User talk:Rhododendrites

This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.

Music
Been thinking recently about how much Wikipedia does act as a social network, and how valuable that can be. Articles aren't social media, of course, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a community, and healthy volunteer communities need to foster forms of communication that aren't strictly "talking shop". In that spirit, how about some music talk. Might just be me sharing, but who knows.

What I'm listening to
Occasionally sharing songs/albums that I find myself listening to repeatedly. Starting this at the end of 2022, so here's what I've been listening to this year. And yeah, it's all over the place.

December 2022

 * The Window of Appearances (Act 1 Scene 3) from Akhenaten (spotify is a little closer to what I heard, but it's also on youtube - Seeing Akhenaten at the Metropolitan Opera was one of my most memorable experiences this year. I knew almost nothing about it, haven't seen an opera since seeing one against my will as a child, but it just looked like such an unusual spectacle. Not only was the set and production outstanding, but I found myself listening to the music repeatedly ever since. This track is when Akhenaten sings for the first time. He's just been crowned pharaoh and makes his "appearance". Without expectations, his voice was immediately striking. I wasn't prepared for a countertenor (Anthony Ross Costanzo in this case) in that role (i.e. much higher than I would've thought). I don't have the classical vocabulary to talk about it properly, but the way the repetitive nature of the music shifts and intensifies from minor changes, with other voices coming in, was really powerful and shifted my undestanding of what I was getting into.
 * Cool by Uffie (spotify youtube) - Great pop song, with pacing and infectious bass line that's just, well, really cool.
 * Sunglasses At Night by Corey Hart (spotify youtube) - Heard the synth line sampled in another song and it drove me nuts I couldn't remember what it was from. Finally tracked it down and relearned how much this track slaps. Started a trend in my house of trying to turn random "a" sounds scratchy and loud.
 * I've Seen Footage by Death Grips (spotify youtube) - Not going to be for everyone, but weird, hard, noisy, danceable hip hop scratches an itch.
 * Is There a Ghost by Band of Horses (spotify youtube) - Band of Horses' Everything All the Time was one of my favorite albums about 15 years ago, and I realized I hadn't paid much attention to them since. Decided to see what they've been up to and was happy I did. Solid indie rock, maybe with some southern influence, that's catchy as hell.
 * Pecking Order by Too Many Zooz (spotify youtube) - They call themselves "brass house", seemingly structuring their brass jazz like house music, and it works for me. This song isn't actually a big stand-out, but I had trouble choosing one.
 * Pineapple Suite by Cristobal Tapia de Veer (from The White Lotus) (spotify youtube) - I was just really impressed by the soundtrack of White Lotus and wound up listening to it when the show was done.
 * Hairy Candy by Tobacco (spotify youtube) - Tobacco's the guy from Black Moth Super Rainbow, and this sounds, well, exactly like BMSR. Fuzzy, psychedelic electronica with repetitive lyrics that function like another instrument.
 * Miss You by Oliver Tree (spotify youtube) - I've had about enough of the musician-as-meme/clickbait schtick, and find Tree a bit whiny, but this song is just really catchy.
 * Blazing Arrow by Blackalicious (spotify youtube) - Blackalicious's Gift of Gab was just really really good at coming up with complex rhymes that wind up as an impressive song rather than a gimmick. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

June 2023

 * Blade Runner 2049 by Synthwave Goose (spotify) - I've added a lot of Synthwave Goose tracks to my background/working playlists recently. It is what it says on the tin, basically: synthwave done pretty well.
 * Fantasy Trash Wave by Tobacco (spotify) - Didn't realize I listed a Tobacco track above, but oh well. A bit muddier and darker than BMSR, I'd say, but similar sound.
 * Rita Lee by Os Mutantes (spotify) - Rita Lee died recently, and I found myself on an Os Mutantes kick. I listened to them a lot 2005-2007, but not much since then, so it was good to go back through the catalog on Spotify.
 * Top Top by Os Mutantes (spotify) - Rita Lee isn't actually on the song named after her, so how about one of my favorite Mutantes tracks, too.
 * Mustn't Hurry by Fever Ray (spotify) - Had the chance to see Fever Ray at Terminal 5 recently, and this was the track that I loved when I heard it live but hadn't paid much attention to on the album. Fever Ray's second album has a lot of loud, bouncy, vaguely punk electropop that drew my attention, but this is a great slow build.
 * Sliver by Nirvana (spotify) - Not my favorite song, but there are a bunch of "deep cut" Nirvana tracks that I realized I never looked up to see what the lyrics are and the chorus to this one is .... "grandma take me home"!!
 * Prisencolinensinainciusol by Adriano Celentano (spotify) - Yes, I was reminded of this by an episode of Ted Lasso during it's [horribly disappointing] final season (alright). I'd heard it before as kind of a novelty and learned in the show that it's actually kind of a banger (alright).
 * Badala Zamana by Zohra (spotify) - Found this one from a spotify station starting with Prisencolinensinainciusol, and just found it really light and fun.
 * Miss You by Oliver Tree (spotify) - I find that Oliver Tree's musical-personal-as-living-meme schtick comes off as desperate more than funny, and it distracts from the fact that he really can write an extremely catchy whiny pop song.
 * We Have Explosive by Future Sound of London (spotify) - Loud, mid-90s techno anyone? Anyone? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

What I should be listening to (and what you're listening to)
Open to anyone.
 * US Navy Band. I never would have thought this would be for me, but I find their Jersey Boys medley strangely compelling.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mikayla McVey - folk singer & song writer, check out new album: Time Turns Everything
 * Gangsta Boo - Recently deceased Memphis rapper, check out album: Enquiring Minds
 * Photay - DJ and electronic music producer, pick any album
 * Evolfo - Brooklyn based garage soul/rock band, check out song: Moon Eclipsed The Sun and 2021 album Site Out of Mind
 * J. Cole - mainstream-ish, but if you did not listen to his "The Off-Season" album (2021), it's worth a listen --Wil540 art (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could've sworn I replied to these a long time ago, sorry! "Strangely compelling" is a good description for that Jersey Boys medley. We both wound up watching the whole thing here, and were both surprised by that. :)
 * Photay is up my alley (one of them, anyway). Adding some to my "working" Spotify playlist. I think I know J. Cole from his early material. Listened to the popular tracks on The Off-Season and will explore some more later. Currently listening to Evolfo and digging it... Thanks for the recs. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your Thoughts...
We have discussed the possibility of expanding THIS... I am seriously considering the creation of a full genre article comparable to stuff like Swedish death metal or West Coast hip hop etc. It would essentially be the narrative of the Don't Think I've Forgotten film in expanded form with robust links and independent sources. I am confident that text and sources for such an article will come together rather easily from our existing artist articles plus Cambodian Rocks and related items on Cambodian history and the war. The problem is I cannot think of a GOOD TITLE! Cambodian rock might be pretty good but the era of interest will be 1959-1975 and current Cambodian music will be excluded. Cambodian psychedelic rock might also be good because it's a label that is often used by modern fans like Dengue Fever (band) but it implies that psychedelic was the only genre practiced in that scene. Something like 1960-70s rock in Cambodia might be too long and unwieldy for WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Any thoughts? ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've found myself thinking about this a few times now. The best I've come up with so far is "Music of/in/during pre-Khmer Rouge Cambodia", with honorable mentions for "Music of Sihanouk Era Cambodia and the Khmer Republic", "Music of Cambodia, 1960-1975", "Mid-20th century music in Cambodia" and the like. It seems hard to draw a clear line -- musically or politically. I haven't read anything that does much to contrast music under Sihanouk vs. the Khmer Republic. That is, I've read plenty about how Sihanouk fostered music/culture, but not much about what changed between 1970-75. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who wrote most of History of Cambodia, and , who has provided some useful insight about related topics in the past. @Wikirictor, since I don't know if you know the context here, we've been working on 1960s-70s Cambodian pop/rock music articles like Sinn Sisamouth, Yol Aularong, Pen Ran, Baksey Cham Krong, Meas Samon, Ros Serey Sothea, etc. (and my gateway to the music, Cambodian Rocks). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In the near future I'm ready to write a first draft of such an article on the scene/genre, but I'll take any ideas on what to call the dang thing. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. As I've noted before, I don't have much time to dedicate to WP these days, so I won't say much. However, I will say that both by its title and in its content, such an article should make it clear that this was (to use Doomsdayer's terms) one specific scene in Cambodian popular music of the era. The "rock" music has been brought to the attention of the Western world in recent times and that may make it seem like it was something more than it really was. But rock music wasn't the only kind of pop music in Cambodia during that era, nor was it likely even the most popular. Among Khmer, Sisamouth and SereiSothea for example, are more well-known for slow ballads like this and this or their myriad rom vong and rom kbach songs. These types of songs were (and are) way more popular among all Cambodian demographic groups than any of the psychedelic or "garage band" type music, which although popular among college and international students at the time for its "western" sound, was/is viewed as not much more than a novelty by most Cambodians. On top of that, in addition to pop music, there were other genres including court music, traditional and folk music that also prospered during this era. And...I've rambled on more than I intended. Suffice to say that the title and the article should put the CambodiaRocks-type music in the proper Cambodian context (i.e. not at all representative of all Cambodian popular music of the time) in addition to noting its new-found, and rather incongruous, popularity among westerners.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful reminder, . Documentaries like Don't Think I've Forgotten and the selection of music that's been imported to the US have definitely shaped my understanding such that I may be of the impression that it was more popular than it was, but I've listened to enough e.g. Sinn Sisamouth and Ros Serey Sothea that I know it's not all western-influenced rock/pop/garage/psych. I don't know specifically what Doomsdayer's article plan is, but I would assume incorporate material about all sorts of pop music if doing an article on that era. Perhaps that just gets too much overlap with the existing article, and perhaps we would run into trouble with two people who don't read Khmer searching for sources on the elements of Khmer music that haven't become popular in the west (I say popular, but it's even more of a niche here :) ). So maybe the most succinct title/scope (which doesn't read as very succinct, but oh well) might be "Rock music of pre-Khmer Rouge Cambodia". &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * William's thoughts indicate why Music of Cambodia should remain the primary article in this area. Unfortunately that article has been in need of expansion for years, and international WP users do not have the expertise, and anyone who does have the expertise is probably not able to use international WP. In the history of the Sinn Sisamouth talk page you can see people popping up occasionally who really are Cambodian (as in an old dispute over how to spell his name), but otherwise we have a bunch of articles written by Americans with material that Americans know about. .......................... It's surely not perfect but the scene/genre has gained international notice that may very well transcend Cambodia itself. Or in other words, Klezmer is enjoyed and talked about worldwide by people who know little about its European Jewish originators and may not have to. "1960s-70s Cambodian Rock" (or whatever title) could survive WP's notability requirements thanks to its international recognition. Any article here must avoid implying that it represents ALL Cambodian popular music, which hopefully can be done with sensitive writing. I envision a tight genre-specific article; consider the article for Jazz fusion which does not imply that it's the only kind of jazz. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

New exercise regimen while staying indoors during the pandemic


I'll just leave this here... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Outstanding!!! Video now shared with dog owners I know. --cart  -Talk  15:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

ADL, COI, and The Forward
I posted a link to this section at WP:COIN to avoid belaboring something that's more or less resolved there, for better or worse.

Here's the TL;DR version of what I said in response to an inquiry about the ADL case: So much of the difficulty of editing Wikipedia as an organization or otherwise with a COI is how few bright lines rules there are, and how many shades of skepticism there are among the community such that a range of outcomes are possible for any given situation. That's true of a lot of Wikipedia, but seems particularly pronounced with COI issues. The reception ADL received in the noticeboard thread was IMO harsher than necessary, given they expressed interest in learning the rules, responded to criticism, and seemed to agree to just about everything we asked of them, stopping short of a self-imposed ban on ever adding ADL sources to articles. But while I think that should've led to a second chance, the result of the thread (to the extent there is a result, except to say that I was in the minority and ADL has stopped its editing project) is also unsurprising because -- and it's hard to overstate this -- first impressions are extremely important. If they hadn't edited the ADL article, hadn't only been adding ADL sources, and hadn't created weight problems (in other words, if they started with the guidelines that they've now agreed to), I doubt we would be here. But organizations and people with a COI do not get the same leeway to make mistakes that ordinary volunteers do, and there's a good reason for that. Any organization interested to edit Wikipedia really needs to do a lot of homework about Wikipedia policies and conventions beforehand, err on the side of transparency, and ask questions if they're not sure about something.

In general, I thought the article was a more or less fair summary of something that was likely frustrating for all involved. Hopefully others do, as well. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To add something I've said in several places at this point (as have others, probably more eloquently than me): if we're going to have vague COI rules in order to allow more room for case-by-case judgment, taking a hardline approach which operates as though the rules are not vague and which leaves no room for making mistakes ultimately discourages transparency and makes volunteers' jobs harder in the long run. Editing with a conflict of interest is never ideal, but it's going to happen, and doesn't always harm the project, so we might as well try to be more consistent with how we deal with it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Essays, guidelines, etc
I think you've made some good points there, and can't help but wonder if it is not well past time we had a systemic review of the whole tree of designations like this. One thought that came to me is to deprecate the "guideline" designation entirely, and instead make all instructional pages "information pages" which to me seem to be essentially the same thing, but without the baggage of having to get them formally approved as such. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean deprecate the guideline designation as it applies to instructional pages, or everywhere? Would notability become an information page or would it be promoted to a policy? I haven't done a full review, and don't know of one. Part of the confusion is the dual meaning of "levels of consensus/support" and "principles vs. practices" (or something like that) as well as the differently functioning content vs. behavioral vs. administrative/procedural pages. I started to type out about five different version of "if I were to start from scratch I'd...", scrapping each one. Will have to give it more thought. Maybe an audit would be helpful for a big picture. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, any such review would need to be very carefully planned out, what I mentioned here was just the first idea to pop into my mind. With the ArbCom workload being what it is I'm not currently in the "big policy RFC" business for at leat another year. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't blame you. The gig economy of the Big Policy RfC Business pays much less than the lucrative long-term contracts in the Arbitrating Business. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown
The article Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown and Talk:Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Freedom4U -- Freedom4U (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Rhododendrites,

This is to let you know that File:Rooftop farm at the Essex (65787p).jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 20, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-04-20. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK PAGE ) 21:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for BRAAAM
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am excited to see how this hook does. Bruxton (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was altered a few hours ago to be a bit drier in presentation. A bummer, but oh well. If only there were a way to break pageviews into 12-hour periods. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The way the DYK viewcount is calculated means that this is probably close to the number it received in its twelve hours – an hourly viewcount that I think beats any other audio-clip lead I've come across! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The highest hourly viewcount of DYK this month so far. Congratulations. BorgQueen (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Because I'm waiting a word count expansion
Just for clarity, I know the rest of my statement was loaded with a bunch of canadian humor, but I wanted you to know my AGF link was a sincere attempt from me to highlight there were no ill intentions from you in what you did, I just didn't want to assume your intentions. I also don't think that lack of action (aka reverting) is agreeing with something, more just it's likely better of left than reverted. Either way, just wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to go at you for your action there. -- Amanda (she/her)  01:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's odd to explicitly undercut a reference to AGF, then insist it was just a sincere AGF, but I don't intend to belabor the point. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 11:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If it helps any, I do apologize, and I have retracted the original language. -- Amanda (she/her)  12:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to start a conversation here, away from Jimbo's talk page, principally because your talk page doesn't attract as much traffic and I've got more chance of the discussion remaining on a sensible tangent.

The problem, as I see it, is that Jimbo is the only Wikipedian who is famous for editing Wikipedia by the general public. Sure, other famous people contribute to Wikimedia projects; Allan Warren's freely-licensed photos adorn numerous articles, including FAs. But nobody else has such a longstanding reputation that is primarily based on Wikipedia, and that means, as you suggested, every single action that Jimbo takes has, at a guess, 100 or so people looking at it ready to criticise or pick holes in it. Combined with his lack of time to address issues, this leads to an effective "hit and run" style of management whenever he states any sort of opinion on an article or project governance. And that leads to an insane amount of verbiage and discussion by everyone who does have the time - I can't remember how long that discussion was about Jimbo's move of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, but it seemed to go on for days.

I've heard it said that people are afraid to take administrative action against Jimbo, especially blocking him. But I don't think Jimbo has done anything block worthy; if people think he has, then they should be able to start a thread proposing sanctions on ANI, consensus will form, and action will be taken. I can't see it happening myself. Also, some of the editors who don't think Jimbo should have admin rights or disapprove of his actions are not cranks or trolls, but sitting Arbitrators. For better or worse, we elect those people to be the ultimate body that decides conduct on Wikipedia, and so we have to listen to them.

I haven't really got a good answer to this other than to suggest to Jimbo that he's simply too famous to edit Wikipedia, and attempts to do so will always be counter-productive, and that resigning any advanced tools would be a magnanimous move towards that, though I also see your point that doing right now may be sub-optimal and invite drama in the future. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * your talk page doesn't attract as much traffic Whaaaaat? :) Yes, good call.
 * an effective "hit and run" style of management - The tricky thing is, he's not exactly a manager. A manager can hire, fire, set the rules, and enforce them. Jimmy doesn't really do any of that, and I don't know that he would be able to if he tried, outside of obvious circumstances. The things he gets in trouble for are relatively normal, everyday things that any volunteer can do (which isn't to say should do :) ). The impact comes not from what he did but from who he is, as you say. An alternative to telling him he's too famous to edit Wikipedia is for us to directly address his missteps, provide advice, and try not to create a circus anytime he does anything outside of Jimbotalk. Probably not realistic, though.
 * Overall, I think it's a Good Thing for the project that there's someone with a lot of soft power who's on the right side of issues like paid editing. I like that he's willing to take someone to task when he thinks they're compromising its integrity, and willing to advocate against promotional editing. I just think he should ping a couple people off-wiki first to, you know, avoid acting on a scam or doing so in a way that does more harm than good. He may be a busy guy, but it doesn't take keeping up with the minute developments of everything on-wiki; it just takes talking to someone who does. Any admin, regardless of their available time, can attest to how quickly things can spiral if they're made a bad call just before going to bed, starting work, going on vacation, etc.
 * afraid to take administrative action against Jimbo I believe this might be true for the sorta-kinda "insiders" who know they'll have to work with Jimmy, the WMF, or the board. Maybe some old-timers, too, who were around for Ye Olde Userbox War. These days, however, it sure feels to me that there are more people quite eager to take some action against Jimmy (or other insiders). His actions just never rise to that level. Some bad calls, but nothing that would get anyone else sanctioned. He gets in trouble in a way that's similar to how another board member might get in trouble, or the way we would tut-tut an arbcom member if they made such a mistake because it means more coming from them.
 * You might be right. It might be better if he didn't get involved in on-wiki specifics and reserved his power for talking about broader issues. It would probably make for better PR, but it also feels rather un-Wikipedia to be motivated by "better PR". Maybe that's the old Wikipedia, though, before it was, well, actually important. *shrug* &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Effective writing
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2FNewsroom&diff=1150949960&oldid=1150948077 this comment]: personally I think the editorial's structure diminishes its effectiveness, but the author disagrees, and I'm pretty sure others also disagree. There'd be no point though in having a parallel article covering the same material: it would be redundant, somewhat similar to a newspaper publishing both a reporter's original draft and the copy edited version. The regular contributors to the Signpost generally defer to what the authors prefer regarding writing structure and wording, and I understand why (it's not like there are a plethora of contributors to write about the areas usually covered by the Signpost). isaacl (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it could be awkward, but it could also be framed as two takes on the same issue. I feel like I've seen that in the Signpost before. I don't think it's like the rough draft and edited version; more like two people focusing on entirely different parts of an event. Another approach could just be SB writes about the paid editing part of the story and someone else writes about ... the rest of it. But yes, as I said in my first comment there, I suspect there's a way to edit SB's version to be more acceptable to all (perhaps not those who want to totally exonerate Jimbo or those who would love to drag him over the coals, but meh). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the key is that there needs to be different takes for different articles to work. When the disagreements are with organization, style, and so forth, different articles would just be rewritten versions of the same facts. The author doesn't want to separate out the different aspects of the story, so that's not an available option (and it would amount to a complete overhaul of the piece). isaacl (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bazzini
The article Bazzini you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bazzini for comments about the article, and Talk:Bazzini/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * Rhododendrites edits an exceptionally wide variety of topic areas (example:here) both in WP content (62000 edits) and at Commons (78000 edits), many attaining deserved Featured Article and Picture recognition. This editor has a history of helping at the reference desk, inputs dialogue at various noticeboards with thorough, logical, courteous and civil comments, and is dedicated to improving the neutrality & integrity of Wikipedia. Also, they have improved many "List" articles (see:List of hip hop musicians) and is a recent event coordinator at Wikimedia New York City.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   12:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, ! I should say that while there are a bunch of GAs (top of my user page) and a lot of FPs on Commons, I haven't worked on any FAs and haven't been to the refdesk in a few years. :) It's interesting... I guess I haven't thought of myself as someone who likes lists. I've created a few (one FL) and watch the lists delsort, but it's mainly that I try to clean them up sometimes (especially a maybe 5 or 6 years ago). That's what happened with the list of hip hop musicians. It's not that I'm a huge hip hop fan, but the list was in terrible shape, with people constantly adding themselves, so I cleaned it up and sort of adopted it (and a bunch of others). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies for misconstruing your editing history. When vetting a nomination I use [] to gather information. The hip hop list is the top edited page among other list articles. I guess I just mistakenly assumed you searched out lists to improve them...My bad. I can make changes if you like. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   13:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Made some changes. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   14:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Pale Male

 * Don't know how much it matters, but I wasn't the one that updated the article -- I just added a bunch of citations. An IP added the news about Pale Male. It's worth mentioning, in the spirit of WP:ERRORS, that not a lot of the "serious birders" that I know give much stock to the argument that this was indeed the original Pale Male. It would certainly be odd for the local hawk celebrity to not only be the longest-living red-tailed hawk ever, but also pulling it off in a place known for being perilous to raptors (mainly due to rat poison). That said, plenty of sourcing is treating the bird as though it's the same one. Figured I'd mention it, though. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping, sorry. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you added the citations and the item wouldn't have been posted without that effort. I say you deserve some credit. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Wade Goodwyn
Originally deleted the NY Times citation because a subscription is required to read and verify the citation. How does one verify the subject is mentioned? Thanks PhillyHarold (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Wade is mentioned in the very last sentence of the Duke article. PhillyHarold (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Per WP:V and WP:RS accessibility/being behind a paywall is irrelevant to the source's reliability. We should use the best quality source available, even if it's an undigitized book only accessible through a physical visit to a library. For something like the NYT, though, you can always use WP:RX, where someone will be willing to send it to you. In fact, if you send me an email I'd be glad to attach it. All that said, thanks for clarifying that he's mentioned in the Duke article. Seems like a good idea to retain both. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that it's good to keep both and that we should always use the best quality sources. A genuine thank you for the additional information regarding sources as I continue to learn more about editing. I have no doubt that all NYT sources are excellent and relevant, as I was a digital subscriber many years ago. My question relates to how does the average user verify a source if they can't get behind a paywall? I know we're always supposed to assume good faith, but a library trip to verify a book seems a bit sketchy, as a less scrupulous editor could claim an undigitized source says whatever they want. Just my two cents. Thanks again for the help and information. PhillyHarold (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * how does the average user verify a source if they can't get behind a paywall - For better or worse, that's not a requirement. What we need is for it to be verifiable if someone were to check that source, not whether they can check that source. Most of the highest quality sources aren't immediately accessible by an average user (books, journal articles, etc.). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

6666666
Well congrats! This proves that you are just as certifiable as the rest of us! And I thought that I was nerdy when I saw that one article had a totally needless fair use image and another one had a really crappy image. So I spent some quality camera time with my old LP collection and made new Commons:Categories for these two rather uninteresting and rarely viewed subjects. ( No, I don't stalk your edits, and I rarely visit Twitter now, but when TFG gets indicted you have to take a look at what the site makes of it. ;-) Just in time for your announcement there. ) <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  21:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And I thought that I was nerdy - No argument from me. :) Nice job illustrating cataloging systems there! Regarding SatanCon, I was more excited than I'd like to admit when I realized the milestone was coming and found a fitting topic. Woke up early (before my alarm, even), and wound up refreshing numberofarticles for ... a while, before publishing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Bazzini
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a nice surprise. Thanks for nominating, . &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 03:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: usernames in signatures
Whatever became of the RfC you initiated? As someone who uses an abbreviated signature myself about which nobody ever complained in 15 years, i would still support it. ◅ Sebastian 07:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * - Don't think anything else came of it. There was a finding of no consensus for the proposals, for better or worse. Don't think I've brought it up since then, and continue to hear occasional confusion from newbies when the person they're trying to contact is a totally different name from the one they see on a talk page. Meh. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* – i guess that comes with Wikipedia being established now. It was more rewarding for me back in the day when one had a reasonable chance of changing things that hurt newbies. What keeps your spirits up? ◅ Sebastian 16:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We're definitely on a long trajectory towards quality and experience and away from quantity and ease of editing. Wikipedia's serious business now, haven't you heard? :) What keeps my spirits up? There's still a ton of amazing work being done. Most of the new user interaction I've had over the past many years has been off-wiki. We ran an edit-a-thon to improve climate change-related content here in NYC a couple weeks ago which went well. New users removing spam, adding citations, fixing mistakes, etc. People just need more support these days than perhaps they used to, but there are more people interested than ever. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't heard. I thought all was fine when the WP:DENY of ‘Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense’ was DENYed in 2007. But seriously, you're raising an interesting point when you write that you get a lot of satisfaction from off-wiki interaction. Yes, that's something i miss since i moved away from the US. I had thought with WP being a role model for online cooperation there would remain enough to keep the spirit up, but i was mistaken. Interesting that you write “People just need more support these days”. What kind of support is more needed now? ◅ Sebastian 03:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Physical Documents
Your help was much appreciated a few weeks ago, and I hope you won't mind a question. I have hard copies of two articles from the 1980's that appeared in papers that are now defunct. The original author provided these, and I'd like to know if I can reference these. If so, how? Much thanks in advance! PhillyHarold (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, newspapers are usually going to be considered reliable, and whether they're digitized doesn't affect that. You can just use a template like cite news and fill in as many fields as you can. FYI The Wikipedia Library has resources that may help if you really want to find a digitized version (I have access to Newspapers.com through them, for example). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * A huge thank you my friend. PhillyHarold (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown
The article Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown for comments about the article, and Talk:Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Freedom4U -- Freedom4U (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Beginning of pregnancy controversy
I am not "edit warring." I've undone edits performed on a faulty basis. You need to read more closely the explanations for the edits. 1) Your edit removed content other than that you object to and 2) The objections has been addressed and no loner applies.

"However, some methods might have a secondary effect of preventing implantation, thus allowing the embryo to die.[31] Those who define pregnancy from fertilization subsequently may conclude that the agents should be considered abortifacients.[32]" SOURCE 31: Rebecca Peck; Walter Rella; Julio Tudela; Justo Aznar; Bruno Mozzanega (February 2016). "Does levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive have a post-fertilization effect? A review of its mechanism of action". Linacre Q. 83 (1). SOURCE 32: DeSanctis, Alexandra (November 4, 2016). "Yes, Some Contraceptives Are Abortifacients". nationalreview.com. National Review.

The objection was to the first statement not having a proper source, and both statements were deleted based on the (correct) sourcing of the second source when the proper edit would have been to add a tag saying that the first statement required a source. Therefore I reverted and added the tag. Subsequently, the tag was replaced with a proper source. SalClements (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops - I was leaving a message on your talk page while you were writing this. I'll watch for a reply there, but the actual issue at hand is better discussed on the article talk page. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy toto discuss this on the article talk page but I don't understand why i shouldn't just undo your revert given that your justification was, "National Review is not a reliable source for medical information" but as you can see, the medical claim has a medical source and the Nat Rev source was concerning what "Those who define pregnancy from fertilization subsequently may conclude," which does not need a medical source. SalClements (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: You wrote, "The burden is on those who want to change the status quo to use the talk page (Talk:Beginning of pregnancy controversy) to find consensus for a change once it's disputed." So, shouldn't that mean that Avatar317 is the one with the burden, rather than me? My main issue with what avatar has been doing with his edits is that he removed the portion of the article which has been there at least since 2019 (I didn't go back farther) because he said it's in need of a source. My reversing his edits has been about preventing that removal SalClements (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#mechanism_of_action SalClements (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up. I'll take a look at this a bit later. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

List of most visited websites
Hi, if you have a look at Similarweb's site, they explain the creative process by which they produce their data. Unless they are trying to make a simple process look more complicated, it sounds as though they've put a huge amount of effort into this. Their EULA also specifically forbids the use of their data. So there is no doubt whatsoever that Wikipedia's article is a copyvio. They are probably tolerating this because they know better than anyone that we have huge traffic, and are raising their profile enormously. I suspect this is a bit of a wrong situation here. Elemimele (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Banks
Hello there I moved the reference to the Invisible Ships Myth to the Legacy section of the Joseph Banks article because it's too tangential for the short, factual account of the Endeavour voyage. I also slightly changed the wording because the linked article says that Banks'account might be the basis for the myth (it actually contradicts the myth). By the way, I had never heard of the myth before and I found the article fascinating. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, . Thanks for the heads up! &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 00:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Killing of Daunte Wright
The article Killing of Daunte Wright you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Killing of Daunte Wright for comments about the article, and Talk:Killing of Daunte Wright/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Invisible ships
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * nice 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  03:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Rhododendrites,

This is to let you know that File:Yellow-bellied sapsucker_in_CP_(40484).jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 3, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-10-03. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Rhododendrites,

This is to let you know that File:Field sparrow_in_CP_(41484)_(cropped).jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 8, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-11-08. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Gorgeous. Thanks, Rhodo! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry for the hassle, this is about the RfA of 0xDeadbeef. Fermiboson (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Rhododendrites,

This is to let you know that File:Male northern cardinal in Central Park (52612).jpg and File:Northern cardinal female in CP (02035).jpg, a pair of featured pictures you uploaded, have been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 21, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-11-21. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Such a pleasure to meet you at Wikiconference North America! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the future of Wikipedia... and covering my dinner ^_^ Really looking forward to seeing you at more conferences/gatherings/Future Audiences community calls!

<font face="courier" color="black">Accedie <font face="courier" color="black">talk to me 23:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * Great to meet you, too, ! Thanks for your sessions. I'm on the WikiFuturist list now -- looking forward [ahem] to hearing more. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 02:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Younger generations
I was thinking of something you said when we talked last? An idea has kind of been bouncing around my head the past few days... maybe I could go around interviewing people around my age and seeing what we have in common and what we don't. Asking questions like I think the cumulative effect of asking these questions might be useful. What do you think? Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When did you start editing Wikipedia?
 * Why did you start editing Wikipedia?
 * If you could go back in time, what do you think would've helped you be a better editor?
 * Did you have help as a new editor? What worked and what didn't?
 * As a new editor, were you aware that there was a community behind the scenes?
 * Do you think you'll keep editing for the foreseeable future?
 * Were you involved with WikiEd? If so, what was that like?
 * Have you ever edited on mobile? Why or why not?
 * - cumulative effect of asking these questions might be useful - Could be. Something I've found interesting is how wikiphilosophies seem to evolve with each "generation" of Wikipedians. If we think of Wikipedia's 22 years as being four generations, I guess I'm in the second generation. When I got here, my take on things like deletion, blocking, immediatism, etc. was a bit different from some of the old timers. These days I find that the newer generations make me feel like one of those old-timers (and I guess I am?). To reduce what I mean to a single example, back in 2013 I was most often called a deletionist. These days, though I don't feel like my take on deletion has changed that much, I find myself lumped in more often with the inclusionists (to the extent those sides even exist at all, of course). To your questions, there's one in there about Wiki Ed, which sure seems like it's intended for me, but I don't think I'd be included in the "people around my age" that you started with. :) Happy to answer if it would be helpful, though. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the WikiEd question was directed at you :) Since I've never really interacted with that side of the community, I was curious about the similarities and differences we face. Ever since you said something about how people can struggle even with a ton of resources at their disposal... I just went on to this whole train of thought full of ideas. Is it possible that you might have some idea of how I could connect with some students working with WikiEd? I really think it'd be insightful to interview some if they're open to that but I have no idea where to start. I like to plan things out a bit before I actually go about doing things. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's okay if you don't really know if that's possible, though. Even if you could point me in the direction of someone who might be able to that'd be useful. Regardless, it was nice to meet you and I appreciate everything we've talked about. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Late reply, sorry.
 * Is it possible that you might have some idea of how I could connect with some students working with WikiEd? - You can always head over to dashboard.wikiedu.org, where you can find all the classes active in a given semester (and all of the courses Wiki Ed has supported since ~2015). You might have more luck reaching out to the professors, though, who can then connect you with interested students.
 * Some brief other answers:
 * When did you start editing Wikipedia? - 2007. A professor had us edit Wikipedia. I was fascinating by how much of a garbage fire it wasn't, and set out to study it. Highly active editing came a few years later.
 * If you could go back in time, what do you think would've helped you be a better editor? - I don't think I'd change anything, now that I think about it. There were times that I had different ideas of "what a Good Wikipedia ought to do" but in hindsight that's mostly nonsense. I did exactly what I wanted to do on Wikipedia at each stage, I suppose. If the question were "what advice would I give myself" it would probably be to think about anonymity a little more.
 * Did you have help as a new editor? What worked and what didn't? - I was an atypical newbie in that I spent a long time reading and researching before diving into editing, so I didn't need too much help. I learned from some veterans when I was researching, and when I solicited feedback on my first article. The names FT2, Dana Boomer, Wikid77, and DGG come to mind as early, helpful interactions (sadly now one is deceased, one long-inactive, and one banned).
 * Do you think you'll keep editing for the foreseeable future? - Yes. There have been a few discussions and trends over the past few years that I've found discouraging/demotivating, but there's just too much that I like about this place.
 * Were you involved with WikiEd? If so, what was that like? - It was overall a very positive experience. I was already teaching with Wikipedia and they needed an interim program manager shortly after my last semester teaching... then I stuck around for five years. Generally positive. It reframed my relationship to Wikipedia a bit as it meant I was no longer purely a volunteer (even if I separated my work and volunteer accounts), but I didn't let it affect my editing all that much. There were a bunch of layoffs early in the pandemic, which included me. The upside is it gave me time to finish my dissertation. :)
 * Have you ever edited on mobile? Why or why not? - Almost never. It's just too hard with a tiny screen. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the late reply. Thanks for your input :) I will check out the dashboard. Do you mind if I mention your answers to my interview questions in a userspace essay? Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No I don't mind (thanks for asking). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And thank you for humouring me with the answers. :) If you want to check out the future progress of all this, it's at User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Rhododendrites,

This is to let you know that File:Flicker hole in CP (31848).jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 29, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-12-29. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikimania 2025
I noticed that you were one of several editors interested in bringing Wikimania to NYC at some point, when North America gets it's proper rotation. While I live in Chicagoland now, I lived in the city for fifteen years, attended one of the first NYC picnics, and Wikimania in Boston way back in 2006. I am also an accomplished party planner (in Manhattan) and pretty familiar with the boroughs. If I can be useful in the slightest way, I'd be happy to help. My daughter has an apartment in the city, so I could be present for an extended time at little cost. Please add me to the list of definite volunteers for any NYC Wikimania event and keep me apprised. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer to help! I'm sure that if/when it happens, we'll need all the help we can get. :) Unfortunately, it's not going to happen in 2025. Looking forward to 2027, I suppose. Pinging, who's really been leading the charge to get Wikimania to NYC and would know more about the prospects. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While Wikimania is probably not in the cards for NYC in 2025, WikiConference North America may well be! Feel free to get in touch with me about it, and maybe also if you'd like to help revive Meetup/Chicago. Pharos (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting
<div style="border:2px solid gold; box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.35); background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #FCFCFC 0%,#F5F5F5 100%); text-align:center; padding:24px; border-radius:7px; width:75%; line-height:2em;"> ❄️Happy holidays!❄️

Hi Rhododendrites! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. It was great to meet you in Toronto, and it's always nice to chat about Wikipedia and journalism with you! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk

&#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

For your barn

 * Ha. Thanks, . I realize now that I'm at risk of developing an accidental focus area after recently starting Bryant Park restroom. I'll just pretend like I haven't noticed there isn't an article for urinal partitions and poor coverage of the "powder room" section of women's restrooms. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rhododendrites!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Rhododendrites, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Rhododendrites,

This is to let you know that File:Brown headed cowbird female in JBWR (25487).jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 3, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-02-03. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flaco (owl)
The article Flaco (owl) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flaco (owl) for comments about the article, and Talk:Flaco (owl)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Flaco (owl)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Flaco (owl)


The article Flaco (owl) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Several issues with this article including that while significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Story on Flaco the owl is nothing more than a local, non-notabile news story with excessively detail. What the Flaco article demonstrates (and many other articles on New York City as well as other major metropolitan areas is Urban bias. The Pew Research Center report 'One-in-five U.S. newsroom employees live in New York, Los Angeles or D.C.' showcases 12 percent of all U.S. newsroom employees—reporters, editors, photographers, live in New York City while only 7 percent of the U.S. working-age population lives in New York City. The subject should be moved to a subheading in the Central Park Zoo article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Myotus (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be notable because of urban bias, but it's notable. If you're looking at that massive list of sources (not to mention the many published just in the last few weeks that aren't in the article yet) and conclude that it's not notable, I would urge you to recalibrate your understanding of WP:N. What is notable may be notable because of many various biases in the world, but they're notable nonetheless. If you see that it has significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and still want to nominate it for deletion to make a point, that falls under WP:POINT. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So give that you acknowledge its notability due to urban bias, just exactly what is your reason for creating it and with all its the trival details? Why are you not okay with moving the subject to the Central Park Zoo? It seems to me by doing so you are ignoring a problem as well as being part of the problem. Myotus (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's back up for a sec. The way I see it, there are three types/levels of systemic bias to think about. At the first level (which is only the "first" level insofar as it's a useful starting point) is the rules we create and apply to determine who/what should be included in Wikipedia. Let's put aside the distinction between "has its own article" and "is part of another article" for the time being. The basic concept boils down to "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". What that means and how it's applied varies a bit based on certain considerations but that's the gist. Another way to frame that is "the way we combine WP:V, WP:NPOV, the self-identification as an 'encyclopedia', and the possibility of everyone being allowed to edit". It's pretty fundamental to Wikipedia, but certainly a valid discussion to have, if for no other reason than to draw attention to the vast stretch of reality that exists outside of what we've decided to call "encyclopedic" and how that varies in the gray areas.
 * Moving on, though, the second level of systemic bias is everything external to Wikipedia: how we lack written "coverage" for most of written history; how everything before the printing press, before the computer, before the internet is less and less accessible; how we exclude oral history; how parts of the world with the resources to build vast publishing infrastructure will have more "coverage" about them than everywhere else such that leaders, artists, and writers in one country can have articles while leaders, artists, and writers of the same relative renown in another country cannot; or how publishing is primarily a for-profit enterprise that seeks to maximize eyeballs and appeals to the lowest common denominator, making things like sports and entertainment more visible than pottery and scientists.
 * The third level of systemic bias has to do with what selection of "notable" subjects we actually cover -- those that manage to get that external coverage and manage to get by our rules. This has a lot to do with who writes [English] Wikipedia. If we don't have volunteers who can read Finnish, our coverage of Finnish subjects will be poor; if most of our users are men, we wind up with excellent coverage of football and military topics but poor coverage of dance, poetry, and other "topics typically relevant to the lives women" (here I'm referring to some research which has framed the gender gap in these terms -- I'm not just arbitrarily sorting into "boy stuff" and "girl stuff"). Our gender gap is well studied and well documented at this point (with lots of great projects like Women in Red and Art+Feminism working to address it), but there are countless other content gaps that exist that we could cover but don't. This is IMO the primary way we should be "fixing the problem".
 * Coming back to the point: I read your criticism of the existence of the Flaco article as sitting primarily in level #2. #2 is not something we can help here on Wikipedia. Several people have floated or speculated about projects to publish material based on Wikipedia content gaps, but I haven't seen any materialize and they would all be external to Wikipedia anyway. The Wikimedia Foundation tried to fund organizations producing material on underrepresented people/subjects recently (the Knowledge Equity Fund) and met with a surprising amount of community pushback for being too out of scope. Our volunteers can and should try to write material that fills content gaps outside of Wikipedia for the sake of Wikipedia if they want to, but it's not something we can address internally. Our goal is to summarize what is out there. The national and international press has decided that this New York City subject is worth writing about. They have done so and made it notable. Not locally notable -- notable notable. If you want to find some little local restaurant sourced just to NYT, Eater, and Gothamist, there's a conversation to be had about audience, but Flaco just isn't a good example to make that point.
 * As for your accusation that I'm "part of the problem", I'm not going to apologize for writing about a subject that's both clearly notable and of personal interest to me. I don't seek out articles because they're popular. Most of the time when I take on a project it's because I go to Wikipedia to learn about something and don't find what I'm looking for (or find it in a poor state). Sometimes I seek out a subject based on a representation gap (in the pre-pandemic days when we ran lots of events with partners, our activities at WikiNYC were overwhelmingly oriented towards addressing content gaps and participation biases), but sometimes it's just what I think is interesting in the moment. In this case, it was an owl. One that attracted hordes of people, received a constant stream of widespread press attention, and apparently inspired a bunch of art and a forthcoming documentary. All pretty unusual for a zoo owl, no? But it's not important because it happened in NYC? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 00:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for catching this. I thought it said "biography", not "bibliography". Mistakes happen, I guess! <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#e82c52;color:white;">‍ Relativity </b><span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 21:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not an uncommon mistake, for what it's worth. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Rhododendrites,

This is to let you know that File:Chipmunk with_stuffed_cheeks_in_Prospect_Park_(05980).jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 12, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-03-12. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Gladys (owl)
I would be interested in your thoughts and comments and page improvements on the Gladys (owl) | Talk:Gladys (owl) page which was proposed for deletion one day after it was created. It is about an escaped Eurasian eagle-owl that later was killed after getting hit by a vehicle. However, this occured in Minnesota, not New York City. Myotus (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wrote a lot the last time, which is still above. I don't think I have anything new to say. Sorry your article might get deleted -- you can remove the PROD yourself if you want FYI. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 02:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (April 10) and City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (April 11)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2024
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 01:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:


 * with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
 * with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
 * with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
 * with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
 * with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:International Churches of Christ&#32; on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Elliot Rodger&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Israel&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 01:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Climate change&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thu April 25: WikiNYC Hacking Night
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 62
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 62, March – April 2024 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * IEEE and Haaretz now available
 * Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
 * Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
 * with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
 * with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
 * with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
 * with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

May 8: WikiWednesday Salon with new Executive Director
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

More on Maher
This wasn't so bad: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

TFA
Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2024
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 06:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Vaush&#32; on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Magical thinking&#32; on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Whadjuk&#32; on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

To expand upon what I said at AfD
If you wish, I could email you the bibliographies of the books I have on JWs, if that would convince you more than what I said at the AfD. I'm all for informed choices in discussions. Alternatively I could try and improve Jehovah's Witnesses publications instead where the focus was meant to be on publications that are actually mentioned by secondary sources (which was not the intended purpose of List of Watch Tower Society publications.) There are slightly more passing mentions to publications apart from the Watchtower and Awake!, but not nearly enough for a spinoff list in my opinion. When you're actually reading the text and not just the bibliography in isolation, this observation is much more noticeable. But I could highlight all of the JW publications mentioned in the bibliographies for you if you wish. I'm not sure I should even try to go about improving Jehovah's Witnesses publications (which lacks much secondary sourcing to begin with) because the passing mentions would require me to make it a list and the recent move discussion I started decided against that, with the main argument being that such a move would risk an AfD (which is a line of thought I don't follow, but what can I do)? I really have been trying to reduce the reliance on primary sources in the JW topic area but sometimes it can get a bit disheartening. Anyways, the books I have are: One of the difficulties is that people rarely write about JW beliefs in isolation and usually focus on other themes like legislation that impacted JWs or government interactions. Bibliography of works on Jehovah's Witnesses shows some of the works I don't have, for comparison. As far as I can tell, Jehovah's Witnesses: A Comprehensive and Selectively Annotated Bibliography is a work that focuses on literature published by others, not by JWs. Counting the Days to Armageddon: The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Second Presence of Christ might be more promising if I could get my hands on it someday. Anyways, that's why I've been relying on Chrysiddes so much in edits like these. As the jstor article mentions in the link I posted at the AfD itself, there isn't much scholarship on JW culture or the historiography of their publications. It's not really something that has been done, even if you find such an idea shocking. I also don't think we need two separate duplicative pages on the same topic. I figured the one that already doesn't cite any secondary sources at all would be the less controversial one to delete but given how this AfD is going, I suppose it isn't. I wish the arguments were stronger – I don't understand when people will say things like an article is well-sourced when it isn't or your argument that sources must exist without providing them. But I also don't want to drown out other people's commentary. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction by George Chryssides
 * State and Salvation by William Kaplan
 * ''Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich by James Penton
 * Apocalypse Delayed, also by Penton
 * Jehovah's Witnesses and the Nazis by Michel Reynaud and Sylvie Graffard
 * Crisis of Allegiance by James Beverly
 * Judging Jehovah's Witnesses by Shawn Francis Peters
 * Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World by Zoe Knox
 * Dissent on the Margins by Emily Baran
 * If you ever do find something when you have more time, keep me in mind? I'd be genuinely interested in such content. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Gigi Hadid&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Aidi&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 07:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2: Hacking Sunday (+preview of June 8 Wiknic)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Donald Trump&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Israel&#32; on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jinn&#32; on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sat June 8: Governors Island Wiknic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Twitter&#32; on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2024
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 14:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Clamshell dress

 * Someone nominated it on enwp, too, FYI. Maybe you can get a whole McMain Page sometime. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That'd be fun! Thanks again :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

June 26: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Privacy Rights Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter
The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:


 * with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
 * with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
 * with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
 * with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Rhododendrites,

This is to let you know that File:Mockingbird in_Bay_Ridge_(85082).jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 29, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-07-29. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Commons open letter
The link to the open letter at Commons mentioned at Wales' talk page may be mislinked. It presently goes here. Thanks for bringing up the topic, and wondering exactly how much funding would be needed to accomplish everything Commons is asking for. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops! Fixed now. Thanks, . &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2024
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 02:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Fri July 19: Wikicurious in NYC, Editing Wikipedia for Beginners
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yol Aularong
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yol Aularong you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 63, May – June 2024 <div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;"> Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One new partner
 * 1Lib1Ref
 * Spotlight: References check