User talk:Sdkb/Archive 4

Edit warring accusation
Sdkb, please don't accuse me of edit warring. You refactored my comments. My "edit warring" was simply restoring them. As was correctly noted by another editor you crafted the RfC in question as to provide only a limited number of choices, presumably all ones you were OK with. That is misleading as the prior RfC didn't limit the scope to those choices. I admit I didn't initially notice this framing but it is now quite clear. Anyway, this is always a risks with opening a RfC out of the blue. Editors may not agree with the scope of the question and push for changes. BTW, it's inconsistent that you pushed options E and F out of the opening statement but not D. If you wish to keep D in I will insist that E and F are also kept in. Springee (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I created the RfC to provide a limited number of choices because the RfC is an extension of the prior RfC, which (per the closing) reached consensuses that ought to limit the scope of the follow-up and preclude some options, even if you personally wish otherwise. I drew the options directly from the prior discussion, and agreed to add option D because it relates to language used in the close. That is not true for E and especially not true for F, which is why I object to them. This is fully under discussion at the RfC itself, so for the sake of keeping discussion consolidated, I advise you to comment there rather than here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Traditions of Pomona College
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Traditions of Pomona College you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kncny11 -- Kncny11 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Traditions of Pomona College
The article Traditions of Pomona College you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Traditions of Pomona College for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kncny11 -- Kncny11 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Archimedean Excogitation
Hello! Your submission of Archimedean Excogitation 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! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename|Move "Lists of films by studio" by "Lists of Major Studios|Distribuors by Country".
HI ! I'm new and I don't have the required access to move a page. Can you move|rename a page ? Because the one who have created it was in public account : only the IP Address appears so impossible to contact.

The Page is "Lists of films by studio" AND Should be renamed as "Lists of Major Studios|Distribuors by Country". Also the Page Should Stay in the current Categories which are good like that ! ACI99-0001 (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)ACI99-0001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACI99-0001 (talk • contribs)
 * What you want is not entirely clear, but I just took a look at the article, Lists of films by studio. It's a list of lists of films by studio, so I think the current title is correct. It's listing films, not studios. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In Fact the Article wants List the Companies not the films|movies themselves. Is for that reason only Companies names appear in it. A Film|Movies Titles doesn't appear Anywhere in the Article. So what I'm trying to say is that This Article is Actually A Companies List of Major Studios|Distributors by Countries and not a Film|Movie List

Thank for your answer !

P.S. : It's because This Article is very usefull and well redacted. Just the name should be change for the one I've mentioned confer supra. ACI99-0001 (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)ACI99-0001

EDIT : OK ! I've seized your way to approach this article finally ! But, directly, this is a list of Major Distributors AND Indirectly, when you click on a link this a List of Movies made by the associated Companies. So as you want, but maybe a title modification could make the Title clearear at 1st glance. So As you want. And thank you for your answer again ! ACI99-0001 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)ACI99-0001

Congratulations
Your DYK hook about the Martina Vandenberg drew 5,207 page views (434 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Did you know/Statistics. Keep up the great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks! Nice to see it, especially for a hook not in the lead slot. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal about an article


There seems to be continuing disagreement about this article, which I encountered at WP:AN3 back in December. I think it would be a good idea to expore the option you proposed with this talk post on January 11. You wanted to separate references and footnotes. Do you think that would be sufficient to avoid the 'bloat' problem whereby the notes column becomes huge, as in the version of the article created on March 8 by User:Nevermore27? Do you know of any examples on other articles where this issue is successfully handled? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I would characterize it as a "continuing" disagreement anymore, since there was an RfC that resolved to restoring information properly defined as notes to the "Notes" section.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unclear to me that the RfC reached a result. Maybe you could offer your own summary on the article talk page, and say what you think was agreed to by the participants. There is also the option of asking an admin (or other third party) to close the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just noticed the further revert by the original reverter. Here we go again. This is based on an overly narrow and obviously deficient idea of what counts as a "note" and I don't understand why such a position should be given a privileged position over a more fulsome rundown of the facts, in the main body of the article. The RfC expired after 30 days afaik, so it wasn't prematurely closed.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC tag was removed by the bot after thirty days; unclear that the participants actually formed a consensus on anything. (A closer might call it 'No consensus'). That's why I wrote to Sdkb since his proposal might be able to satisfy some of the objections of the two disagreeing sides and lead to a definite result. In the discussion that followed, I didn't see any followup to Sdkb's idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't really follow what happened at the page after I !voted in the RfC, but it seems like it was hampered a bit by low participation. My sense (not having looked super closely) is that the situation now is less a matter of resolving an unanswered question than just dealing with a problem editor. The good thing about Wikipedia is that such editors are always in the minority, so I'd say try to implement whatever's best understood as the prevailing consensus, and if someone edit wars to try to keep mixing notes and references, they'll cross 3RR and end up blocked. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * just so I'm clear, who's the "problem editor"?  Nevermore27  (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to name anyone without fully reading the discussion, but when it proves this difficult to do something as simple as separate out the notes and references, WP:STONEWALLING is usually the cause. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of RTGame


A tag has been placed on RTGame requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://tqva.ideedisplay.de/rtgame-jesse.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a restoration of a previously deleted page after additional sources became available that significantly bolstered the case for notability. The other URL is copying us, not vice versa. please restore the page. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The redirects to the page have now been deleted as well. Please ensure that those are recreated. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is another issue, though. The article was recently deleted as per Articles for deletion/RTGame. Given that it's just some self promotion and a bit of gossip, there is no obvious reason to recreate even if it's not a copyright violation. Number of YouTube views is not a criterion for WP:Notability (people), and neither Twitch nor YouTube are considered as WP:RS sources Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Twitch and YouTube are obviously not the notability-establishing sources. They are The Verge (which was widely accepted as a qualifier at the AfD, the issue then just being there wasn't a second source at that time), Kotaku, and Polygon. Again, please clean up after yourself here, and next time be more cautious with your copyright patrolling. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 13:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Martina Vandenberg
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2558 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you; I'm honored! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well, it's about time. Good Job! -- P  anini 🥪 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Book sales pages are unacceptable
Read this ANI discussion where I was reported for removing his link to a Amazon page. The complaining nearly got blocked for his actions. That Princeton Press book page is a sales page just like Amazon....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to read an entire ANI thread, but looking at WP:BOOKSPAM, which you cited in your revert, it says absolutely nothing about whether or not author pages from the Princeton University Press are reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF-type information, and by our normal standards it should be fine. Contrary to your edit summary, the page does indeed include his title—you neglected to click the "Author(s)" tab (which is understandle; it's unfortunately at the same URL). I couldn't easily find another reference, as UPenn seems not to keep faculty pages for emeritus professors and the other mentions I found all left out the emeritus part. But since you seem to feel passionately about it, I'll switch to using a different outdated reference, and leave it to you to source the emeritus part. Also, as many others have requested, please fix your confusing signature. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: RTGame (March 30)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Berrely were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:RTGame and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:RTGame, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:RTGame Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berrely&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:RTGame reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 18:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Bad idea
Your proposal is a bad idea! – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A visitor for your talk page
as per your request —  csc -1 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oof! That's rather larger than the trout I ordered! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your order was interpreted creatively. —  csc -1 02:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Editnotices/Page/Boston


A tag has been placed on Template:Editnotices/Page/Boston, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

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. Moxy - 04:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what you're doing. It's an April Fools joke. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I had realized it was you ....I would not have gotten involved. But now that we are here....You sure this dialect joke is the best way to use your template editor privileges? pls read. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Each time you deny that you knew it was me you were stalking/trying to harass it becomes less plausible. Regarding your concern, editnotices are not reader-facing, and the joke is properly disclosed, so there is no issue. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally its because your signature is not visible ....this time I just noticed junk. Another great edit. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 10:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Already planning for 2022... &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For, I hereby award you the EEng April 1 Platinum Medal of Honor First Class, with Embedded Chrysanthemum Beryls and Oak Leaves. EEng 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump (proposals)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Archimedean Excogitation
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Automatically generated short descriptions for Infobox song
Hi, I saw from the talk page that you were involved in adding the feature that generates automatic short descriptions for articles which use Infobox song, so I was wondering if I could ask you a question: Why does it generate the inaccurate short description "2021 single by The Beatles" for I'm Down? –Paul1337 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see "1965 single by the Beatles" on that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the release date to Wikidata, which I presume fixed it, but it should've been able to detect the absence of the information previously and not tried to generate a description. I'll investigate what happened when I'm free in a bit. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so investigating, it looks like it's likely related somehow to a set of changes made to the template and to Year in late January. What's supposed to happen is that the template checks to see if there's a Wikidata value for the release date and if Year extracts a valid year from it, and only moves forward with autogenerating the description if all's good. That was/is (I temporarily unadded the date from Wikidata for troubleshooting) failing in this case—there's no Wikidata value, but it's moving forward anyways, and when Year is used on an empty value, it returns the current year, which is why we're getting 2021. Wbm1058, could you perhaps clarify what the modifications you made were aiming at and see if you can help us pinpoint exactly what's causing this? &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox song/doc hasn't been updated to document this functionality. It doesn't explain that this template retrieves a "short description" nor how it does that. This functionality may also be counter to MOS:ORDER that says short descriptions should be placed at the top of the page, before hatnotes, maintenance templates, and infoboxes. I've seen pages with multiple short descriptions, one at the top of the page and one coming from inside the infobox. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct about the documentation. Sorry that wasn't already present; I've now added it. Regarding MOS:ORDER, there are plenty of other templates that generate automatic short descriptions, and I'm not aware of the community having any concerns along those lines, but you could try asking at the short descriptions WikiProject. Back to the issue at hand—do you remember what your were trying to do with your edits in late January, or what specifically is going wrong at I'm Down? If not, we should probably revert to go back to the stable version of automatic short description generation that we confirmed was working properly when we implemented it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As documented at Template:Short description I've enabled my Special:MyPage/common.css to show me short descriptions. It firstly tells me that Yesterday (Beatles song) is a "1965 single by the Beatles" and then on the next line says "2021 single by the Beatles". I see that Happening (song) says "2012 single by Medina" and gets this from  which returns  .  returns  . For the Beatles song   returns nothing. You could check first to see whether   is null before passing that into Year and intentionally generating an error that I patrol for any try to fix. I added parameter  to Template:YEAR so you could use that to check for errors when extracting the year from  .  Errors that   detects are errors that I detect and you shouldn't be demanding that editors edit Wikidata to fix Wikipedia errors. It's lot easier to just add a short description template. All this increased complexity is making things harder to maintain.
 * What I did only effects results from non-blank data. Note the difference vs. . I must have done this because there was non-blank junk coming back from Wikidata somewhere but I don't recall the details. If you first check for null data and find that, then you're done and attempt to generate a short desc can be aborted without even calling year. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow exactly what you're proposing, but if you want to make edits to the template(s), feel free to do so, and if it fixes the error we're good. If it's going to take you a bit, we should undo your late January edits in the interim, as we don't want to let all these articles sit in a broken state for too long. It's unfortunate they've been this way for as long as they have already, but I'm glad discovered it and raised the issue. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the code change that implemented this. The first check is "Is infobox in lead"? The first thing to ask should be "Is  non-blank?" If there's nothing there, it doesn't matter whether there's an infobox in the lead because you can't generate a short desc without data coming back from  . wbm1058 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I've fixed it now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that the new code will completely omit the short description if there is no date in wikidata. Is that what is wanted? I would think that if there is no year, there should be a short description saying simply "[type] by [artist]", instead of no short description at all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a somewhat messy fix, and I'm not sure whether it handles all edge cases (such as when the value returned from Wikidata is "18th century"), but I guess we can see if it works. I'm going to bow out at this point—I took responsibility for getting the functionality working smoothly at the time I implemented it, but I can't take responsibility for resolving issues arising from subsequent modifications; those are the responsibility of whoever makes the modifications. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What Jonesey95 is asking for would be an enhancement that was not supported in the Sdkb original version. Adding that capability would make the code even messier. I think it should be possible to code this more cleanly in a Lua module but I've yet to find/make time to become sufficiently proficient with Lua to tackle that. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect flags
Hello! I meant the articles for Summer and Winter Olympics. In the 1948 Winter Olympics for example Bulgaria used the flag from 1948 until 1967 they changed to that flag three days prior to the games. South Korea's flag at the 1948 Winter Olympics they used the 1945 flag until October of that year and they also used the same flag at the Summer Olympics. South Korea used the 1949 flag at the 1984 Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics until they changed flags in October of that year. Sincerely yours, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles where i spot the incorrect flags
Hello! The articles which i spot the wrong flags is in the countrys own article for the specific Olympic Games. en:Bulgaria at the 1948 Winter Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1948 Winter Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1948 Summer Olympics, en:Spain at the 1980 Summer Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1984 Winter Olympics and en:South Korea at the 1984 Summer Olympics. Yours sincerely, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of RTGame for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RTGame 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/RTGame& 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. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad faith comment
Sdkb, do not make comments about other editor on article talk pages. This comment violates talk page guidelines and does nothing to bring about consensus nor does it strengthen what ever argument you are attempting to make.[] Springee (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've given you many chances to demonstrate good faith, Springee. At this point, WP:SPADE applies, and advising other editors to stop arguing with you will improve the discussion if they listen. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any examples of what ever you are claiming. Your comment was not WP:FOC.  If you aren't aware that making comments about editors instead of about the topic is a violation of talk page guidelines then perhaps you shouldn't be editing AP2 topics.  Springee (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

ExCon
If extended confirmed doesn't seem to work. Too tired right now to figure out why. Primefac (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd guess there's been some change to common.css that's caused it. I'll take a look; thanks for the heads up. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just getting to this, but when I checked, it seems to be working properly. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, because I'm not technically ExCon. This could pose problems if there are uses other than at WP:UAL or random user pages (depending on its intended use). Primefac (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought that the way we set it up included admins. I'll adjust the template; the alternative would be to adjust the underlying class it's based on. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome6
Hi, I just closed this discussion and noticed that there is also Template:Welcome6 which looks a lot like Template:Welcome. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sunshine Protection Act
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

National Memorial for Peace and Justice
Clearly stuff like this needs some work. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See if you think I did enough to warrant removal of the tag. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you've read through the parts you've edited more thoroughly than I have, it's your call if you think it's good enough to remove the tag; feel free to do so if you think it's warranted.Regarding the short description, the reason I changed it was that the current one is far too long (per WP:SDFORMAT, the target is 40 characters, whereas right now it's a whopping 103). Also, "national memorial" is technically incorrect as a description, since it's not official like these. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll tweak it some. It's the whole "Lynching memorial" thing, it sounds a bit disrespectful--and I know that I created it as such, but I've come back from that somewhat crude shorthand description. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Would Lynching victims memorial in Montgomery, Alabama, United States be acceptable? I don't think anyone would mistake it as a monument to the practice of lynching, but adding "victims" makes it extra clear. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

About your comment in WP:AFIN
Actually the word "unencyclopedic" that you typed should be replaced with "non-encyclopedic", because I've consulted Lexico and can not find unencyclopedic at all. Please proofread what you type carefully before submission.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Convert to transclusion
Template:Convert to transclusion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - Article about Joel Fagliano
Hi Sdkb! Thank you so much for bringing to life the article I started about Joel Fagliano! It looks great! –  Kekki1978  talk 02:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent cinema.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Adaptation
"Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. Queen Animie (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what page or practice you're referring to. I see you're new to editing; please keep in mind that clear communication is essential for succeeding here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sandeep Mukherjee
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from Martin Urbanec (WMF) (00:10, 5 May 2021)
Hello, mentor! This is a Growth team member making sure the Growth features work as expected. --Martin Urbanec (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from Trizek (WMF) (09:26, 5 May 2021)
Hello Sdkb

This is a test message, using the Mentorship module located at Special:Homepage.

I just posted a message at the project page with steps to enable the Homepage and Help panel for yourself, so that you can try the tools. --Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Frederick G. Slabach


The article Frederick G. Slabach has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Fram (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks alot
Thank you for your response and wish to commend you editors on the great work you are doing responding promptly. Bibihans (talk)Bibihans — Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem; glad to be of help! &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Reza Zafari for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reza Zafari 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/Reza Zafari 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. nearlyevil 665  06:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Reza Zafari for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reza Zafari 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/Reza Zafari& 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. Sonofstar (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel Post Senning
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Joel Fagliano
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from Elady12345 (03:49, 12 May 2021)
Hi, Sdkb — thank you for reaching out! I'm so excited to be a part of the Wikipedia community!

I just finished writing my first article and I was wondering if you could review it and let me know how I can improve it. I look forward to hearing your feedback!

All the best, Elady12345 --Elady12345 (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Thanks for reaching out. So the first task for any new article is to establish notability via references. For Draft:Made in NYC (nonprofit), the New York Times article is a fantastic reference, but we need one more. Has there been other media coverage of the organization? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Good question! I just went through many pages of Google and I was able to find an article from the New York Business Journal, an article from the House Beautiful magazine, a report from the U.S. Department of State, a NY Times article referring the the "Made in NYC Week" event, and an AMNY article. What do you think about these sources? Thanks again for your help! Elady12345 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance, the New York Business Journal article looks good; I'd add that to the end of the first sentence. The next thing to do for the article is to fix up some style issues. The external links within the body go against Wikipedia style, so they should be removed (or in some cases converted to references or moved to an external links section at the end of the article). The long quotes also go against summary style and should be trimmed. Once those things are done, the draft will be in much better shape and have a better shot at surviving in the main article space. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much!! This was a real help, — I appreciate it! Elady12345 (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kelly Perine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bad Love.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Page views template
Hey, I've been meaning to do a TFD with Decade readership, Page views double, Annual readership and Graph:PageViews for some time now, but I need template editor rights do start the nom. Since you have said rights—would you people to help me do so? Here's what I'm thinking for the nom rationale:

Banner blindness is a real thing and results in important information (arbitration notices, controversial warnings, talk header etc.)  being overlooked or ignored. These page views templates are prime examples of unhelpful cruft that clutters the talk page. The information is already available in a more sophisticated, customizable and accessible format, available at the top of the revision history page (|Dog).

Then maybe something about how little help it is for both readers/editors? I'm sure this will be a huge nom so I want to get especially convincing wording, let me know if you have any thoughts. Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ! As we've discussed in the past, I'm definitely in agreement about reducing the amount of talk page banner clutter, and if I were dictator of Wikipedia I think I'd agree with deprecating them. But given current reality I have to say that this TfD might be a heavy lift. Recently I've found that they seem not to be working (is that the case for everyone or just me?), but if they were, they'd have at least a small add in convenience compared to accessing pageviews through page history, and I think many editors will be reluctant to give that up. To get them fully deleted, you'd have to argue that they shouldn't be placed even in a collapsed banner holder on a page with high pageview fluctuation. Is there some more modest goal we could pursue, such as a bot task to automatically move them inside the banner holder whenever one is present, or even just a big notice on the documentation page advising spare use? That said, TfD discussions can be hard to predict and I've been wrong in the past, so we could always try and it might turn out that there's an unexpected level of support.
 * Regarding the permissions, if you decide to make the nom at TfD, you can go ahead and use Twinkle, and I think it might make an edit request or just encounter a partial error, but if the latter myself or another editor will handle placing the notice. Also, if you meet the criteria at WP:TPERM, you might want to think about requesting the template bit for yourself at some point! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt in general if the community is ready for more banner blindness nominations. My Not a forum TfD went really poorly and that was what I thought would be the least controversial one which would have a significant impact. Perhaps this one has a chance just because how poorly they work though. Make sure to mention that there is a built in, reliable graph at Page information if you nominate it. --Trialpears (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky one because I find it difficult to formulate a convincing argument in support of the page view templates at all. I don't know that the convenience of having them there even helps; since they're so limited, if one really wanted to get a full understanding of the page views, they'd have to go to the off site one anyways. Plus if the purpose of talk pages is really "to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article", then I struggle to see how the template helps. ProcrastingReader said something similar about the success of big TFDs lately, maybe it would be appropriate as a pump proposal instead? I've found they tend to attract a more informed audience in the past—perhaps the pure scope of the TFD would suggest it should be a proposal anyways. It is tempting to go for something more moderate, but if we're really trying to clean up talk pages, such a route may be too timid to have any effect. This being said, to Trialpears's point, I could certainly wait to do so if the community has had too many banner blindness noms thrown in their face recently. Aza24 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think part of the issue with TfDs is that they're actually too narrow in scope, since they're only able to look at a single template or at most a group. To get to a point where talk page banners are consolidated into just one or a few, it'll be necessary to work on Talk header and others so that they're capable of presenting lots of potentially desirable information cleanly. The recent talk banner success that comes to mind, Reference search tools talk page templates, succeeded I think because its functionality could be taken over by Talk header. Applying that to here, perhaps editors would be more amenable to getting rid of the pageviews templates if we added a link to the xtools pageviews (the link could even be over an estimated daily views) somewhere on Talk header?
 * Also, one piece of low-hanging fruit that might be easier to tackle is Auto archiving notice—it's very widely used, and could be merged into talk header where it'd take up a fraction of the space, something like this. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the Auto archiving notice idea! I've long had a vision of making archiving trivial with Talk header being the only template involved. Bots would take their configurations from there and it would be possible to just put to get a good setup with sophisticated defaults considering the namespace and possibly amount of archives already existing. Would be a lot of effort and I doubt all steps could get consensus and significant changes to the archiving bots and I don't see Archive ever going anywhere, but it sure would be nice if it ever became a reality. --Trialpears (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * beep beep! Just driving by to suggest 100-day readership for consideration, while you're tilting at windmills. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, consolidation is the other factor here. Getting the templates all merged together might make it easier to someday get rid of them. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ha—I've returned! Apologies; these all sound like great ideas. I almost wonder if someone should intimate the page views merge and then we hijack it saying to delete them all :). Sdkb, your auto archiving format thing sounds great, where would we bring up such a proposal—TFD? The only thing I wonder is if the "Archives: 1" could stay center, maybe some of the formatting at the bottom of Template:Ars nova could help with that. Aza24 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the archives should definitely remain centered. I just tried toying with it using the example of Ars nova, but I can't quite get it to work. Time to call in the HTML big guns—, any chance you might know what we need to do to Template:Talk header/sandbox to get the auto-archiving line to display correctly (i.e. right-aligned, forcing archives to wrap if needed, but not pushing it to the left) at the test cases here? Once we have the working prototype, I think a TfD might indeed be the way to kick everything into motion. It'll require some additional work to implement, but a merge notice on talk header will certainly attract all the attention we need to make consensus clear. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've manged to get it to work like Template:Ars nova (the issue was you were trying to directly put a div element inside a table element, which is not allowed). The only remaining issue is getting the archives to wrap when needed without overlapping the auto-archiving period label. – Brandon XLF  (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks great Brandon. Sdkb, where are with this—do you have any plans to set up a nom? I'm sure we could "wait for a better time", but with things like this, I feel like such an obvious time might not. Feel free to use some of the diffs earlier if you want to demonstrate how unproductive talk pages can be. Aza24 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the nudge. I agree that, even though the prototype isn't fully functional yet, we're ready to go ahead with the nomination. I've made it here: Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 13. Courtesy pinging the others who have commented here: . &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I will keep a potential page views nom in the back of my head—maybe late in the summer. We'll see how this one goes first though Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from Elady12345 (16:06, 13 May 2021)
Hi again! Thank you again for all your advise for how to improve my writing and editing — the article I wrote got moved to the Mainspace yesterday! I'm just confused now because it seems a different user moved to the Draftspace again. Is there something I'm doing wrong? Would you happen to know how I can improve the article? Ha, I thought it would be a fun project to try and write an article but it sure is turning into a whole mess of confusion. --Elady12345 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry about all the confusion you're encountering. I saw you replied on your talk page with a ping to the editor who redraftified; that's what you need to do, so the ball is in their court now. You haven't done anything wrong; the underlying thing here is just that editors tend to get very jittery about organization articles (even nonprofits) created by new editors, because often those reflect a user with a conflict of interest trying to sneak advertising onto Wikipedia. You've clarified when asked that you have no connection, which should help allay the concern. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that makes sense. Sorry to bother you so much, but I appreciate your help with all of this! Haha I guess I should find a less controversial topic to write about in my next article. Or just stick with editing.


 * All the best,
 * Elady12345 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem at all; feel free to ask if anything else comes up! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from Fkatheserpent (01:48, 15 May 2021)
Hey, I'm sort of new here and I just created a page for my artiste friend. I have just recently moved, but I've been trying to also find the page on Google - which I didn't. --Fkatheserpent (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lifestyle Szn is highly unlikely to remain published (in mainspace) in its current state. There are a number of style issues, and you have not included any references. Please review Help:Your first page for some basic tips. Because you are creating a page for your friend, you also have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose. I would suggest moving the page back to your sandbox to give you some time to work on it, and then once you think it's ready, submit it by placing the code on it. To answer your specific question, new pages do not appear on Google results until they've been patrolled, which can take up to a few weeks. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do understand now, thank you for your assistance. Fkatheserpent (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"You are experienced enough to know what a proper RfC should look like"
I am far more of an exopedian than a metapedian and have only recently begun using RfCs. Please bear with me. soibangla (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Locke Olson
Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Locke Olson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Tahir R. Andrabi moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Tahir R. Andrabi, is not suitable as written to remain published.He is certainly and unquestionably notable by WP:PROF because of the named professorship,. But what you wrote was a directory entry, not an encyclopedia article

An encyclopedia article is not a CV. Make sure the article contains, first, the basic biographical information such as birthyear and birthdplace, then the full sequence of degrees and professional positions in chronological order, with dates. Next,  the 5 or so most cited peer-reviewed articles, given in full with coauthors, full name of journals, and links, with the number of citations to each of them from Google Scholar of Scopus or ISI; any national level awards--(not junior awards or awards from their own university) Add major national-level outside positions, such as president of the major national organizations, and any positions of editor-in-chief ; Membership or minor offices in most societies, and service on editorial boards, do not count for much & are better omitted. Very sparse articles attract skepticism. as do those using vague claims and superlatives, or those that list all possible internal and external committes. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's standards] and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page00notify me on my talk p. and I will give it an accelearated review. .  DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for articulating your rationale. I have to disagree, per the reasoning at WP:Make stubs—our ultimate goal is to make a comprehensive record of the world's encyclopedic topics, and a directory-style entry for a notable topic is a net positive that moves us closer to that goal than having nothing at all. I'd also add that getting an article launched is often the biggest hurdle in its lifespan; once it exists as a stub, others are often encouraged to expand it. I like to get topics over that initial hurdle. Often I do more, but per WP:VOLUNTEER, that cannot be required of me or demanded to get an article undraftified. Keep in mind that, per WP:AFCPURPOSE, likelihood of deletion is supposed to be the sole AfC evaluation criterion, so notable articles should not be kept in draftspace.For this case, in the spirit of cooperation I'll expand the article a little bit before moving it back to mainspace, but I hope the above is helpful for the future. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There are stubs, and there are sub-stubs. I look at NPP as they come, without checking who wrote them unless it looks like promotionalism. There was no third party source (tho the source there was is reliable enough for the professorship), and no indication of published work to confirm it. I've seen stubs like that get deleted, whether or not they ought to be. The best chance to get an article like this expanded is right at the start, while you have the CV visible.

But I did make. an error--I moved too rapidly--it would have been better for an incomplete new article to have waited day or two before moving to draft. But there's so much pressure from the new articles coming in that it's easy to get impatient.  DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Growth Newsletter #18
Welcome to the eighteenth 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.

Structured tasks


"Add a link" is now being tested in production and is nearing release on our four pilot wikis (Arabic, Czech, Vietnamese, and Bengali Wikipedias). We'll be doing final tests this week and next week, and then plan to deploy to the four wikis either during May 24 week, or May 31 week. After two weeks, we will analyze the initial data to identify any problems or trends. We expect that this feature will engage new kinds of newcomers in easy and successful edits. If things are going well after four weeks, we'll progressively deploy it to the wikis with Growth features.

News for mentors

 * We are currently working on a Mentor dashboard. This special page aims to help mentors be more proactive and be more successful at their role. The first iteration will include a table that shows an overview of the mentors current mentees, a module with their own settings, and a module that will allow them to store their best replies to their mentees questions.
 * We've conducted our quarterly audit on Growth's four pilot wikis to see the activity of mentors. It appears that the vast majority of mentors are active.

Community configuration


We are working on project to allow communities to manage the configuration of the Growth features on their own. In the past, communities have needed to work directly with the Growth team to set up and alter the features. We plan to put this capability in the hands of administrators, through an easy-to-use form, so that the features can be easily tailored to fit the needs of each community. While we developed it initially for Growth features, we think this approach could have uses in other features as well. We'll be trying this on our pilot wikis in the coming weeks, and then we'll bring it to all Growth wikis soon after. We hope you check out the project page and add any of your thoughts to the talk page.

Scaling

 * Growth features are now available on 35 wikis. Here is the list of the most recent ones:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * A new group of Wikipedias has been defined for the deployment of Growth features. Please contact us if you have questions about the deployment process, or if your community likes to get the features in advance.
 * After discussion with the English Wikipedia community, the Growth features will be tested on a small percentage of new accounts. At the moment, registered users can test the features by turning them on in their preferences.

'' Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. '' 15:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear (13:55, 19 May 2021)
Hi Sdkb, this is a test query to a mentor to try out this side of things - please give me a response to try it out! --Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi 👃🛍️🐻; here's a response! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from David Ayuel Monykuch (17:15, 21 May 2021)
Hi, thank you for reach out to me. I am so glad to hear from you, it’s my first time here today. So I need to take some knowledge about Wikipedia rules. --David Ayuel Monykuch (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ; nice to connect! Let me know if you have any questions about anything. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from David Ayuel Monykuch (17:58, 21 May 2021)
Hi, as I tell you it’s my first time to be a member with mentor. So I think I can help you with new user, who want to created their first Wikipedia article. I mean to help other users with great editing in their page. --David Ayuel Monykuch (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. Do you wish to mentor others yourself? It appears that English may not be your native language, so you may wish to edit in your native language and eventually become a mentor there. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from David Ayuel Monykuch (18:04, 21 May 2021)
Hello, I would like to ask about Wikipedia articles as you have editing more Wikipedia Users page. I have create my own Wikipedia page through sandbox, because I don’t want it to be block from others. Can you please help me to submit my Wikipedia sandbox here is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Ayuel_Monykuch/sandbox

You can help me with correct editing and spells, before I submit it. Thank you. --David Ayuel Monykuch (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see WP:Autobiography for an explanation of why it is a bad idea to write about yourself. The article is currently unreferenced and will be declined if you submit it now. If you choose to proceed anyways, you can submit it by copying and pasting the code . &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the review and specific suggestions regarding notability on the Jim Levy(Author) page. I will take your suggestion and look for secondary sources. Thank you. On the whole Taos, New Mexico has a large art community, per population which is fairly well documented (1920 - 1950). However, documentation regarding its more recent artists (1960-2000) is somewhat lacking. Some artists and writers like John Nichols (writer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nichols_(writer) have had their works produced by Hollywood etc. so I believe notability is easier to show in those cases, thus I will keep looking. Thanks again for you comments and suggestions as I'm still new to the wiki-world. Taostlt (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Mollifiednow (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Christmas how are you doing Chidiebera (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Buying Wikipedia
It's not worth arguing about jokes, but I thought that other guy's addition to the page was quite amusing. Consider letting it be, even if you don't personally find it funny, we sure did.

In the end, though, it doesn't really matter. It's a great little page, btw, very laugh, much funny.

Also, nice to meet you! Joe (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm glad you appreciate the page overall! And yeah, sorry to be a stickler on this, but I'm pretty firmly opposed to jokes about buying people like given the legacy of slavery. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a non sequitur, but what do you mean by 'the legacy of slavery'? You may not know, and it may distress you to learn, that slavery is still very much a thing:




 * If one were to make a joke about murder, and someone came along and said, 'best not make that joke, given the legacy of murder,' one might be a bit confused. Perhaps you know all this and you just mean something else by it, in which case I'm lost. Doesn't matter one way or the other for editing purposes, I'm just confused. Joe  (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think it's probably a U.S. thing; the word "slavery" without any other descriptor is used here to mean slavery of black people prior to the U.S. Civil War. There is indeed still slavery happening elsewhere in the world and in the U.S.; sorry for seeming like I was implying otherwise. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it now. No worries. Joe  (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

General comment
An article you recently created, Jennifer Friedlander, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs to meet the standards at WP:PROF, which in this case is likely to be by showing her influence on her field by substantial reviews   of her academic books in third-party published independent reliable sources, moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Pierre Englebert, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs to show that it meets WP:PROF, in his case by substantial reviews of his academic books in third-party published independent reliable sources, or my the extent of     citations to his work. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

As you probably know, I like to support articles on notable academics, for there are someo ther editors who tend to be quite skeptical. . You can help by giving the necessary indications of notability in thefirst edit or very soon afterwards in the next hour or so. If you need some additional time, try placing a tag reading {{under construction} } at hte top of the page, which will hold off deletion or draftification for at least a day or so.  DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The two steps I try to consistently take are to note in my edit summary when creating the page that it is notable through WP:NACADEMIC criterion 5, and to include in the article body text the named professorship that the person holds so as to make it clear that NACADEMIC 5 applies. Is there anything else I ought to be doing that would help? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. You would do more to help if you created more than the very minimum. If you write such minimal articles, they may be listed for deletion, by those who do not accept WP:PROF. I don't think it wise to give them an opening.  Creating barely minimal stubs, though  permitted, is generally disapproved of.   DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above, often I do expand them more, but per WP:VOLUNTEER, that is not a requirement. Draftifying articles that are properly formatted/referenced just because they're short is not an appropriate course of action; if anyone nominates them for deletion, I can let them know about NPROF and they will presumably withdraw the nomination. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sweetgreen logo (2018).png
Thanks for uploading File:Sweetgreen logo (2018).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) 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

BLPPRod
Wow, you are a New Page reviewer and you create an unsourced BLP? Congrats on berating me in the edit summary for pointing out the issues with your own creation (an unsourced, uncategorized, unlinked one-line BLP). Fram (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Remember Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify? Sheesh. Fram (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PRODs aren't for "pointing out issues", they're for proposing deletions. You indeed failed WP:BEFORE; pointing that out in my summary isn't "berating" you. And before you accuse me of WP:POINTiness, the reason I create pages like that from time to time is that they're a net plus that I wouldn't otherwise be bothered to write; the fact that they offer a reminder about how quick reviewers are to bite non-perfect content is just a side benefit. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * BLPPRods are for pointing out issues which, if not solved, will lead to deletion. You should never create an unreferenced BLP. Deliberately doing this is a WP:POINT violation. Fram (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DINC. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice essay. Anyway, if you continue creating unsourced BLPs, I will suggest that some of your advanced rights get withdrawn, as people who do NPP or have autopatrolled shouldn't be doing this. Fram (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Quickly reflecting on this a month out, I think I erred in creating the page without references, particularly since it is a BLP. I bolstered the sourcing and content at Frederick G. Slabach when I revisited it a week or two ago, so it's now a much more solid stub. I do stand by the reasoning I gave here endorsing the WP:Make stubs philosophy, but I don't plan to try creating any unreferenced pages again in the future. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:COVID-19 editnotice
Template:COVID-19 editnotice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

69.142.223.188
I cannot upoload a file to wikimedia commons69.142.223.188 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)69.142.223.188


 * Hi IP! What specific issue are you encountering? The more detail you give, the better chance I or another editor will be able to help. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, you tried
Hopeless. EEng 12:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, maybe not. See recent posts. I somehow feel there's possibility for real change if we can get those two key ideas enacted first.. E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, false hope. I was right the first time. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @EEng, I appreciate your efforts in the area. I wasn't very optimistic going in that there would be appetite for the sort of reform at DYK that you or I would like to see, but I'm actually reasonably pleased with the fact that there's been such a robust discussion. There's the adage to consider that goes something along the lines of "if they're arguing with you, that means they're paying attention". I hope the effect of this will be to establish the idea of radically reforming DYK as firmly within the realm of discussion, and that might pave the way for a trial of something new actually gaining consensus down the line. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish I could be so sanguine. But call on me next time and I'll do my best. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 10:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Question from Articles about me. Only (06:06, 10 June 2021)
Hi --Articles about me. Only (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Articles about me. Only! I see you've been making some test edits to articles. If you'd like to experiment, you can do so in your sandbox. Just please don't actually write an article about yourself. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I give up
Hi there ... since communication seems to be a completely foreign idea to the powers that be at Wikipedia, and there seems to be no way to "contact" anyone ... I wanted to let someone know how frustrated I have become with the site before I go. I have attempted to edit articles several times and each time, the article reverts back to the way it was previously with no explanation as to why it was reverted. Sad to say, my experience on Wikipedia is that there is ZERO communication to users attempting to contribute ... nothing, nada, zip, zilch. My time and effort in trying to improve content has been a COMLETE waste of my time! ... something I will never be able to get back. I'm not sure why I have kept trying. Regrettably, I am done trying to contribute to this site. It's obvious that the site does not really want people to contribute for the benefit and knowledge of all ... what a terrible disappointment! Sadly, I have become disheartened by the site and will no longer use it nor speak well of it. NJPWN (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @NJPWN, I'm sorry you're having such a dispiriting experience editing. The way communication works on Wikipedia can be tricky to figure out, and we don't always do a good job of explaining it to newcomers, so it can sometimes be easy to miss.
 * I took a look at your contributions, and it looks like the two articles you've edited recently are Generation Jones and Baby boomers. For Generation Jones, no one else has edited since you did, so your version is the live one. For Baby boomers, it looks like one other editor, @Some1, edited after you. You can see the history of that page, including a record of your edits, by clicking the "view history" tab or going here. According to their edit summary, Some1 "moved the recent additions to another section", so if you search the page, it may be that the content you added wasn't deleted, just moved. If you disagree with any changes they made, you can ask them and I'm sure they'll be willing to explain their rationale and discuss; you can do that just by including  in any talk page message.
 * I hope that info is helpful. If you have any further questions about communication on Wikipedia, you can ask me here and/or look through our introduction guide to talk pages. If you find the page history confusing, there's info about that here. Again, sorry you've had such a rough time so far, and I hope your experience editing improves from here on. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope that info is helpful. If you have any further questions about communication on Wikipedia, you can ask me here and/or look through our introduction guide to talk pages. If you find the page history confusing, there's info about that here. Again, sorry you've had such a rough time so far, and I hope your experience editing improves from here on. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia Moves
I've done all three moves per your request. I didn't leave a redirect at Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/history as I wasn't clear on your intentions, and obviously couldn't do the page protection (apologies). Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No redirect from /history is fine; thanks for the quick help moving them! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Reader-facing page
Template:Reader-facing page has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Spicy (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions for good article status
I think I may be interested in this task. SVcode ( Talk ) 15:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @SVcode awesome! Let me know how it goes. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb I got someone else to work with me, so is that okay? SVcode ( Talk ) 14:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's totally fine. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Question from Jahidul Haque Tuhin (00:30, 16 June 2021)
I can't find my information when i search my Name in Google. I complete my user page already... Suggested me a solutions Thank You 💓 --Jahidul Haque Tuhin (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User pages are not indexed by search engines. It's a bad idea to write about yourself. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Question from Jahidul Haque Tuhin (01:05, 16 June 2021)
How to find My article in search engine? I'm already post a article but when i search it on Google, i can't find it? Why? How many time takes to post a article? --Jahidul Haque Tuhin (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Jahidul Haque Tuhin see my reply above. Read WP:SEI if you really want. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Further talk header cleanups
Hi Sdkb! I was motivated by your nomination for merging the AAN template with the talk header one, as well as the discussion above. I am interested in getting a discussion going to merge a whole bunch of history templates into Article history. Many of these templates listed are already covered by Article history, but it would be best if all or most of those were deprecated in favor of Article history. As many of these templates are also used in other namespaces, it may be necessary to rename it to something like Page history.

List of just some of the templates that have the possibility of being merged: These are just a handful of templates I've picked out. The main arguments to merge are because of banner blindness and to provide a clearer historical timeline of that page, template, or category.
 * Deletions (Old XfD multi, Old CfD, Old MfD, Old prod, Old RfD, Old TfD, Oldcsd, Oldcsdfull, Olddelrev, Oldffdfull)
 * Merges (Afd-merged-from, Afd-merge to, Afd-merge from multi, Afd-merge from, Merged-from, Merged-to, Mfd-merge from, Mfd-merge to, Old merge)
 * GA/FA/etc (FARpassed, FailedGA, GA)
 * Moves (Old moves)
 * Peer-reviews (Old peer review, Oldportalpeerreview)
 * Uncountable edit drive templates
 * Miscellaneous (Oldpuffull, On this day, Published, Stable version)

Do you think you could help develop this discussion or co-nominate it? Many of these templates are template-protected, so I would need an admin or template editor to add merge templates to them. SWinxy (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi ! I'm glad to see efforts in this area continuing! There are a few questions that come to mind: Should these nominations be done separately or all together? Should we seek consensus first, or first make a bot and then seek consensus to operate it (having a ready bot might make consensus easier, but there's risk of wasted effort if it's rejected)? For the article history stuff, my intuition is that the best path is to build bots that handle these things, and only try to deprecate the old templates once we've managed to get them out of use. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrc, the FAC/FLC bot converts existing milestones to article history when they're promoted (or not?). I wonder if we could get the same thing going for the GA/DYK/OTD etc. bots. I must also add my appreciation for SWinxy in continuing this endeavor! Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! No clue about the existing bot situation. iirc the GA process is partially automated, and we'd need to change the bot(s) that adds the deprecating templates, as well as discuss with the GA/DYK/... teams. But for already existing uses we might have to build our own bot to move them. SWinxy (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that we could nominate them in two batches: the first being the ones that already have parity in Article history, and ones that have not, and—if there is support for it—split them down further to merge in batches by type (e.g. first deletions, then FA/GA, etc). For the process of deleting, I suggest first moving the transclusions over, then once that's done, mark the templates as deprecated. Then, wait a few weeks to see if any more discussions pop up or to see if some bots' owners need to be notified, and, if not, mark them as deprecated for removal. Then, delete if we feel that it has been a reasonable amount of time. I don't think turning them into redirects is a good idea. Doesn't feel clean.
 * As for the bot, eh? I dunno. There was more pushback than I would have expected with the auto archiving notice (feels weird that it only closed less than two weeks ago), but then again making a bot before the discussion would give credence to our determination or something, just to show that we've thought this through thoroughly. I've not made a bot before, and I expect some things we'll need to do manually if any of the templates were used weirdly. SWinxy (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, do you have plans to move the sandboxed version of the talk header to the main template? The auto archiving notice can't really be moved until the archive parameters have been added. SWinxy (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @SWinxy, it's in process at Templates for discussion/Holding cell. I'm generally not too involved there, but it'll get done in a few weeks or so. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Question from The Unknown 0012 (08:58, 20 June 2021)
Hi, Sdkb! I hope you are well. Just wanted to ask you how to write a good article? I hope I’m not wasting your time! Just ping me back any time. --The Unknown 0012 (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's no trouble at all! See Help:Your first article for basic tips on creating a new page, Help:Introduction for general editing tips/instructions, or Article development for advice on improving existing pages. Keep in mind that creating new pages from scratch is a difficult task, and you might want to try some other things first to get your feet wet. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

SdkbBot edit summary
Hi, I just noticed this edit by SdkbBot. If AWB genfixes are being bundled with the edit, it will be helpful to indicate it in the edit summary. Otherwise it can be misleading about what the bot is actually doing when seeing diffs like this. Thanks. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good thought. I had left it out since not all edits the bot makes will involve GENFIXes and I didn't want the false positives, but I think you're right that the false negatives are the bigger concern. I'll adjust the summary for future edits. Maybe at some point it'll be possible to differentiate it based on whether or not it does a GENFIX. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Debra Cleaver for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Debra Cleaver 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/Debra Cleaver 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. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidency of Donald Trump, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Holmes and Fiona Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * . &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

45th president of the United States
I wouldn't object so much, if you'd chose another place in the Donald Trump article, to link to Presidency of Donald Trump. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking in another place would defeat the goal of having as prominent a link as possible to the article probably most relevant to the majority of people who visit Trump's article. The RfC at this point is just waiting for a close, and both sides have made pretty much all the arguments we're going to make, so I hope we can just let it sit and work on something else until that happens. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm never going to get through to you on this topic, am I? You're held bent determined to have your own way. Like I said, it's been nearly a whole year. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pomona College
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pomona College you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HAL333 -- HAL333 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Much thanks! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Eventually I'll need to sleep more... &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Government of Rhodesia
Sorry to disturb you in Independence Day. I’m a historian and not too experienced with Wikipedia. Added quite important facts about the Rhodesian people after 1980 and about the Government of Rhodesia. All under heavy fire as if the bush wars would have never ended… The users just clicked on the most convenient (and least important) links (now deleted because not essential) and started a campaign to return to the version of history which is political, not scientific. Could you have a look, please? Thank you, University Professor for History (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @OnSpeech, for controversial topics, Wikipedia operates under a consensus model. I'd recommend that you discuss the issue with the other editors on the article's talk page (see our intro to talk pages) and calmly present your sources and explain why they support your edits. Let me know if you have any questions. Government of Rhodesia was deleted as a suspected hoax following this discussion. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Hi @Volunteer Centre KC! There's information at Changing username. Given that you don't yet have any history under your current username, the easier path is probably just to log out and create a new account under the name you want. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks, ! Is there a particular edit of mine that you saw that prompted this? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I am just randomly sending love messages to other Wikipedians to motivate them. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Visnelma, gotcha. For that purpose, the foods probably work best—save the barnstars for when we've truly earned them! &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks for the polite note, Sasha. I do realize I closed that discussion after a fairly short window. The standard I try to use is whether or not I could envision any possible way of the discussion turning around and reaching a different result, and for that discussion I just couldn't. The invitation at WP:VPP meant that at least some of the !voters were not watchers of that particular talk page, and the nature of the proposal was simple enough that there wasn't really room to tweak it or for understanding of it to evolve. The tradeoff is always between trying to save editor energy from discussing something that won't pass and the possibility that continued discussion will be of some benefit. In this case, I made the call that a SNOW close was warranted. That said, there is never any prohibition against post-close comments, so if you want to make one, you're welcome to do so. I also won't object if other editors feel that the discussion ought to be reopened. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning, of course I respect your judgment on that. Best wishes, CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#98FB98; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

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

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


 * Hi @Mero Daily News—I don't understand your comment. Do you have a question? If you are hoping to create an article on Ayaz, please see Help:Your first article. Please note that you will have to change your username, as we don't allow accounts with organization names. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Unearthed (publication)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Debra Cleaver
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)