User talk:Sdkb/Archive 2

Growth team newsletter #13
Welcome to the thirteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Join the conversation: structured tasks
We are looking for community input on a new project to make it easy for newcomers to make real article edits.

In our previous newsletter, we talked about the productive edits coming from the newcomer tasks feature. Those good results have continued: about 900 newcomers made over 5,000 suggested edits so far. We've learned that newcomers are interested in receiving suggested edits.

Now, we are thinking about how to supply them a feed of easy edits that will help more of them be successful quickly. We have a new idea called "structured tasks". This would aim to break down edits into steps that are easy for newcomers and easy on mobile devices.

In the past, certain kinds of editing tasks have been structured. For instance, adding categories through HotCat. Now, we are thinking about how to structure the editing of articles. The goal is to allow newcomers can make large content additions, especially from their mobile devices.

Please visit the project page and respond to the discussion questions listed on the talk page. You are welcome to show this project to others in your community. You can help by translating the materials to your language so that more voices can join in. We will be having this conversation until June 18.

Expanding to more wikis
We have expanded to six new wikis, and are looking for more interested communities.

In the last two months, we deployed Growth features to six new wikis: Ukrainian, Serbian, Hungarian, Armenian, and Basque Wikipedias, and French Wiktionary. Newcomers from these wikis have already contributed over 600 edits through Growth features.

We want to expand to more wikis in the coming months, and we are looking for interested communities. French Wikipedia already agreed and will be the next one to join the experiment. We will contact several other wikis in the coming weeks to offer them to participate.

Do you think the Growth Team features would be a good addition to your wiki? Please see this translatable summary of Growth features. You can share with your communities and start a discussion. Then, please contact us to begin the process!

Other updates


Work continues on improving newcomer tasks and the homepage.


 * In March, we deployed an upgrade to the topic matching in newcomer tasks. The current version offers 39 different topics using new ORES models.
 * In April, we completed an A/B test of two homepage configurations. We learned that more newcomers will attempt suggested edits if the module is made more prominent. We are implementing those learnings in our next test.  See the full results here.
 * We are currently working on guidance for newcomer tasks. It will use the help panel to guide newcomers through completing easy edits.
 * Our next step is to create new configurations of the homepage. The goal is to encourage more newcomers to begin doing suggested edits.

As usual, we are still welcoming your feedback and questions about our features. Please contact us on the project talk page!

'' Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. '' 14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK process
Just a heads up regarding the DYK process:
 * As a reviewer, all you do is place one of the symbols (e.g. the tick in the case of Takapūneke). In your case, you accepted the article. That's your job done.
 * Somebody else then comes along and promotes accepted articles to one of the queues. That is when the nomination form gets closed off. Promoting an article must be done by a different editor than a reviewer. I therefore gather that your last two edit were a mistake and I shall revert those.

Yes, DYK is a wee bit complicated.  Schwede 66  03:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes sense. Yes, feel free to revert me there so the process can work as intended. I hope someone comes along at some point and improves some of the workings to make them less labyrynthian! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's a very involved process because the stuff ends up on the homepage and all hell breaks loose when there are factual errors. That's why so many different editors are involved (the reviewer, then somebody who puts together the queue, and then an administrator who promotes the queue to the homepage), and they are all supposed to check that the hook facts are correct (plus other bits and bobs). That's what makes it arduous. And that's why I can't see this fundamentally changing.  Schwede 66  03:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The editorial scrutiny makes sense and probably won't/shouldn't change. I was commenting more on the technical aspect. All of the instructions about copy/paste this, edit below that, etc. were confusing even to me as someone who dabbles a lot in some of the more technically complex areas of Wikipedia. Fixing it probably isn't a high priority task since it's not reader-facing, but I was just surprised by how bad it is. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Takapūneke
Sdkb, thank you for doing the final check and approving the nomination. For future reference, please note that reviewers are not supposed to fill in the "passed" field at the top of the nomination. That is reserved for the person who ultimately promotes the nomination to a prep set, who has to be someone other than the reviewer. (It's why we have the Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion message just below the top section of the nomination template, so that reviewers do not venture into that top area.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the discussion in the section above this, which goes into this. What I did was delete the "yes", which prevented the problem that was occurring. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for your additional cleanup. The distinction between reviewer and closer was unclear to me — I did see the hidden text message but assumed that being a reviewer meant that I was a DYK volunteer, and that it was my job to close a nomination that met the criteria. I'd suggest changing the hidden text to make this clearer, among many other usability improvements that could be made to the process. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Prometheus (Orozco)
Hello! Your submission of Prometheus (Orozco) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Media career of Donald Trump
You added a reference to in that article, but without a full citation it's impossible to know what they reference is. Could you add them please?
 * Kranish & Fisher 2017

Also if you use User:Svick/HarvErrors.js, you'll be notified of these errors in the future. If you don't know how to install it let me know, I'll walk you through it.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I launched that article by splitting it off from the main Donald Trump article, so the reference error may have been introduced through that or may have existed at the source. I'm unfortunately a little preoccupied currently given that hundreds of my template edits in all sorts of areas going back years were just mass-reverted, so I hope you'll understand if I place this on the back burner for now. - &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any more time to take a look at it? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for following up. The URL was there from whoever added it initially, so I just expanded using ReFill. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you! ... ;-)) ...
Dear Sdkb; Very many thanks for adding documentation to two of my userboxes! I also like your alternative "Thank You" userbox(es) very much, for using the appropriate logo and being much simpler in design... Well done! With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 08:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For your help and kindness, here's another one you might enjoy, with my grateful thanks!


 * Thanks for the WikiLove! And thanks for creating those templates — they're a neat way to show just how much appreciation goes around on here. (I wish the software made it possible to see which edits were being thanked for, though! Perhaps that'll get added someday.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Headsup
I reverted you here. An individual is claiming that there needs to be a response on en.wiki because one of our community members and staffers was being homophobic for giving them a list of instances where "I'm gay" was used as abuse. Showing that for what it is rather than letting it go unchallenged is pretty important to the point I was making in opposing a "standard" position of this community, which is why I reverted. Just wanted to give you an explanation why :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I'll leave it expanded. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone else agreed with you, so guess you were right :) Ignore me. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marmol Radziner (May 23)
&#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation
Hi Sdkb, sorry for not getting back sooner. I see the brief discussion we had at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic appears now to have been archived. Perhaps we could say something like "Misinformation about the virus has been spread by numerous [or many] media [or news] outlets ...", and possibly clarify with "... especially online" or "... including online". The phrase "media outlet" is used in the source. Another possibility might be "Misinformation about the virus has spread online, including via media outlets". Do you have any suggestions? Alternatively, we could leave it as it is. However, as it stands, it implies that all the misinformation has been propagated online, which suggests the likes of YouTube and Facebook rather than the MSM. Feel free to move this post to the Talk page if you want. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the short archive period on that talk page is alternately a blessing and a curse (I'm hoping it'll act on the gigantic origin thread soon...). Misinformation about the virus has spread online is slightly different than All misinformation about the virus has spread online, so I don't think the current version is wrong, but your concerns are reasonable. Thinking about it, I'd say that the spread of misinformation hasn't been focused in any one medium compared to the normal mediums where misinformation tends to spread; the mention of online just happens because that's where most communication happens nowadays. So perhaps we ought to remove any mention of the medium and say just misinformation about the virus has spread, and leave discussion of the mediums for the section. Would that be good with you? Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. The linked article already includes a long list of the misinformation channels, so something along the lines of Misinformation about the virus has spread widely, or words to that effect, should do the trick (using widely or some other word just to round off the sentence). I'll leave it to you to amend. I'm off to bed here in the UK. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; I made the adjustment. You may also be very interested in this discussion on the talk page right now; what's going on there should hopefully be self-evident and just needs some eyes to resolve. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

'Request an article' wizard
With thanks for your note in the Village Pump, I'm inviting you to this discussion / whiteboard for sketching out a 'Request an article' wizard. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx and if the copyedit needs propagation...
Thanks for copyediting my contribution to May's issue of The Signpost. You might want to know the hyphenation I used was cut/paste from Wikimedia Foundation. Maybe it needs to be corrected there, too? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you, ! In hindsight, your advice early on to subdivide the RfC as much as possible was spot on, so you certainly deserve a big share of the credit for the success. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply to your "June 2020" message
Hi Sdkb, thank u for your advice. I'll make further user' editing only within my Sandbox. After editing of Article draft in Sandbox be completed, would u mind to make professional editing, and help with moving Article to WP Main Box? DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I replied at your talk. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb! Thanks for the kind welcome!
It really meant a lot to me. :) Coolmandude545 (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course; glad to have you around! If I could ask for some feedback, there's been some discussion recently about how to design the best welcome message so that it gets across important information without overwhelming. The message I used for your page is Welcoming, and the more standard one is Welcome. Do you think you would have preferred to have been welcomed with that one? Is there any information you'd like to know that the message hasn't helped you figure out? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Template talk:W-short-- Moxy 🍁 00:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic consensus
If you missed it, a request has been made to remove the edit you made on current consensus COVID-19 pandemic. Since there was no clear consensus on the discussion, which is about the caption of a video file and not on about having the video file itself, it cannot be asserted as a consensus on using the video. I expect someone else will do it if you don't, it will likely be struck through as "consensus disputed". Note that no consensus should be added there without a clear consensus having been achieved, and any edit that claims consensus without it being achieved in the talk page may be examined by the administrators. Hzh (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Worldometers
Your input would be helpful at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for When the looting starts, the shooting starts
— Wug·a·po·des​ 23:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Sdkb,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the invitation. To be honest with you, I'm not a fan of any of the proposed options, all of which keep the confusing "WikiLoop" part and none of which make it fully clear what the tool does to someone who hasn't seen anything but the name. I'm not sure where to express that on the page, but that would be my !vote. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered but I don't think I qualify quite yet... &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction violation
Here you add a "nominated to be checked for neutrality" tag (not a NPOV tag) Here I removed the tag because there is no explanation as to what exactly is suppose to be non-neutral in the article (except for vague assertions and voicing of suspicions against other editors) on the talk page Here you reverted me, restoring the tag.

The discretionary sanction on the article, clearly visible and very prominently emphasized when you try to edit it, states:

If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.

Your edit was reverted. You did not wait 24 hours before reinstating it. That's a violation of the discretionary sanction.

Please self-revert and re-remove the tag.  Volunteer Marek  01:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , apologies; I missed the notice. I've self-reverted here. My reading of the talk page is that editors feel the tag should be added, but I'll leave that up to others. Regards, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Abstract Wikipedia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abstract Wikipedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Abstract Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Base (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You did a mistake
Sorry, I just noticed you inadvertently reintroduced a passage that was judged to be non-neutral by a majority of editors in the talk page. Independently of the letter of WP:RFC, this is without a doubt against the spirit of The fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I'm sure you will fix that as soon as you have a chance. Iluvalar (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your perspective is noted. I concur with MrX's recommendation that, if you do not wish to get yourself blocked, you abide by WP:NOCON and wait for an admin to close the RfC rather than trying to enforce the outcome as you see it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Another barnstar for your collection !

 * Thanks so much, ! I'm very glad to have editors like yourself to collaborate with :) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Prometheus (Orozco)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Abstract Wikipedia
Hi,, I was wondering where the logo is... Thank you for your time. :-) Lotje (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I don't think Abstract Wikipedia has a logo yet (the official name isn't even fully settled). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops! I hope I didn't do anything wrong by talking about it here??? Lotje (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , nope, not at all! I don't think there's anything sensitive in that area; it's just everything is fairly preliminary right now. You can see what's going on at Abstract Wikipedia, including the name discussion at meta:Talk:Abstract Wikipedia/Name. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Does that mean humble little me is allowed to make a suggestion too? Lotje (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * haha yep! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WikiPro Lotje (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Interest in your editing work
Hi Sdkb,

Hope you are well. If you'll oblige my reaching out, I'm a student doing some research for a summer internship related to improving content safety online. The company I'm interning with is trying to keep the web free of misinformation. We are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to spend time doing editing work online (so that we can motivate others to do the same on other platforms). I saw that you are fairly active with edits; would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day? If you prefer I can give you my questions in writing, too.

Thanks for considering!

LailaAtTrustLab (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for reaching out. Could you clarify which Trust Lab you're working for? (There seem to be several organizations that go by that name.) Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Press coverage of Fox News decision
Looks like both of our concerns that there would be media coverage of the Fox News RfC was right, there's already a CNN article, and I suspect that there will be more forthcoming. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link! The CNN article looks generally reliable (pun intended), which is nice to see. There's also a Breitbart piece. I think the mixed outcome has likely spared us more intense coverage — if Fox had been deemed unreliable, it would have made a much more straightforward and compelling story and maybe generated more of an online mob. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Max Hunter
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
my lovley

Hana Darmawan (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , thank you! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)



Orphaned non-free image File:ISH-DC Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ISH-DC Logo.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) 17:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

um wtf is going on
so i made some edits in may 2020 in the proverbs section of the Vietnamese cuisine webpage. the information i added was based on my range of knowledge as a native Vietnamese, so it's completely correct and should have been approved by other administrators. i didn't violate the law, i didn't cause vandalism or confusion or anything. why wasn't my additional information disapproved? i'm really sick and pissed off because of this. someone please help. thank you. Wisdomlearnernobserver (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry to hear you're encountering difficulties. The information you added may have been removed because it lacked a citation to a reliable source (your personal knowledge unfortunately isn't sufficient, since we have no way to verify it). If you go to the article, click the history tab, and find the revision you made and provide a link, I might be able to help you further. You can also always visit the Teahouse, a friendly space for new editors to receive help. I'll leave a message on your talk page with further resources. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You're a mammal?
You're a mammal? Thats so crazy, I've never met any other mammals before. Did you know I am also a mammal? I never thought I would meet anyone like me! Emicho&#39;s Avenger (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I know, it's quite lonely being a mammal — the insects greatly outnumber us. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. We ought to be worried, they could swarm us if they really wanted to. Emicho&#39;s Avenger (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Beirut explosions
Thanks for your professional-level assistance with the copyediting. Mentioning "Halifax" in the lede seemed odd, but I was on a mission to change blasts to explosions, etc, and did not feel qualified to address, etc. Best,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  00:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

NYT college student income data are not current
If you're going to add information to articles about college student (family's) income and demographics using this source and its related materials, please find some different wording that does not imply that the data are current. The working paper on which the NYT's article is based uses data from 1999-2013. ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it would be good to find more current data if it exists. Do you know where that might be obtained? The NYT article states These estimates are for the 1991 cohort (approximately the class of 2013) — if it's 2013, that's not great but not terribly outdated, but if it's 1999, that would be more of a problem. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not offhand, no. ElKevbo (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Googling it, I came across this, which says at least some data is available from IPEDS and the CDS, but I'm not sure whether it'd be comprehensive enough to create the charts with the percentage of students in each bracket the way the Opportunity Insights data can. The impression I'm getting is that this data is underdocumented, which is very different from saying that it's unimportant. On an IAR level, I think it's fair to say that the socioeconomic demographics of a school are roughly as important as its ethnic demographics. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

sorry sdkb
sorry for making bad dumb edits to the website

Sl1pz (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Duke University
I saw your edit summary notes here. The problem, so to speak, is once that an article is awarded as FA, it is Not Set in Stone, from that day forward. Consider these two versions. Look at the "Recent History" section here: , before I worked on it, vs. after:. I am not a great editor, but even I could see that Recent history was accumulating a list of "factoids", many of which belonged elsewhere! Obviously, the incremental, but sourced edits were added over time.

I do not have any personal opinion regarding "the FA gold star", or whether it was/is deserved, etc. But this sort of article is going to change over time, as new info becomes available and is added. According to the talkpage, this article appeared on the Main Page as a FA in 2006! So, we have 14 years of changes, etc.

Anyway, thanks for your edits, which may have corrected some of my own errors. Best,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  04:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, makes sense. Duke's page is better than some other FA college pages I've seen; the issues there could probably be fixed during a review without too much trouble, whereas Ohio Wesleyan University is probably on its way to delisting unless someone very dedicated shows up to try to save it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have experience with the GA/FA awards, etc. But I wonder if this is something that came about when WP was getting started, and perhaps the future ramifications...thru the years/decades, could not be foreseen. The editors who brought Duke up to FA standards may not be around now, etc. Same for OWU? Anyway, we do our best, "generation to generation".  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  05:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I recently wrote an essay, WP:ENDURE, that discusses proactive ways to set up articles so they won't deteriorate (there's also WP:Defending article quality). With regard to FAs, I think ideally there would be a periodic review every five years or so to confirm that a page has remained up to standard. I'm not sure if there are enough editors for that, though. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, editors are a problem, for sure. Especially ones who are able to research, write and evaluate, etc. My observation is that so many aspects of WP need attention. I just scanned thru OMU. The last section of History reads "1984 to today". Thirty-six years, three paragraphs. Oh dear. I shall read your essay and WP:DAQ, thanks.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  05:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cyrus G. Baldwin
Hello! Your submission of Cyrus G. Baldwin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Most Wikipedians, including myself, maintain some level of anonymity, so I don't disclose my social media handles here, but you are welcome to follow my activity on-wiki. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Sdkb How do I interact with the Wikipedians? I am lost now Du7976yot8if7 (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick advice
If it seems like no one else cares about something, make decisions and implement them yourself. Clearly document and explain your edits and supporting rationales in case someone does notice and object. Be prepared to pause and possibly revert your edits if someone objects and wants to begin a discussion. Don't let a lack of interest on the part of others indefinitely hold up improvements to articles. ElKevbo (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, it's always good to have the reminder. Given how longstanding/widespread the tables are, including at featured pages, I wouldn't feel comfortable making mass changes based only on WP:SILENCE. I'm also genuinely not sure what the best way to handle them would be (delete? modify?) and asking for brainstorming. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 10:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't begin with mass changes. Change one or two and see how they work (or don't work). Take it slowly at first while you're still making adjustments and gauging editors' concerns (or lack thereof). ElKevbo (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the way I'm probably going to go about it is to create a template, so that the presentation can be standardized/synced. I'll put that forward and see if it can garner a sufficiently strong consensus for implementation. Right now, I'm just trying to get thoughts/ideas about how best to construct the template. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 10:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages needing conversion to transclusion


A tag has been placed on Category:Pages needing conversion to transclusion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Evylena Nunn Miller


A tag has been placed on Evylena Nunn Miller requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 18:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Prometheus (Orozco)
Second reminder, 15 days on. Hello! Your submission of Prometheus (Orozco) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Replied there; we're waiting for a copyright specialist, I believe. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment from IP editor
Dear, You have to make sure about your information before publishment on Wikipedia. Beirut port blast cause is not ‘Fire’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.235.157.79 (talk)
 * Hello. I have not edited the cause at 2020 Beirut explosion. At a page as heavily watched as that one, I'm confident editors have everything under control. The indirect cause of the blast was a fire at the port, and in a technical sense, the explosion itself was caused by a combustion. You can check out Talk:2020 Beirut explosion and start a thread there if needed to get more input from the editors who made the decision. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Admissions Template Change
Thanks for taking the initiative to update the Admissions information section of various college articles with a new template. But deleting 5 years of information in table form is a very significant change which hasn't been adequately discussed. No consensus has been reached: the discussion you started at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_education#Admissions_figures_tables has only had input from 1 other editor to date. Please hold off on continuing to implement your proposed template until consensus has been reached. Thanks! Contributor321 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to have five years' of data in these articles when the data barely changes and thus doesn't tell readers much? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's another discussion a little farther down at the project page that has input from another editor, but still, I take your point, and as always with a new template, I'm rolling it out cautiously.
 * Given that you reverted the change at U Michigan (edit summary: This significant a change needs consensus; none has been reached after just a short discussion.), do you have some objection to using the template over the table? If so, please join the discussion and let us know why so we can work to improve the template; if not, then Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" applies. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that you reverted the change at U Michigan (edit summary: This significant a change needs consensus; none has been reached after just a short discussion.), do you have some objection to using the template over the table? If so, please join the discussion and let us know why so we can work to improve the template; if not, then Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" applies. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the template you've created and appreciate you doing so; it's just that I believe it's generally useful to readers (and also personally find it interesting) to see a table with the year-to-year trend in # of applications, % accepted, and the change in SAT/ACT scores of enrolled freshmen over 5 years. But it's not something I feel very strongly about and if others do not share my belief that 5 years of annual data is worth seeing, I'm OK with it.  Contributor321 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for clarifying. I've replied at the main discussion so we can avoid a WP:TALKFORK. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Contributor321 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Franklin La Du Ferguson
Hello! Your submission of Franklin La Du Ferguson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Pomona College Organic Farm at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. The nom has been approved, but seems to have gotten lost. I think I fixed it by re-adding the transclusion to Template talk:Did you know/Approved. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi , you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Thanks!
for this. Hadn't thought of that implication—I was thinking of "failed" in the sense of "did not" or "omitted to", but the sense you identified is def the more common one. Certainly didn't mean to suggest that there was failure involved! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Decade-ence
Just noticed you're coming up on 10 years with the project. Congratulations for your longevity!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I am; thanks for noticing! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:VPR
I'm sorry, weren't you initally in support of this feature at the idea lab? I could retract this proposal is needed. I am very confused. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , my comment was expressing agreement with Nosebagbear, who wrote I'd be against the general change, but the "error in edit summary tag" is at least a possibility. I still think it's not too big an actual issue to need resolving, but i wouldn't object if something like the above was wanted. So I'm not a hard support or oppose, but I don't think we need to prioritize any changes, and my comment at VPR was expressing that. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Pomona College Organic Farm
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump lead links
I was going to say this "small" at Talk:Donald Trump, but it's meta to that discussion so it's probably better placed here.

Lead summarizes body. Many of the links in the lead are invitations to bypass the intermediate level of detail in the body that the lead summarizes. Don't pass Go, proceed directly from the highest to the lowest level of detail available at Wikipedia. I don't consider that the best way to serve readers' needs, and perhaps it would make more sense for those to link to sections in this article (even though That's Not How It's Normally Done). Then the opportunities to drill deeper would be made available in the sections (as they already are, for the most part). ― Mandruss  &#9742;  07:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , hmm, linking from the lead to the body—that's quite an interesting thought! What you're saying makes sense—I do spend a bunch of time thinking about levels of detail, since it's often the main stumbling block to reducing the scourge of duplicative content (a pet peeve of mine because of all the wasted work it leads to). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's something that just popped into my head tonight. We should let it percolate for a few weeks and maybe it could be brought to the ATP if we still think it's viable. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Public Art in Public Places for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Public Art in Public Places is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Public Art in Public Places until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Barte (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Franklin La Du Ferguson
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Many things
Sdkb, I've seen you around a lot on WP talk pages, community portal and such and had at some point saw your proposal (if I recall correctly) to pause the Vital article lists and work on the project it self. Of course, knowing the general attitude of WP it didn't receive much support, but imo that was perhaps the best proposal that the VA project has seen. I mean I find it sooo funny how people passionately argue for one figure or topic over the other and cite references, equality, influence, general public familiarity but then after the process they feel their job is done, it's ridiculous. I'm trying to think of ways to revitalize the vital articles project (pun intended!) since I'm starting to realize it's importance, were it properly acted upon.

A couple of weeks ago I found myself getting sucked into working on smaller articles, which I was concerned about at first but then realized I don't have to feel bad about it if I'm at the same time slowly working on big articles. To do this I started collecting more sources on Leonardo da Vinci to begin rewriting his article to FA standards, while working on smaller figures like Ellis Gibbons. For me, this is the best way to work on WP, but for others I feel like a lot of people solely work on one niche topic, which is fine – I mean we're all volunteers – but this is where the Vital articles project could thrive, giving people who only work on 18th century English painting a chance to do that but at the same time work on the article for say, Fire. I think the key to making this project work is the collaboration section, then people could work on whatever they want and chip in at the collab so that with enough people chipping in they would still be able to balance what they're already doing, if that makes sense. I'm not sure how helpful the A Class assessment part would be but reassessing some of the VA lv 3 articles would probably be good too. Speaking of which, it seems like the project's strength lies in lv 3, at least for the moment it's the most reasonable and concise list out of the 5 (imo). In thinking of some basic goals for the project, were it to be reinvigorated I've come up with: As some super basic standards. Then I think the collab area would take over, with people nominating articles (preferably C class ones from Lv 3 or B class from Level 2) to work towards getting to GA or FA, depending on how the participation is going for that particular collab I suppose. Many WP projects seem to be increasingly less active, of course some like WP:MILHIST and WP:PALEO are doing fine, but to counter this we could reach out to specific users who are still active or knowledgeable in various fields who could then advise/assist in collaborations for more specialized topics like Energy. I mean I have my fields that I'm best in, but I'm willing to do whatever I can to try and get some neglected lv 2 and 3 articles on important people and basic topics to a better standard. Anyways I'm rambling – probably with no lack of grammatical errors :) – here but let me know your thoughts. I hate the idea of seeing William Etty as FA (nevertheless a great article) but not Dante Alighieri! Aza24 (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Getting all Lv 1 to B Class
 * 2) Getting all Lv 2 to B Class
 * 3) Getting all Lv 3 to C Class
 * Hi, it's nice to hear from you, and I'm glad someone else is thinking about these things! The best place to build off of for an initiative like that might actually be WP:TAFI rather than WP:VIT, since TAFI is the place where people go to try to improve articles that really need the help. However, like many WikiProjects, TAFI has become semi-inactive, so I think what you'll want to do is try to relaunch it. I don't have any experience relaunching WikiProjects, though, so I'm not quite sure what needs to be done for that; the folks at the WikiProject Council might have advice.
 * I think TAFI could benefit from some automation: it'd be nice to have a list of most-viewed stubs/most-viewed start-class pages, for instance. It'd also be good to set up an alert system for pages that are receiving a flood of traffic, such as Beirut probably did a week ago, so that we could have a rapid-response force fix up pages in need. I could envision a TAFI bot similar to the RFC bot that delivers invitations to your talk page with articles needing help. All of that will require some help from folks with technical expertise. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about this, but as my schedule gets busier in the upcoming weeks I'm hesitant in trying to reboot a Wikiproject. In my mind what I was proposing may be closer to that Featured article task force that used to exist (I don't remember what it was called so unsure where a link to it is), but with a focus on Vital articles. Meaning, articles like "Book" or "Home" that would be unlikely to get attention from many users otherwise. Imo TAFI moves a bit too fast and if getting some of these articles to FA or GA is the goal, that may not be beneficial. To your point of creating a task force for most viewed stubs/start up pages, that does seem like an interesting thing I haven't thought of, but for articles like Beirut after the explosion, such a task force seems unnecessary since hundreds of editors usually come together anyways when something "like that" happens. Aza24 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about this, but as my schedule gets busier in the upcoming weeks I'm hesitant in trying to reboot a Wikiproject. In my mind what I was proposing may be closer to that Featured article task force that used to exist (I don't remember what it was called so unsure where a link to it is), but with a focus on Vital articles. Meaning, articles like "Book" or "Home" that would be unlikely to get attention from many users otherwise. Imo TAFI moves a bit too fast and if getting some of these articles to FA or GA is the goal, that may not be beneficial. To your point of creating a task force for most viewed stubs/start up pages, that does seem like an interesting thing I haven't thought of, but for articles like Beirut after the explosion, such a task force seems unnecessary since hundreds of editors usually come together anyways when something "like that" happens. Aza24 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Xenophobia" citation
Hi there. Related to the COVID-19 pandemic lead's last sentence about xenophobia. For me, it is extraneous to add citation to such general claim that does not need citation(s). Appropriate citations have been cited in the COVID-19 pandemic's xenophobia section. Like I said in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, you don't need to cite sentences like "the pandemic has resulted in misinformation and conspiracy theories" if more specific claims and citations were given later on. As for "have you moved [other citations] to the body if they're good?", as I said, appropriate citations have been cited in their respective section. I also agree with User:Hzh saying: "a lot of the information [on the lead] are not contentious, we can probably remove [...] them or trim them," that is supported by WP:LEAD saying "[Leads] gives the [...] in a nutshell [...]—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows." What do you think? Cheers,  Gerald WL  05:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , MOS:LEADCITE gives us a fair amount of flexibility. Given that that sentence was extremely controversial (look at the RfC in the archives if you want), I think it's good to retain the citation to discourage removal.
 * Regarding the other citations, per WP:PRESERVE, if there's a possibility some might be better than what we have in the body, I'd prefer to see them at least copied to the talk page rather than straight deleted. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADCITE says "Because the lead [...] repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead [...] to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." In the xenophobia section there are more specific citations and more specific claims that may be challenged, so citing on solely "it has caused xenophobia" is too much. And then it says "Controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Although "The presence of citations in the [lead] is neither required [...] nor prohibited [...]," it would be best to remove redundant citations; who needs citation for a simple sentence? That is why I removed the UNESCO education percentage-- because the Education section has done the job.
 * And regarding WP:PRESERVE, if a sentence needs better sources and that the sources is the one I removed, it can be retrieves from the history log. I'll try fact-check some right now, Sunday's never a better day. Cheers,  Gerald WL  06:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And regarding WP:PRESERVE, if a sentence needs better sources and that the sources is the one I removed, it can be retrieves from the history log. I'll try fact-check some right now, Sunday's never a better day. Cheers,  Gerald WL  06:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Cyrus G. Baldwin
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter 14
Welcome to the fourteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Success with guidance
We deployed the "Guidance" feature on June 15.

This feature uses the help panel to explain what to do after selecting a suggested edit. For instance, if a newcomer selects a copyedit task, they are guided on what sorts of errors to look for. They can see examples of how to rewrite the text. You can try this feature on test.wikipedia.org. First enable the homepage and the help panel in your preferences there.

Since we launched "Guidance", the data we collected show good results (see image). Now, we see more users completing suggested edits than before Guidance was deployed.

Structured tasks
Structured tasks is a project that aims to break down editing workflows into a series of steps. We hope newcomers can accomplish these tasks easily.

In the previous newsletter, we asked for feedback from community members on the idea. We had a good discussion in six languages with 35 community members (summary here). We have now posted new design mockups. We hope community members can check the mockups out and react to them (in any language). They are posted along with some of the main questions we are thinking about as we continue to refine our plans.

Other technical updates



 * We are currently working on Variants C and D (adjacent image) of the homepage. The goal is to increase the number of newcomers who start the newcomer tasks workflow. This is the team's main project at the moment.
 * We've made it easier to hide the help panel when not needed.
 * The welcome survey has a new question for people who created their account: language skills. The goal is to find out how many newcomers know multiple languages, so that we can learn whether it is a good idea to integrate Content Translation as a newcomer task. To make room for this question, we removed one that is not being used.

Community outreach

 * We continue to engage with more communities. We recently deployed the Growth features to Persian, Hebrew, and Russian Wikipedias. Learn more about getting the features.
 * If your community is having a remote event, and you are interested in hearing from the Growth team, please contact us! We have already participated to two community events online:
 * The Polish Wikiconference (recording on Google Drive)
 * The Celtic Knot 2020 (video available on Youtube).

'' Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. '' 09:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Bridges Hall of Music
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pacific Standard Time: Art in L.A., 1945–1980, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Museum of Contemporary Art, Frederick R. Weisman Museum of Art and Crossroads School.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Resolved. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

User friendly templates
Hey. This discussion may interest you, as I believe you've had interest in some of these areas too. Also wondering if you've any experience with the particular templates raised you might be able to add there? Cheers! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the pointer; replied there! Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace might be a place to go as well. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Will probably ask there at some point but slightly putting off widely advertising it; we've got some nice discussion currently. I'd notify particular editors, ideally some optimists, who might be interested but unfortunately not too sure who they'd be ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Beginner version
Template:Beginner version has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:False version
Template:False version has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aasim 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

안녕
안녕하세요.hello오댕 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Transcluding bookshelf at smaller size
Apologies for the very long time to reply! Unfortunately, I don't see a way of making the 'bookshelf significantly smaller. It's all done using tables with cells that a small number of pixels - any smaller, and the smaller parts wouldn't work because they can't be less one pixel in size. 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Example link on Cite news/doc points to dab page
In this edit, you added brackets to demonstrate a link, but that link would go to a disambiguation page. Can you please change the example to show it linking to a real source? I don't edit Template Data, having been verbally abused for doing so in the past. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , good catch! Done here, and sorry to hear that you've had bad experiences with TemplateData. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Help needed
As you're far better than I am at fixing templates, should you ever get a spare moment, could I ask you to take a look at this Teahouse template, used quite a bit for welcoming newly signed up Hosts?

I would really like to have it automatically signed by whoever substitutes the template, and to permit an optional message - all within the coloured box. I've been fiddling around with it at Teahouse/Host welcome, but have had to revert to leaving plain old add-on messages (like this), but that's not as elegant as I'm sure you could make it!

I would have copied over the code from Teahouse/Host decline, but that one simply replaces the existing message with an optional new one, but I'm after the main message staying there, but with additional text added as well. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , done! Let me know if there are any issues with it working as intended. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that's just what I was after (big hugs!) Could a break be added so as to start the additional personal message on a new paragraph? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , does this do what you're looking for? Having the personal message be emphasized a little in some way is definitely good, since otherwise people may start reading the top and then assume the whole thing is a system message and possibly ignore it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's 100% perfect. Thanks a lot for doing this so quickly. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-pronoun
Hi Sdkb. I noticed you added Template:Uw-pronoun to Template:Single notice links‎. Are you planning to add it to Template index/User talk namespace and Template index/User talk namespace/Single-level templates? --Bsherr (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, it probably should go on those pages, too. I have somewhat mixed feelings about the template itself (even though I created it), since while I do think it's important that people who default to male pronouns for everyone on Wikipedia be told that that's not okay and makes the project less welcoming to non-men, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't make it a huge deal and uses language that's soft enough that people won't react badly to it. I'm not sure if the template as written is quite soft enough yet, and I'd want that improved or at least considered before it became widely used. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you considered posting an inquiry about it at WT:UTM or WP:VPP, to get thoughts from others? But if you are documenting it in any one place, it should be documented in all the necessary places, to avoid confusion. --Bsherr (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I added it to the lists. Honestly, though, I don't think it's a good idea to have four different places (the navbox, those lists, plus the category system) that are each trying to be the definitive comprehensive database of the user warning templates on WP. There should only be one such place, since most template creators are not going to make sure their new template is added to each one, and maintaining four lists is four times the work of maintaining one.
 * Regarding further discussion, the forum I'd prefer to bring it up in is one focused on making women/non-binary people feel comfortable on WP. I'm not sure precisely where that would be, though. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Open to suggestions on how to consolidate the navboxes/indices/categories. As for forum, I'm not aware of one specific to gender nondiscrimination in user interactions. If it exists, I'd be concerned it's not heavily watched. WT:UTM deals with friendliness of user warnings all the time, and even that has less participation than it once did. --Bsherr (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Open to suggestions on how to consolidate the navboxes/indices/categories. As for forum, I'm not aware of one specific to gender nondiscrimination in user interactions. If it exists, I'd be concerned it's not heavily watched. WT:UTM deals with friendliness of user warnings all the time, and even that has less participation than it once did. --Bsherr (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Traditions of Pomona College
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump diagnosis of COVID-19
The diagnosis belongs in the health section, not elsewhere. I will move the information there. --Zeamays (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , we've been discussing it on the talk page, and the prevailing view so far is that it belongs in the COVID-19 section, so that's where it'll be for now. It's an hour or two after the announcement now; you should know to check the talk page before editing, and to bring up your views there, not on my talk page. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did search the Trump article, before I added the info., but it's a very long article and the information already there was not in the logical place for it. Please be more courteous than to assume I didn't look. --Zeamays (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun
Hey Sdkb. I saw that Talk:COVID-19 pandemic had closed, so I updated item 13 in current consensus to reflect the outcome. A while ago I saw Administrator's noticeboard, so if you want to revert my change, feel free. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  02:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I figured that that's what happened; no worries. The AN discussion will determine the outcome, so I'll just leave it be for now. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Bridges Auditorium
— Maile (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

list of ali daei's international goals FL candidate
hi Sdkb. i've done many work on above article..how is it now?are you satisfied with it? I'd happy to be supported by you. Best regards--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Template:DYK humor


Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Template:DYK humor".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to make article on me
I want to people know me, and I have done a long time of influencing people, I have account on social media and I have done a lot of donations and Maken memories, want your support

Thanks ROX AYUSH Ayushprachi20 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is probably the leading Bad Idea for an Article. see WP:BAI. Guy (help!) 08:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm Cindy'SweRr Cindy&#39;SweRr (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm Mhiz Destiny Mhiz Destiny (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Have not heard of arbitration
While trying to add the current event statement I was given a message. What are these discretionary sanctions and who should I talk to? https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=AcWEX9fFBoSKytMPj-yo4AQ&q=amy+coney+barrett&gs_ssp=eJzj4tVP1zc0TKmsqMrOMS4zYPQSTMytVEjOz0utVEhKLCpKLSkBAMHCC7M&oq=amy+c&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMg4ILhCxAxCDARDJAxCTAjIICAAQsQMQgwEyCAgAELEDEIMBMgIIADIICAAQsQMQgwEyCAgAELEDEIMBMggIABCxAxCDATIICAAQsQMQgwEyCAgAELEDEIMBMgIILjoLCC4QsQMQgwEQkwI6BQgAELEDOggILhDHARCjAjoICC4QsQMQgwE6CwguELEDEMcBEKMCOgsIABCxAxCDARDJAzoFCC4QsQNQXlikYmCDbmgAcAB4AIABUogB9wOSAQE3mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABAA&sclient=psy-abPersonisgaming (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , your link is just a Google search, and I'm not sure why you're reaching out specifically to me (it looks like you've also asked, who is also confused—you won't get far on Wikipedia unless you communicate clearly). To answer you as best I can, many pages under discretionary sanctions have edit notices that appear to all editors. If by "current event statement" you mean Template:Current, be aware that that template is often overused, and is not appropriate for most pages. For general help, you are always welcome to visit the Teahouse, a dedicated help space for new editors. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination Event Tag
Is adding a current tag necessary. Which variant please specify?

Personisgaming (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's clearer what you're trying to do now. I replied to your additional post at Talk:Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination. Please be aware that it's generally not a good idea to start a discussion/question about the same thing in multiple places. You can use Please see if you are posting at an obscure page, but the Barrett nomination page is definitely not obscure. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Template change proposals question
Hello, I have seen you on TfD and other template related pages and I was wondering if there is somewhere I can propose a change to a template other than the talk page, since I want to add the incremental service awards to Service awards however I know I should get a consensus before doing any changes. But I doubt anyone is even watching the talkpage. Thanks. Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 16:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards looks active enough; maybe post there? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot to check the Wikipedia talk page, thanks. Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 13:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Template Flux
I saw beleatedly the flux discussion, archived at  Redirects for discussion, August 23 2020

A point that was not made is that there typically are zero uses in the main space, and that the template it redirects to typically has under ten uses in main space at any one time, and sometimes zero.

Yellowdesk (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "There is not a single positive sentence in the introduction [of the Donald Trump article]"
Hi there. Although I am not totally unfamiliar to the process on Wikipedia, I'm not very active so many things are unfamiliar to me. I noticed that the section on the Donald Trump talk page I wrote was swiftly discussed on by others and closed before I had a chance to address the responses. I also read the message you wrote as you closed the discussion indicating that the thread was too broad to be productive, but I wanted to ask about the amount of detail needed in order for it to be productive. I also wanted to know a little bit more on -- assuming almost every sentence in the introduction was debated on to some extent -- how previous debates can be *restarted* if there was an argument (new or old) I wish to (re)introduce. Thanks! -- zaiisao (talk 12:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , broadly, the intent of talk pages is to improve the article. If you had said "the first two sentences are negative in tone, I think they should include X positive statement, backed by reliable sources and included in the body of the article", then you can have a discussion, but "there are no positive sentences" is just a comment, not a proposal for change, and is true of a lot of articles. There are articles where controversial figures have nonetheless done good things. At Benito Mussolini, for example, we note his recognition of the Vatican City State. See if you can find some things that are recognised as positive achievements by neutral sources like the Financial Times. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Bertha Weber Suicide
Hello Sdkb, I was surprised and fascinated to read about Bertha Weber's suicide, which you added to her article. How did you discover this? I am wondering how I missed it, but it was not in any other source I checked. T. E. Meeks (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I was surprised to read about it, too; you don't hear about too many suicides at age 74! I really just happened upon it—I searched newspapers.com for her to fill out one of the citations, and it came up. (Searching again now, it's not coming up the same way, so I'm not sure what search term I used.) It does look like most of the coverage of her death covered up the fact (or just didn't know) that it was a suicide. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic/sandbox
Hey Sdkb. I created the sandbox article with the edits I proposed but I did it in mainspace... I should have used my userspace? I wrote here for help Help_desk but maybe you know how to handle this? Thanks -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't matter a ton (AFAIK), but I moved it to User:Gtoffoletto/COVID-19 pandemic sandbox, just to be safe. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Another editor pointed it out and I started having second thoughts! -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 00:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Online learning.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

red link
I'm not sure what you meant to link to in this edit so I'm just letting you know the WP:Plain and simple Manual of Style link that you provided there goes to an empty page. Maybe it would make a good redirect to whatever page you had in mind? 78.28.55.139 (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad; made the redirect! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #15
Welcome to the fifteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Variants C and D deployed
Variants C and D are two new arrangements of the newcomer homepage. We hope they will increase the number of users using suggested edits. They both make suggested edits the clear place where newcomers should get started on the page. They have some differences in their workflows, because we want to test which design is better. We deployed these variants on October 19; half of newcomers get each variant. After about 5 weeks, we will analyze the data from the tests. The goal is to determine which variant is helping more newcomers to make more suggested edits. We will identify the better variant and then use it with all newcomers.

Structured tasks: add a link
As we discussed in previous newsletters, the team is working on our first "structured task": the "add a link" task. After community discussion on design ideas, we ran user tests on the mobile designs. We decided on the design concept we want to use moving forward: Concept A. We're now engineering the backend for this feature. Next, we will be running user tests for desktop designs.

Learn more about the findings.

Community news

 * We recently deployed the Growth features to Polish, Portuguese, Swedish and Turkish Wikipedias. 18 wikis now have Growth features. Learn more about getting the features.
 * Have you recently checked if all interface messages are translated for your language?

'' Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. '' 10:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Small in captions
I was surprised to see that you have not acted on this. Is it your view that the community may form a consensus to violate accessibility guidelines? ― Mandruss  &#9742;  18:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I find the arguments against the small versions based on MOS:SMALL persuasive. I haven't modified the RfC because it's already a more-complex-than-average structure, and I don't want to complicate it further by modifying it mid-way. But I suspect the accessibility argument will prevail.
 * There is some further room for discussion, though. I don't think we've figured out just how much smaller captions are than normal text, so there might be some room to make the time note a bit smaller without it dropping below 85%. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is some further room for discussion, though. I don't think we've figured out just how much smaller captions are than normal text, so there might be some room to make the time note a bit smaller without it dropping below 85%. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - American politics
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks so much; I appreciate it a lot! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Associated Students of Pomona College for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Associated Students of Pomona College is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Associated Students of Pomona College until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Kaya toast article
Hi Sdkb, Thank you for your help! apologies for the late response. I'm glad the article could be reclassified as a C-class. Hopefully, I can improve it further! Pinklily08 (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , of course; happy to help! I notice that kaya toast doesn't have Template:Educational assignment or Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment on its talk page; you may want to add one of those. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah, good catch. I'll add that in. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinklily08 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic archiving
Your behaviour is becoming objectionable in the talk page. Removing the do not archive tag is the same as archiving it because you yourself deliberately wanted it archived, claiming that it is the bot that did it is disingenuous. I get that you like the Trump visual there, but restoring the image and then hiding away the discussion before it gets archived is just trying to get your own way. There is no certainty it will get closed (or if anyone will notice that it has been closed when it is archived). What is wrong with leaving it there for a specified time until it is archived. And no, a discussion is not dead just because you said say, and WP:STICK is meant for a dispute that does not apply to RfC, and you cannot violate anything that is just a humorous essay and not a guideline. Hzh (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For context for anyone else, this is your reply to this.
 * , please take a look at WP:ANRFC. Every discussion that is listed there receives a close, since there is no automatic archiving of old listings. The only way for an item to be removed from that page is if it receives a close or if it's an improper listing (which is clearly not the case here). So yes, it will receive a close (at which time the closer will most likely restore it to the talk page); you just need to be a little patient. Regarding the rest, I don't have anything to add to my previous reply. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your reply in the thread was even more objectionable, trying to suggest I was trying to gain more support. The tag was there to allow everything to be concluded, it would have been completely wrong to archive it before it ended. In this case it is just waiting for it to be closed, that you want to suggest otherwise is offensive, especially when it was you who restored an image without consensus. Hzh (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your reply in the thread was even more objectionable, trying to suggest I was trying to gain more support. The tag was there to allow everything to be concluded, it would have been completely wrong to archive it before it ended. In this case it is just waiting for it to be closed, that you want to suggest otherwise is offensive, especially when it was you who restored an image without consensus. Hzh (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you now accept that there is no consensus for the Trump video there, and that you should not have restored the visual? Hzh (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)