I made a mistake like that. As of Hughes' political activism, I keep finding information about it but it's hard to wrap my head around making anything I know about it coherent. I'm tired and today hasn't exactly been the greatest day for me. I'm not sure what qualifies as quick. I'll try to get to it as soon as I can, but I really need to focus on other things in my life at the moment first. Clovermoss (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You focus on real world things - that's what's important, especially if you mean exams or friends/relationships! We all have difficult times, and walking away is often the best idea. By quick I mean in the next week or two, if at all possible. Don't beat yourself up over the odd mistake; we all make them. You'd simply typed 1975 instead of 1925, and then jumped to a wrong conclusion over an image. These are great learning experiences not only for Wikipedia, but for work-life in general. You take care. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will! I have a lot of homework (and just general review/studying) to do, but with a lot of extra dedication this week and the long weekend, I think I'll be able to accomplish most of what I'm trying to do. I guess you can call it a school-life balance, maybe? Anyways, I'll try to get around to that stuff when I have the time. Thanks for understanding and for the encouragement. Clovermoss (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, the DYK nom was recently approved! I'm not sure when it's going to appear on the main page or anything, but I'm proud nonetheless. Since I was one of the TAFI editors for Bookworm (insect) I'm also kind of involved in that DYK nom, as well. Clovermoss (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcomed to Wikipedia language versions I've never edited?
I got a notification today for someone welcoming me on the Arabic Wikipedia and I got a welcome before on the ha.Wikipedia as well. I don't have a single contribution in those wikis and I don't speak the languages either, so I'm a bit confused about it. I don't have a global account, either, so no user pages or anything on other wikis. Any idea why this has happened? Side note: I'm still pretty busy, but I notice the notifications when on Wikipedia cuz I still read articles that are revelant to stuff I'm learning about even when I don't have much spare time to edit. I'm getting a lot done, actually, finished a 5-page essay yesterday and am quite proud of myself for it. Still have a lot to do, but that's life I guess. Clovermoss (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes that happens just from interacting with those wikis while logged in. I got a notice from the Italian wiki because I switched over to Italian on an article to see if it would be longer there (and worthy of translation). I'm not really sure how it works but it isn't unusual by my understanding. Did you post that essay yet? I'd love to read it! Prometheus720 (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was reffering to an essay I wrote for school, actually. I'm not sure it'd be of much interest to anyone but myself and the teacher I'm handing it in to, but I'm still proud of it nonetheless. Anyways, interacting with wikis does make sense, sometimes I'll click on another language version for an article even if it wasn't what I intended to do. Clovermoss (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, mistook you for Nick! This is the first time anyone else has actually replied here, so I didn't think to check the username. Thanks for the advice from the more technical side of things. Clovermoss (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem! I started watching this page when Nick adopted me. Figured we might as well get to know each other a little! Prometheus720 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, was spot on - I'm grateful for his reply. From memory, some can arrive quite a bit after you visited another Wiki, too. Well done on the essay. Whilst being self-critical is a good way of improving the quality of one's work, recognising when one has actually done well at something is just as valuable. We need both skills if we are not to go complety mad! (My daughter's now deep into her first major exams (at age15/16), so I understand some of the pressures you're probably facing right now.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be around more this summer. Still another week or so before I get a lot more time on my hands, but I do still exist on the Internet every once and awhile. Clovermoss (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles that include products sections?
If I come across an article like Tetley (I like tea much better than coffee, don't judge me), is there any kind of guideline for sections like "products"? It doesn't really seem to add anything to the article, so I decided to remove it, but I'm hoping for a bit of validation or advice about whether or not that's what I'm supposed to do in situations like this. Clovermoss (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . I think you were right to remove that list of products. Their product is Tea, and I don't think the page need a list of every type of tea they sell. That's information that an external link to an official website could be expected to provide, not us. The appropriate guidance is at WP:NOTDIRECTORY (#7) though many editors do like to add their favourite product names into articles. Like you, I also prefer Tea to Coffee.
 * I hope your exams (or whatever else has occupied you) have gone OK. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Seldom Scene
I tried to improve the early history section after citing the death of one of the band members in 2019 in American music. I don't know if you remember, but that's the article I asked about earlier with an influx of unsourced edits. It's been fairly easy to find information about the deaths, although it's kind of tedious at times. I have had to fix a few of the deaths in the article though, as some people did not previously have their correct date of death listed. Anyways, every once and awhile I will look at the articles (or the band associated with the dead musician) and see if I can improve them. Hence, why I took a look at The Seldom Scene. There's a surprisingly large amount of information on the Internet about this band but the article isn't currently in the best shape. I re-organized the early history section a bit and added some information, but I was wondering about other sections. I'm not sure how much a band article is supposed to focus on its members, but since this band has been around since the 70's, it appears that a lot of its members have come and gone. I think that it'd be easier to edit if I had some sort of familarity with the topic... but I wasn't alive during the 70's and don't really understand much about bluegrass as a music genre. Clovermoss (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and . The second diff is minor fixes of my first edit, but I thought that I should probably link both for reference. Clovermoss (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Yes, the article could do with more work, especially to remove the rather essay-like.fandom-like style it currently uses. Phrases like "...firmly established themselves as one of the most influential bluegrass bands." is a point of view not attributed to any reliable source, so should go. Equally, The citation is a deadlink, so should be marked as such with  or repaired, per WP:DEADLINK. Without a goof source, I might even add, so it reads:
 * "But the band was dealt what seemed a crushing blow in late 1996, when band leader and founder John Duffey suffered a fatal heart attack.[9]
 * I'm not too familiar with (i.e. interested in!) music articles, but can see this needs turning into a more neutral encyclopaedic style - so go for it!. I might consider adding a section on band members which explains the turnover in players, and gives one line per member with a date range for when they were active in the band.

Must dash for now. If I've I've missed anything - let me know. In haste,Nick Moyes (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

How do you cite Twitter?
I tried to look for something specific in WP:Citing sources, but I could not find anything about citing social media. I would guess that likely has more to do with it not being the best source out there for most things. Anyways, I wanted to cite it in the 2019 in American music article because the New York Times only mentioned Monday as the death date and since May 13 is a Monday, I wanted to make sure that her death was not May 6, the previous Monday. The twitter link was the announcement of Doris's death on May 13 which said "this morning" and is cited in a lot of the other mainstream news articles about her death (all on May 13). The tweet is from the Doris Day Animal Foundation and it's a verified Twitter account. I put the URL in and website=Twitter, but since the author is unknown (it's likely someone who works for the foundation, but I don't know their first and last name based on the account), how would I fix the ref? Clovermoss (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * is the diff for this edit. Clovermoss (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For this diff, it's actually the next contribution. I don't know why it isn't linking it, I think that I linked the other diffs properly? Clovermoss (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. I actually owe two of my other adoptees much longer replies, which I've been putting off and trying to find a good block of time to address. But here's a quick reply for you on Twitter. Try using  for this. There's a whole host of other esoteric cite templates at Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates, as well as a few commoner ones at Category:Lua-based citation templates
 * I don't mind the delay. Seriously, take your time. It's probably hard to juggle all three adoptees, on-top of all your other wiki interests. I always trust that you'll get back to me with an answer, eventually. Thanks for the template and advice for other article, I'm going to try and follow it. When you're not busy (whether that's hours/days/weeks from now), I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at my two new articles Compagnons de Saint-Laurent and Thérèse Cadorette. They are stubs right now and I still have lots of improvements planned, so a delay in taking a look and giving advice might actually be beneficial in this case. Now that I'm off for the summer, I'm going to be focusing a bit more on content creation that goes beyond fixing typos/adding short descriptions (though I plan on doing much more of the latter as well). Clovermoss (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so I took a quick peek at Compagnons de Saint-Laurent and you'll see I've added an interlanguage link which is very helpful when another language wiki has a page about that person, but we don't have one here yet in English. (I had to read the template documentation to learn how not to display the (director) element to avoid the link pointing to the wrong Émile Legault). See for this really useful interlink template, and how to deploy it. If you could fairly quickly add the 1996 documentary info to "L'Aventure des Compagnons de Saint Laurent", then I'll gladly 'new page patrol' the article for you. Right now it's not totally clear that the theatre group meets notability, apart from the large number of wikilinked people it spawned. That a Canadian Film Board documentary was commissioned about it shows that 'the world has taken notice of it'. You just need to insert that bit, I think, and the rest can come later. I'd also move current ref three into the lead as it talks about the theatre itself, and seems a pretty reliable source.
 * And, regarding Thérèse Cadorette, to avoid a new and incomplete page being put forward for deletion on the grounds of notability, you do realise you can either work in your sandbox or as a draft and move it over when you're ready, and then you're sure they meet WP:NACTOR? I know from experience how upsetting it can be when someone else sees a new page you've just started started and decides they're doing a service to humanity by proposing your early version for a deletion discussion. Sometimes waiting until you're really confident it is OK can avoid that disappointment. I think there's a better reference to her full birth date on fr-wiki. Good luck for all your work over the summer. (I'm off to France later in the summer, and then trekking here in Morocco later in the winter - so I think I could do with brushing up on my own French a bit!) Nick Moyes (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I still have two drafts I need to get back to work on, eventually. The reason I started out with an article was that I felt like I had enough to be a start of one, even if it isn't currently in the best shape. I wasn't really concerned about proposed deletion, but draftspace is probably a better in-between. I saw someone else using their user space subpages as generic draft spaces, which is why I created User:Clovermoss/Draft 1 in addition to my other two named drafts. I've been finding a lot of these useful pages on my own lately, I was actually taking a look at the notability for actors earlier! I'm feeling like I'm getting up there in my understanding of the inner workings of Wikipedia (I have been doing a lot of reading and occasional dabbling in other areas). By the way, enjoy your vacation! I'm a bit envious of all of your travelling. Canada's a beautiful place, but I guess that the grass is always greener on the other side. Clovermoss (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, I probably will stick to sandbox/drafts more in the future. I thought Thérèse Cadorette was an exception because of the square and the public space thing, but even then, it's probably best that I do more in draftspace first. I kind of wish I went that way with Compagnons de Saint-Laurent to be honest. I've written some stuff on the talk page for that article if you feel like taking a look when you get back. There's this sense of urgency I have to improve it precisely because it isn't a draft, but I can only do some much research and translation before wanting to take a break. It takes a lot of mental resources to do edits like that and I've been doing other wiki activities to kind of counteract that. Of course, Wikipedia isn't the only thing I'm doing in real life right now, I have other ways of enjoying my summer vacation.... tomorrow is Canada Day and I'm excited for the fireworks. I've been doing other things that I'm proud of. One example being my first request for permissions! I was approved for AutoWikiBrowser. See, if you're interested in the page. I'm being real careful with it and only using it for short descriptions. I've done a few later edits outside of the tool by looking at my contributions and finding the articles later, though. Did edits on two articles by adding information that was already in the article, but not in the infobox (through regular editing). I'm previewing and diff-ing every edit I do make with tool, skip if I'm ever unsure of anything and double-check each session that I didn't make any mistakes. As for other recent things (before the article creations from a few days ago), I've been exploring some other on-wiki areas and occasionally contributing. I've made some comments on the BLP noticeboard and a report at usernames for administrator attention . Also commented on the two recent RfA discussions. Been watching and observing them since the start of the year, but finally jumped off the diving board and offered a few thoughts (I supported both candidates). I've also been observed the whole Fram ban controversy, but I've decided not to involve myself in any of it. It seems to be a very dividing wiki issue right now and I'm not sure there's really anything revelant I have to add to the discussion. I'm sorry for the huge wall of text. I should probably find a way to make my updates more concise. Clovermoss (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So sorry if I added pressure on you - it was only to avoid another editor NPP-ing your article and challenging notability. You'll see I've now done that, and thank you for adding the film documentary details. Other language wiki articles can be very useful for sourcing new references, but my own language skills aren't up to doing much more. So thank heavens for Google Translate!
 * I'm really impressed that you're starting to delve into the interesting hinterland of Wikipedia. That's the sign of you becoming a real Wikipedian, with an interest across many areas (I'm proud of you -if that doesn't sound too patronising.) Yes, your WP:UAA post was spot on and quickly dealt with. It took me about 6 years or more to get around to getting AWB permissions (not currently using it as I've had to have two new PCs and have been too busy this last year to reinstall it.) You do right to only use it for the areas you are interested in - it's a powerful tool that I have only partially mastered myself.
 * Ah, don't mention WP:FRAMBAN! Yes, I've spent hours and hours following the debate and actions/reactions of editors and admins, the subsequent blocks and unblocks of involved editors, the wheel-warring, the blocks and unblocks for WP:OUTING etc, but have not so far contributed to the sorry saga, either. But I'm impressed you've been following it. However, having spent an hour or so today going through the posts about the Wikimedia Foundations CEO tweets, and reading some of those tweets on her personal (but clearly associated) Twitter account, I am concerned about her social media skills and competence. Despite personally erring more on the side of supporting WMF (at least up to now) in Office Actions and the need to deal effectively with harassment, I do feel she has a lot to learn about following her own organisation's social media policy and setting an example by not bringing the Foundation into disrepute via posts from her personal account. Having drafted organisational social media policies/guidelines in the early days of the medium, I do feel that despite her apology for one recent tweet, as a CEO, is not helping the reputation of WMF one bit by posts such as "When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares." It matters not whether this is related to the BuzzFeed post about the Fram debacle, or something else entirely. As a former Trustee of an organisation myself, I would have been holding my CEO to account for bringing it into disrepute by such personal and unprofessional posts, and at such a sensitive time for some. Specifically, she needs to read, reflect and act in accordance with the first paragraph of her own organisation's policy on the use of personal accounts (see here. And ironically, one of my early guidance papers to colleagues advised against tweeting on a Sunday evening after a glass or two of wine. Judgement lapses inevitably follow...as can dismissals! If I get a moment I might get around to challenging her on Twitter about it...or maybe I'll keep watching from the sidelines for now. But out of courtesy I've included a notification for her of this discussion.
 * Yes, you're at a great time in your young life - enjoy the time after your exams. So don't feel pressured to do any editing on Wikipedia that you're not OK with - especially by me. The key thing is to respect others, and be ready to publicly apologise when (not if) you make those inevitable mistakes. It's only those who never do anything that can honestly say they never make mistakes. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

My talk page?
This is the first time someone else has ever asked me for advice. I welcomed them to Wikipedia after seeing their edits to a draft in my watchlist and also left a personal message as well (which mentions The Teahouse and help desk). Clovermoss (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a very good feeling when another editor comes to you for advice. It shows you're developing as an editor. (I did draft a much longer reply to you, but somehow managed to lose them all on my mobile. Further replies to follow in post above. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You probably had an edit conflict, which I think is the first time that has probably happened on my talk page. I was given the user rights to be a pending change reviewer at around the same time. I'm still trying to decide whether I'm actually ready for that or not, as I'm not sure I'm really qualified enough for that, at the moment. Do you have any advice? Clovermoss (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pending changes is not too difficult, and there's often a backlog. I tend to do most of my Pending Changes work simply when I see them come up in "Recent changes". Sometimes I simply cant decide if an edit is acceptable or not because I don't know enough about/have an interest in certain subjects, such as sports. Identifying and rejecting vandalism is easy; ascertaining whether an edit is valid is a fair bit more time consuming. I can't remember how much you've done at Recent changes, but I'd start off just looking at likely bad edits first and handling those. Is use these settings to filter in the potentially damaging edits to check. Amongst them you'll see Pending Change edits popping up. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice! I've spent a lot of past hour or so rereading a lot of the information (the guide, all of the policies that are listed, certain wikilinks in the policies, etc) and I'm thinking that I might be able to help out a bit, at least based on my current observations. I haven't done much at Recent Changes, which is part of the reason I'm more cautious about it all. As for being proud, I don't think of it as patronizing. I admit, it's nice to be congratulated for my edits. I hope to stick around, too. Clovermoss (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Canada Day
I archived the talk page because it had several lengthy discussions, going all the way back to July 2003. There was so much that I split it up into two fairly even archives... Archive 1 is 75,446 bytes and Archive 2 is 81,113 and all of that loaded on the talk page until today. Clovermoss (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep - that seems fair enough. Well don. I never like to see recent content hidden away in archives, but I don't think that's the case here. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I left some of more recent discussions that might still be revelant on the current talk page intentionally. On an unrelated note, I had an idea and I was wondering if I could have some input. A lot of cooking articles have a link to cookbook. I'm not the best cook, but I can follow a recipe. If I did that, I could snap a picture of the food before I ate it; that way Wikipedia Commons has a file and I have something new to eat that I haven't tried before. Clovermoss (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I love that idea! Though you'd be surprised how hard it is to make a meal look apetising in a photo. I'm out camping with my daughter and her schoolfriend right now - I doubt anyone would want a photo of my burnt sausage buns on Commons! (PS: In the end I did decide to leave a message on Katherine Mayer's talk page about her use of Twitter) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd rather forget about burnt meals than take a picture of them. I was taking a look at a lot of food articles and a lot of homemade dishes already have photos. It's impressive, really. If I did make anything, I'd probably ask for my Mom's help, as she's a much better cook than I am. It might be easier for me to take more Canada-specific things... like a picture of a Maple leaf cream cookies or something. As for the rest, I really am just watching it all. I haven't read every single thing about everything (there's just way too much to read at this point to do that and there's more effective uses of my time), but I have been observing some of it, since it's affecting how the community functions. A lot of editors have decided to go on strike and a lot of admins have resigned. I think I'm part of the minority that's leaning more towards support, though. I don't think the position would be so final and inflexible after this much community repsonse if something wasn't wrong. Maybe that's a flaw of the system, or maybe it's due to the seriousness of the issue. It could be a fundamental misunderstanding of how the community works, or it could be what seemed like an uncontroversial decision with the information presented to them that isn't availible to everybody else. There's been statements by Fram on other wiki's, but that leaves a very one-sided perspective of an issue like that. I'm interested in the official statement that's suppossed to be released soon and I'll read it when it is delivered. Anyways, you do you, that's just some of my thoughts. I know less about the Katherine part of the situation and I know next to nothing about what the policy for staff and personal social media usage is. I wasn't aware you were ever a trustee in the first place and I'm still kind of confused about what that is (there's a difference between community trustees and office staff, right? Or is there a different type of trustee I'm unaware of?) Clovermoss (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a quickie as I'm back in

my tent after a midnight glowworm hunt, and am in need of sleep. It's just to say that I've not been a Trustee within WMF, or anythng to do with Wikipedia. Trustees are unpaid, but are the ones who can be held legally resonsiblle for the affairs of an organisation. They form a Board,set the overall goals, and appoint a Chief Executive who is the highest paid member of staff. The CEO runs the organisation on a day-to-day basis, but is ultimately answerable to the Board. It sounds like youve been following developments well. (Did you see the latest fracas over The Signpost?) Goodnight. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know that an offical statement has been released. There's a copy at the community response page and at AN. Do sleep, though. I realize we're in different timezones. I haven't been camping for awhile, but it can be exhausting. Don't worry too much about a quick reply, I really am fine with waiting. Clovermoss (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Some other updates
I know I updated you recently on your talk page, but I wanted to write a more in-depth update here that's more revelant to my editing on Wikipedia. I was thinking that maybe I should stick to one method of communication just to keep everything together, but then again, my talk page messages are usually shorter and don't result in as much text and further discussion as the topics discussed here. Is there anything you'd prefer, or is okay to just keep doing what I'm doing so far?

A different topic I was thinking about was Adopt-A-User. Maybe it's just where I focus my time and what I notice, but my ancedotal experience suggests that more and more users at requesting adoption. I had a few ideas that might make the general process better. One is just greater awareness foe potential adoptees/adopters, but I also have some specific suggestions that don't involve that. I'll probably add these suggestions to the discussion page for Adopt-A-User, since it would be revelant there.

I've also done some participation in other wiki areas the past few months, experimenting to find out where I'm the most interested in. I've done tagging copyright violations and reports of username policy violations, but I'm not sure how much I would want to contribute in other similar areas beyond that. I have used my pending changes reviewer right occasionally, and I also visit recent changes sometimes. I'm interested in leaving more personal messages to users and less templates, so I've been attempting that. I've also answered some questions at the Teahouse. Overall, I think I'm starting to understand a lot more about what goes on on-wiki and how things work. I think I've come a long way when I first joined, almost a year ago (yay, my first wiki birthday is almost a reality!).

I guess that leaves me this question: I know that there's still a lot for me to learn (my user page says so itself), but I'm getting to the point where I'm fairly comfortable and confident at teaching myself what I don't know. I'm not sure if I'm ready to graduate from the Adopt-A-User program quite yet, but I do think that I am getting closer to that stage. I'm definitely interested on what your viewpoint on this is though, and as always, I welcome your advice. If I did graduate in the future, is it possible that this page can still exist? I was thinking that it might be a valuable resource in the sense of some sort of example of what the adoption process is like. Or just useful in the sense of if I ever wanted to look back at what was written here. Clovermoss (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanka for this. I had drafted a lengthy (unsaved) reply to you very early this morning, but my darned mobile lost them all this evening when the phone refreshed the page after a long break away. Grrrr! I'll have another go at replying when I'm next near a proper keyboard - might be a few days after our long Bank Holiday wekend is over, sorry. Meanwhile, I'm fine with how we're communicating, and would never delete this page. TTFN ( fixing failed ping Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC))
 * For some reason, I didn't see the fixed ping. Anyways, feel free to take your time with the reply - I'm fairly busy too (school starts in just a few days and I almost can't believe that summer is almost gone). Now I'm reminded about what I was going to write in the talk page for Adopt-A-User. Also... I feel like I should mention that I'm enrolled in the WP:CVA. has been awesome so far and I'm glad I was accepted. I kind of got inspired to enrol after some unsettling content had been added and is now revision deleted from my talk page. I also don't think I'm completely finished with adoption - just that I think I might be getting closer to that point. Clovermoss (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Clovermoss. I'm so sorry for the long wait for a reply. I may reply in bits and then ping you at the end, if that's OK. So if you're monitoring this page, there's no need to reply until I do ping you I hope your return to school went OK? It's always horrible returning after the long summer holiday, but one soon gets into the routine of school again.
 * You've mainly asked about the WP:AAU scheme, and I am really pleased you feel confident in finding out information for yourself. That's the sign of someone who has become a good editor and, I must say, I have been impressed to see wading into areas like contributing at WP:ANI, on on other users' talk pages. These are the first signs of maybe becoming an administrator in a few years' time - and, goodness knows, we need more women articles/editors/administrators here - and especially ones with your obvious maturity! I never felt able to create a structured 'training school' approach to adoption, but if you feel ready to call yourself 'graduated' that would be fine by me. That wouldn't stop you coming back to discuss general matters or seeking further help or advice at any time, of course. (Though you might get speedier replied elsewhere!)
 * I will be interested to hear of your views on Adopt-a-User, both specifically how you've felt it's worked between the two of us, and more generally on the scheme as a whole. If you've read back through the talk pages at AAU, you'll see that about 18 months ago I was expressing views on how I felt the scheme should evolve. I wasn't able to see them through as real world events in my life took over, but I would like to return to it sometime and commit some time to sorting it out. My view is that we should abandon 'adoption' for completely new users, and delete the 'adopt me' templates that offer empty promises to new editors. Our Help Desk, IRC channel and Teahouse all now offer instant help to newcomers. But what they don't clearly provide is targeted, prolonged support over many weeks or months to inexperienced/non-confident but committed editors, like you were. And that, I feel, is the only thing that AAU should be offering from here on in. Personally, I do not think it would be helpful to promote AAU as something for brand new editors at all. I did start working on modifying the project text as a mockup, but had to put it on hold it as I couldn't commit the time to see it through. I wonder what your ideas are on what should happen, or how your experience could have been bettered?
 * I certainly think you're doing the right thing by getting involved in different areas and seeing how you find them all. I reckon, by the time we finish, you could have had a little go at most of the following:


 * Monitoring Special:Recent Changes and reverting vandalism in live edits
 * Getting Pending Edit rights at WP:PERM to approve edits to protected pages
 * Warning and eventually reporting repeated vandals to WP:AIV - I think you've done a bit of that already
 * Using Twinkle to welcome/warn/report editors/rollback edits
 * Contributing more to WP:AFD, not only to discussions, but actually attempting to enhance articles that another editor thinks fails to meet our guidelines. (I'd like to think you're not going to develop a deletionist approach to articles) You can monitor all your AfD's here.
 * Visiting WP:Peer Review or WP:GA and having input on articles that other editors have brought forward there.
 * Getting experience of WP:CSD categories, and proposing poor articles for CSD or WP:PROD, and appreciating the different rationales.
 * Creating CSD and PROD log sub-pages for those pages you do template for possible deletion.
 * Installing and using a userscript. I'd suggest trying Lupin's live spellchecker, or PageCollector script as two I find useful. Or maybe one to highlight your own username signature in talkpage posts, or even those of administrators.
 * I'll finish this post by continuing the one below, and will ping you from there. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse?
Hi. I realize it's like 2 a.m on your side of the globe, so I totally understand if you want to ignore this for the moment and sleep. Anyways, when you do have time, I'd like some input specifically on the Teahouse. I was thinking of maybe signing up as a Teahouse host. I promise to be nice. I think I count as at least somewhat 'experienced with editing Wikipedia' but I'd only tackle questions I'm confident with and leave anything I'm uncertain about to a more experienced host, like you. I'm not sure if there's a vetting process process or something after you sign up, but I thought I'd ask you about thoughts before signing up in the first place. If you don't think I'm ready, I'd like to get to the point where I am. As I really like helping others, and the Teahouse, and I'd really like to be an official host if I could.

On a side note, I noticed that on your half-finished reply to me, something about where I might be in a few years time. While I certainly hope to be around that long and everything, and I admire sysops for their dedication and important role in Wikipedia, I don't really see myself going down that path in the future. I just thought I should clarify that it's not something I'm that interested in working towards. Maybe I'd change my mind sometime, as that's so far off from where I am right now as an editor anyways, and since I'm more of a WP:Not quite yet, I guess it's hard to say what I might think in the future.

I do appreciate the compliments and stuff though. I guess everyone appreciates a bit of being appreciated.

Also, since you mentioned pending edits... were you reffering to pending changes review? If so I thought I should let you know that I have had the right since June.

As for the adoption process, I think your idea to focus on the project as a long term (at least compared to occasional questions that are better suited to the Teahouse) is a good one, but my own thoughts on the project had to do with something entirely different. I was just thinking that the project mentions that hundreds of editors have been involved with the project at some point or another, if we could have a graduate/alumni page or something. I also thought that there could be something like a resource page, with examples of the different types of adoption that are offered (formal vs something like this), or even a self-guide of sorts for people who want to teach themselves and already have some editing experience. I was also thinking that, maybe even an invitation to check out Adopt-a-user if someone has posted a question in the Teahouse and had an account for 3 months or something.

Anyways, I have some more thoughts and other things I'd like to touch base on as well, but I've already given a wall of text myself and I should be going off-line now, since it's a schoolnight. Clovermoss (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a quickie (as once again my phone lost my last attempt to reply, and I'm off over the weekend again with the family). Yes, you'd do fine at the Teahouse. Signing up to be a host is not an official permission - just an undertaking to conform to the ways of being a welcoming, helpful person. I'd suggest you add yourself as a host via the header link. If you're OK to do this, choose either an image or a description of yourself which shows you're (relatively) young and female as you'd be a great role model - we need more people to see young female editors being helpful and welcoming. (There are already too many grumpy old buffers like me around, I reckon!!!). One you've signed up I'll (eventually) send you a welcoming message of thanks. I found being at the Teahouse a great way to learn from others' replies about things I didn't know, as well as rewarding to be able to help people solve their problems. All the best for now. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply! I feel like I should mention that by 'official' I meant an actual host, as I've been answering some questions without already being one. As for the picture, I would like to take one, but I'm sure you understand why I don't quite feel comfortable doing so. I might be able to do something that is better than the standard tea cup, though. Maybe there's a nice picture on Commons or something that fits my own perception of my personality. When do you get the time, I'd appreciate if you took a look at the White Pine article again. I know it's been a few months but I had a new interest in the article recently and I edited the talk page to include some information on why I think the article might be notable enough for inclusion. Clovermoss (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean sn actual picture of you - just something indicative if your gender and/or youth. or just say it, if youre ok with that. must dash Nick Moyes (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've signed up as a host! What do you think? Clovermoss (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping you yesterday, sorry! Also thanks for the recent thanks. I also did this recently. Thought I should let you know, since it's your Adopt-A-User profile. I hope you don't mind in this particular instance, but if you do, feel free to revert it. Clovermoss (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, making that change was fine - thank you. In fact, I think I probably ought to remove them from my list of adoptees as I've not had any response from them since my initial contacts in July. (Possibly put off by my slow responses at the moment!) Interestingly, Trifolium repens is one of my wife's favourite flowers - she loves the scent, though it does little for me. Your host description looks fine, and I hope you learn as much as I have there. The trick is to know when not to answer, but to watch and learn instead. I'll send you that welcome note shortly.
 * I think rather than attempt to add comments into my last post (above) I'll just round off here about Adminship and AAU. I was trying to suggest that you are great potential/future admin material, whilst still having quite a way to go yet, even if you were interested. Some of the guidance offered to admin candidates is incredibly relevant to AAU - at least, for those interested in becoming well-rounded Wikipedians, like you. I quite like the idea you suggest of the AAU project offering two routes for adoption, and I can see that even offering a check-list of all the areas that an Adoption programme could cover might be a good way to allow some editors to self-guide themselves through the process. (I must confess to not having checked your permissions when I made the above list - it was a top-of-the-head list of key areas that I guess adoption should cover that you might want to check out). Do you fancy a little practice exercise in article assessment? I wonder if you'd look at the draft article that my other adoptee, BrucePL is writing. It's as User:BrucePL/sandbox/Amelia Shevenell, and I'd be interested whether you feel it meets our notability guidelines, and if so, why, but if not, why not? Take your time. Once you've done so, feel free to have a look through our discussion page (here) and see if anything changes your view. All the best for now, and remember, never to let your interest in Wikipedia dominate anything in real life ...especially schoolwork. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't that it's fair to use that article as an accessment of what I know about notability. Here's why: after one of your other adoptees posting in response to one of my questions here once, I kind of snooped around and read some of the interactions between you and the other adoptees. I have to say, I was quite impressed. Anyways, even though it sounds like a great assignment, I have to confess it feels like cheating to comment on it, because I've seen the article progress behind-the-scenes and read some of the discussion already. As for school, I'm keen to keep on top of schoolwork. I've also been doing some volunteering in my free time and I joined a sport on top of that. I don't expect to edit on weekdays often, but I'm thinking that I might be able to edit on weekends if I'm bored and have nothing else to do. School's been great so far. I'm one of those students that does really well in general. As for clover, I though it'd be great based off my username. I was kind of surprised that 'clover' itself was not a search term on Commons, and I stumbled across some mountain range in the U.S. while looking for an image. As for the article as I was asking you to check out, sorry for the link to a disambug page. I meant to link Talk:White Pine Award. Clovermoss (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. I've been quite conflicted, myself, over it but think it'll stand now. re White Pine; Hmm. I'm still not sure it's a stand alone article. Despite lots and lots of mentions, they still are mentions and little more than that. I'd have kept all the awards in the main article, but I can see the rationale behind making a separate page. I'm not so dubious that I'd AfD or propose it for a merge, so I've removed the notability tag. Whether someone else might follow it up, we can wait and see, can't we?
 * I'm pleased school is going well. It is certainly a good idea to get experience of different things by volunteering. A future college or employer likes to see evidence of interests as it suggests a well-rounded person to them, not just a narrow subject-focussed person. Even saying on a CV that you are a Wikipedia editor with nearly 3,000 edits to your name isn't necessarily a bad idea. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

104.1 Territory FM
Hi. I was typo fixing with the moss project and I took a longer look at this article in particular. It isn't strictly advertising, but the majority of the article is just the times for when radio programs air instead of an actual encyclopedia article. Any advice? Clovermoss (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Before you read further, take a moment and tell yourself what you think is the best thing for you to do. Then, having done that, read on to see if we're both of the same mind...
 * ...This is like those bloated school articles which list clubs and societies. It's trivial stuff that isn't really encyclopaedic, not cited, and we ought to expect any user wanting broadcast schedule information simply to go to the External links section to find the link to their official website. And why have a 9-year old schedule, unsupported by any references anyway? I would simply delete all these sections with an appropriate edit summary such as "removing trivial schedule lists which are not only uncited, but available to all users simply by following the External Links to the station's own website if they want programme details." If your edit is reverted without explanation, you could re-delete with an explanation (but don't do it a third time, or that starts getting into edit-warring territory.) If it's reverted with an explanation, then clearly another editor disagrees with your edit. So then it's time to discuss. A useful guide is WP:BRD, and you might be best to raise your reason on the article talk page, pinging the relevant editor in the process to seek their reasons for reverting, and perhaps gain a consensus from other editors. How does that sound? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like good advice, I'm just worried about something in particular. That's all the article really is right now, so deleting it would pretty much get rid of everything that isn't the lead. Clovermoss (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So? If it's not encyclopaedic, it needs to go. Sometimes less is more. Be bold. Have you seen WP:WHATISTOBEDONE? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I had not, it was an interesting read. I guess this is my prediciment: if I delete that much of an article's content, is the article even helpful at all?

I guess a lead is better than nothing, and something might be built from that is my immediate self-rebuttal.

But if someone genuinely is interested in the radio station, as a reader, will this article be enough? I'm afraid that someone might type this in, see only the lead, and be disappointed, because it doesn't really offer anything else that someone familiar with the radio station would likely already know.

If it's a community radio station, maybe the limited article content could be merged in with something/some place it is associated with? Like the mentioned Univeristy?

I don't really know what to do, I guess. More of it has to do with my own indecision. I know I should remove the content, and I probably will, it's just I don't know what to do with my resulting thinking of what's next and what are the potential implications of my actions. Clovermoss (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the implications are that someone might not like what you've done. But others might. Go with your gut instinct and delete the trivia to make the remainder more useful. You, or someone else, can always go and research some more verifiable and noteworthy content to add. People do take exception to deletions here, but if you can calmly explain your reasons for an edit, then you are more likely to have your edit retained. What you can't do is take personal responsibility for what remains - just take responsibility for what you've removed. You don't have to fix anything, you could just say 'oh well, move on' it's someone else's problem. Nobody forces you to make edits. When I'm reviewing possible bad faith edits at Recent Changes, I've got to the point nowadays where there's so much I could potentially do that I simply ignore articles about unknown people, films, football clubs, manga characters unless I've actually heard fo them and care about them. I look for 'real articles' of encyclopaedic/educational value and check those. Things like scientific objects, historical figures, ecological/climate change related and worry more about those. You simply can't worry about everything. Be WP:BOLD!


 * On a related note, I'm just pondering what to do with the ridiculous number of near identical images at the top of this article on Room. Here's the diff before I set to work on it. I might give up and let someone else worry about it, or I might spend half an hour worrying about getting it right. Both options are fine - nobody forces you to do anything here. Has this been of help? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. You know, I really do appreciate all the time you spend trying to explain things to me. To add a bit from yesterday, I'm not sure I'd put Wikipedia editing on a CV, but that doesn't mean I'm not proud of it. Almost 3,000 edits is almost nothing compared to a bunch of other people, but I'm thinking of one teacher who would repeat this every time someone said something like that: everyone is different, don't compare your success to other people's success, because it's not the best way to reflect upon your achievements. They were more eloquent, but that was the gist of it. Anyways, I'm proud of my edits. I think I've learned quite a bit since I first created an account. Clovermoss (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And if you'll allow me to say this: I'm very proud of being able to help and support you; you have a lot to be proud about because you're developing as a good editor. I could then extrapolate that to conclude that you're developing new skills as a person in your own right, and that will count towards your own success as you move on through your life, even if you don't notice it. And yes, we're all different. I've always been extremely happy to be seen as a bit of a nerd, whether it's sharing the curiously interesting smell of a badger's poo I've squidged on the end of a stick to show fellow naturalists, or wiring up webcams that have been watched by millions around the world. None of that has brought me much money; but that's not my measure of success, even if it might be for other people. Different is good; never forget that. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem editor
Hi. I happened to spot a discussion on your talk page about a problem with a third editor (Xboxsponge15, or something similar). I took a quick look at their edits and, ignoring specific concerns over some of their minor edits, I was very impressed by the quality of their edit summaries. They are brilliantly detailed and most helpful to assess what they've done. So much so that I'd seriously considered giving them a barnstar as encouragement. Then I thought maybe this was something you or the other editor might consider doing. Sometimes a bit of friendly encouragement is a good way to engage with another editor that you have concerns over. I'll leave that thought with you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've been trying to be friendly, and I already did leave a message on their talk page. Not entirely enocouragement, but I did try to be welcoming. These are my two edits . The 'problem' is that many people have seen distruptive edits and that they haven't communicated with anyone. The discussion on my talk page was left by another editor who was thanking me for my efforts. There was a bit more to it than that, but I don't want to repeat everything there back here. It's nice to hear that you've seen some good edits and really detailed edit summaries. Honestly, I think encouragement is something that you do brilliantly. If you'd like to try and engage with them, in any way you think to be helpful, I'm all for it. Clovermoss (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK,, well done for reaching out to them - you did it in a very nice way, I thought. When I'm next near a keyboard I'll take another, more detailed look and maybe leave them a barnstar and perhaps a gentle word, if needed. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

3D sound synthesis
Another article I took a closer look at when I was fixing typos. The writing is off, in a way that I'm wondering might be a copyright violation. The article is from 2016, and the editor who created it had a lot of text in the article from the start. There's weird phrasing in the second-person, and phrases like as "as we all know" (which I removed from the article). I can't access most of the sources listed, so I can't really confirm whether or not information might be closely paraphrased or copy-pasted. Do you have any advice? Clovermoss (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats a weird one. I cant make sense of it. There's no lead that actually states what the concept is. It's very student essay-like, with a fair bit of copyvio shown in Earwig's copy vio tool. Are you familiar with using that to check articles? At leaat one section needs a  template. I don't like  to AFD stuff just because I personally dont understand them, so I would definitely do WP:BEFORE to make my own assessment. If still in doubt you could simply leave it for someone else to vex over! In my view, AFD is not a desirable route to follow unless a topic is very clearly non-notable/promotional, and doesn't form part of a broad suite of related articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is a fair bit of copyviolated content, shouldn't that be dealt with? I haven't found out how to use earwigs copy vio tool on my tablet yet (if it's possible), but if there is content in the article that violates the WP:CV policy, shouldn't it be speedy deleted under WP:F9? I'm also going to ping here in case he wants to give any advice as well. We've been talking about CSD at CVUA, so this might be a relevant learning experience for me. Clovermoss (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , hi - thanks for the ping. I'm on mobile (Android), and earwig works for me - it just works through the normal browser, like on my laptop. Try to make sure that it is really copyvio - sometimes Wikipedia mirror sites, or other pages that are copied from our content, throw up false positives. If you're confident, then it does need to be removed. Ask yourself if what would be left would be in any way useful - if there is other useful content, then cut out the offending content, and mark the old revisions for Copyvio Revdel - there's a tool you can use for that, I'll need to dig around for what it's called when I'm on my laptop. If there's no useful text apart from the copyvio, then just mark the whole page for G12. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just read a bit more of this conversation further up - just wanted to add that I haven't looked at the page myself yet, I'm not saying that it definitely needs any action. If Nick Moyes has looked and isn't too concerned, I'd be guided by him on this one. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  21:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I keep this link (https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ ) to Earwig's copyvio tool on my list of useful external tools and links. Just paste in the page name, and you get a comparison of the article against the external page, with text matches marked pink. in this case it's a mild, insidious use of a few phrases here and there, rather than a single block that can be easily excised. Certainly not a CSD G12 candidate. Earwigs tool works fine on all my devices, including an Android tablet. I did have a script which added it to the left side Tools bar, but I've just had a whole load of user scripts suddenly cease functioning on me recently, and haven't got to the bottom of the problem yet, so won't recommend links that might not function.  I'd be interested to hear about the revdel marking tool, too, please. (BTW:congrats on your adminship!). Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks and . I appreciate the advice, as always. I'm going to take a more insightful look at all of this a bit later - I have dinner to eat and homework to finish. Clovermoss (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Found it - User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. Pretty easy to use, I find it really handy. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Alejandro Agag
There's entire paragraphs of unsourced information in political career and business career. Does that make it a BLP violation? I read WP:BLPSOURCES, but I'm not sure if it is applicable in this case. Clovermoss (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you - so I'd flag the whole Business section as Unreferenced, and cut out the promotional style of wording throughout. I would delete the uncited but about Welle and Agag. I've no idea if this is a positive or a negative thing, but its sufficiently personal as to justify removal. How does that sound? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question so I understand something. The article already has a template for additional references needed for verification at the top. I know that tags addressing sections are different, but I'm not sure why placing the tag in this case would be useful. Is it because it is a BLP? Clovermoss (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, with no simple answer. On the one hand, merely adding more templates (and not addressing the failings) just makes a mess of an article, without solving anything. On the other hand, specifically flagging an entire section with makes it abundantly clear that that section cannot be relied upon. None of us can take it upon ourselves to resolve every issue we encounter here - we have to pick the things that feel worth the investment of our time, and maybe leave certain things to others. So, you can fix everything, flag major weaknesses, or simply do nothing and move on. The choice really is down to each of us. Does this make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Thank you for the answer. Another (somewhat unrelated) question: you said earlier that you were going to write more (in the Some other updates section) but I'm not sure if you got around to that? Obviously, it doesn't have to be now (I'm aware of our time zone differences), I just thought I'd ask in case you forgot. Clovermoss (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd dealt with things in either that or the following post. If I missed something, could you repeat the question to save me wading through to find it? Thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "I'll finish this post by continuing the one below, and will ping you from there" I'm not sure what exactly you were going to write, so I was trying to follow up on that.


 * Forgot my signature so the original ping didn't work. Clovermoss (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible graduation?
Hi,. I was thinking that I might be ready for graduate. Do you think that I am ready for that? The reason I think I'm ready is that I've been around awhile (almost a year and a half) and I feel like I understand the basics of editing now. I also participate in a more experienced capacity: reviewing pending changes, reverting vandalism, !votes on afds, improving articles and writing them, occasionally helping out at the Teahouse as a host, etc. I still might pop by and ask a question or two on your talk page every once and awhile, but I think I might be ready to move beyond adoption. Anyways, those are just my thoughts. I'd appreciate knowing what you think. Clovermoss (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave this with me, and I'll get back to you. In essence, I think I agree with you. I'll look at the best way of sorting that'graduation' out! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Once again, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. As you know, I never had a formal, structured approach to Adoption. Therefore, there is no checklist of attainments I need anyone to tick off. What I have seen is you developing as an editor and being fully capable of going off on your own to contribute and give help and support to others in a wide range of areas. I really have been most impressed by your own maturity and, if you stick at it, you have the potential to become a great admin here, too, should you ever wish. I've enjoyed supporting and guiding you, and seeing you spread your 'wiki-wings'. So, absolutely, yes, I'm delighted to say that you've graduated with First Class Honours. If you go to Template:User wikipedia/AdopteeGrad you can add the template text to your userpage.
 * Of course, this doesn't ever stop you coming back with follow up questions, and I do hope you'll keep me updated on your progress through your school/college exams and your university choices in due course.
 * All the very best and CONGRATULATIONS!!! Have  a great Christmas and New Year. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)