User talk:Sdkb/Archive 3

That article in Turkish is an interview. Also, "head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area" does not mean just any academic journal. Rethinking Marxism may be a major Marxist journal, but, going by the scope implied by its title, I would judge it to be pretty minor within the realm of political science journals, despite being over 30 years old. Looks like I am going to have to learn about AFD, finally.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know what you wanted to do here, but

Thanks for the note. As I mentioned at the discussion, I'm looking to see if it'd be possible to convert a list page to something that just updates based off the category members, which would reduce the redundancy between categories and lists. AWB can't help with that, unfortunately, and it seems it's impossible until some back-end improvements are made. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas Sdkb!!
	Hi Sdkb, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all you do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie10aaaa, and I wish you a happy holiday season as well! Could you point me to the template for this box? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

TBH actually I copied/pasted it from one I got last year(I myself tried to find the Holiday page for these but I couldnt)...Merry XMAS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much; best wishes to you, too, and please stay in touch! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for all the work you do on Wikipedia especially in the vital articles. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not understanding this. I appreciate your advise but honestly I don't even know how to respond to your comment? I would be happy to move the subject to its own page but I'm not entirely sure how to do that. Can you assist in that, please?

-NW NinjaWarrior99 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(For reference, this is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1087#Help. NinjaWarrior99, I've moved your draft to Draft:James H. Dargie and added a submission banner, which you can use once you think the article is ready to publish. It would be declined if submitted in its current state, so I recommend you read Help:Your first article and Help:Introduction to learn what it needs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Sdkb, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, csdnew 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks for fixing whatever was in error but maybe a note about why you edited my sandbox would have been nice... Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shearonink: There were a bunch of incorrectly categorized pages in Category:Happy holidays and seasonal greetings WikiLove templates, and I just went through and cleared them out to make the category more navigable. Enclosing categories of templates in {{Sandbox other}} is standard practice, but I probably should've used a better edit description than just decategorizing sandbox. I hope it wasn't any disturbance, and happy holidays! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the closure of the RfC! I see that ProcrastinatingReader has closed it with the consensus that the first sentence should read: "TikTok ... is a video-sharing social networking service owned by [the] Chinese company ByteDance." Although the consensus has been established, I'm concerned it still may not be appropriate for me to implement it myself. Can you go ahead and make the change instead? (Happy to do it myself if given the green light.) Bkenny44 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bkenny44:  Done here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The article Gay Republicans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As per

WP:BLPSOURCES

....contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Moxy 🍁 15:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, although it should be redirected, not deleted. I'm not really the editor you need to notify, as my only interaction with the page was to !vote to get rid of it (by merging). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about those situations - just making sure this wasn't being build purposelessly for article displays. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Refractory materials are generally divided into two types, namely unshaped refractories and shaped refractories. Unshaped refractories are also called castables. They are mixed powder particles composed of a variety of aggregates or aggregates and one or more binders. They must be mixed with one or more liquids and mixed evenly during use. Strong liquidity. Shaped refractory materials generally refer to refractory bricks, the shape of which has standard rules, and it can also be temporarily processed during construction and cutting as required. Referred to as firebrick. A refractory material with a certain shape and size. Refractory brick According to the preparation process, it can be divided into fired bricks, non-fired bricks, fused bricks (fused cast bricks), refractory and heat insulating bricks; according to the shape and size, it can be divided into standard bricks, ordinary bricks, and special-shaped bricks. It can be used as high-temperature building materials and structural materials for building kilns and various thermal equipment, and can withstand various physical and chemical changes and mechanical effects at high temperatures. For example, refractory clay bricks, high alumina bricks, silica bricks, magnesia bricks, etc. We have been producing refractory materials for more than ten years, welcome everyone to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy123lee (talk • contribs) 08:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for remedying the lack of brick-related advertisements on my talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb,
I thought this got sorted out some months ago? This obviously isn't any big deal at all, but I guess it would be annoying to the anon users who find that their first attempt at editing get WP:G2-d . WP:AN thread here.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb,

I just deleted this draft after it hadn't been edited for six months but I found it an interesting list. When I looked at the contributors to the draft, you were the only editor who wasn't an IP and who is still active so I wondered if you wanted to do any additional work on it and submit it. I can restore it if you wish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note,

WP:ARS to swoop in. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

00:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was cute and informative which I don't think meets most editors criteria for keeping an article. Most of the associations between emoji & political positions were unknown to me but maybe they are common knowledge on social media. I'll look at it and again and see whether it was ever submitted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sdkb! Season's Greetings,

I strive to be a contributor on Wikipedia, so I would like to improve the quality of my User Talk page by adding an Infobox on it, with the following labels: 'This user was last active on (date and time)', 'This user has last seen the Talk page on (date and time)', and 'This user is expected to be inactive until (date and time)', which I can update everytime I visit my Talk page. But the problem is that I am unaware of how to add such an Infobox as there are no pre-existing templates for this. I hope you can help me out.

Also it would be extremely helpful of you if you can guide me on how to send the Barnstars to other users.

Thank you.

CX Zoom (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:Barnstar; one way to do it is (on desktop) go to their user talk page, click on the red heart in upper right near the search box, and then follow the instructions. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks a lot. I would also like to invite you to my User Page to give your feedback as I am setting up my User page and the allied Talk Page for the first time and would require some guidance to do it. Thank you again. Cheers. CX Zoom (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks good to me! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb:Thanks a lot. CX Zoom (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sdkb, I'm back.

I saw you commented on a move discussion on Talk:Gay Republicans, advocating that this article be merged with another. Subsequently, this article was PROD'd and is due to be deleted over the next 24 hours. If you have some interest in this merger, you might want to take action sooner rather than later or remove the PROD unless you agree that it should be deleted. If you have no opinion, sorry for bothering you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks again for the heads up! Thinking about it, since Republican is a disambiguation page, there's no way to be sure that someone searching for "Gay Republicans" is interested in U.S. politicians, so perhaps it wouldn't be appropriate to leave behind a redirect. I'm not comfortable merging when there are such severe unsourced BLP issues, so I'll just let the PROD expire instead. It's much less of a loss to Wikipedia than the emoji page haha. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

True! Plus much of the content is reproduced on the LGBT Politicians list. The only element that the Gay Republicans article had only was state legislators, not just politicians at a federal level. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I am--Hacker-index (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. My request on the article Draft:Asif Tariq was declined because of lack of sources. Unfortunately this is very difficult to find many sources as i am from very small town. The said subject is a renowned Kashmiri poet i worked hard on this article. Please help me by approving this article. I did my best. Hope in your help. Majid Saleem78 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Majid Saleem78: There is an extensive backlog of new drafts waiting for review. Please be patient and do not attempt to jump the queue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, hi again, I hope you don't mind me coming back here for some insight – you seem to always to be very sensible. I was recently look at Hildegard of Bingen and noticed the (rather ridiculous) double infobox for her being a saint and philosopher/scientist/composer. I suppose I must have glanced over this before, as I've been to her page multiple times; I looked around a little and found a similar situation of two infoboxes on Ambrose and (this one is painful to see as there are three additional sidebars) Augustine of Hippo (I'm sure there are other pages like this). After discussing this with a user who works on Christian-topic articles, she concluded that there is no obvious reason for the infoboxes to be in such a manner. I'm assuming (?) the appropriate solution would to make one able to be imbedded in the other, presumably the saint one, any ideas? Also, where would you think be the best place to hold a discussion on finding consensus for this? Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aza24! Totally agreed that the double infobox looks fairly silly and that embedding would be the preferable solution. I'm not entirely sure about a good venue for discussing; you could hold it at Template talk:Infobox saint and just put a {{Please see}} at the religion or even biography wikiprojects. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb, coming back to this to think about how I could draft an RFC, I'm not sure how exactly templates work with embedding. Would I proposing that the infobox saint be available as a module? If so, this forgotten RFC is perhaps the same proposal? Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Aza24, my understanding is that embedding as a module would be the way to combine the infoboxes, so yeah, it might be worth reviving that discussion. For an example of this happening elsewhere, I was just looking at Infobox officeholder earlier, which seems to have some decent documentation related to embedding. {{Infobox NRHP}} is another example that comes to mind of an embeddable infobox. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request you to review the article Governor (United States) which seems to be outdated, especially the Race and ethnicity and Gender sections and its corresponding map. It clearly says 'as of October 2020', much of which might have been changed by now, after the 2020 election. My concerns arise from the fact that Puerto Rico now has a male governor (Pedro Pierluisi) but the map shows it to be a female and 'race and ethnicity section' mentions the then-governor Wanda Vázquez Garced. But I don't have much knowledge about the other state's & territory's governors, so I'm reluctant to edit this article.

I'm not sure if I should've requested you here but I did so because your user page says that you're a member of "WikiProject Articles for Improvement" and "WikiProject District of Columbia". If I should've requested somewhere else, please let me know. I'll take care of it from the next time. Thank You. CX Zoom (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi CX Zoom! I don't have the capacity to dive into that personally, but thanks for sharing, and here are a few thoughts.

It looks like the article has already been tagged since May with {{Update}}. You can tag specific pieces of information with {{Update inline}}, but beyond that I can't think of any great places to go to get attention on it. The page doesn't look like it's in bad enough shape to be a good Articles for improvement candidate, and the issue isn't urgent enough to be likely to draw editors if you shared it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics (although you could try; it certainly won't hurt and I might be wrong).

When data on high-level pages becomes outdated, it's often a sign that the data was too detailed. I'm not sure if that's the case here, but it's worth asking if it'd be possible to write the content from a broader angle that wouldn't require so much updating.

And it's no problem for you to come here. For future reference when sharing potential tasks with other editors, some can be touchy about

WP:Volunteer, so I find it generally works best to frame the invitation as "here's a task that you might be interested in if you're inclined" rather than "here's a task I'd like you to do". Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

13:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Hello, extremely sorry for the very late reply. Thanks a lot for letting me know the etiquette of which I was unaware of, I would take care of this in my future talks with anyone. And thanks again for telling me how to get other editor's attention to the aforementioned article. Have a nice day ahead. CX Zoom (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Information ecology has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Twofingered Typist; it's definitely an improvement! The article still has a long ways to go with regard to overly technical language; would it be okay to apply {{Technical}}? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for creating this article. I had read about him a while back and noticed there was no Wikipedia page. Bogazicili (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bogazicili, thanks! I met him a few years ago and had no clue at the time who he was; hopefully the next person in that situation will have an easier time Googling him haha. Also a bit bummed I blanked on making a DYK nom, but oh well. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about creating an article too, but I was busy with other stuff and the process looks a bit cumbersome. So I'm glad you beat me to it lol. Bogazicili (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bogazicili: If you're looking for a related page to create, his grandfather (of the same name) has a page in Turkish but not English, so that could probably use translation. He was a mayor who became known as "Asphalt Osman" because of his work building roads. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe in the future :) Bogazicili (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sdkb, I've noticed that you have been active in creating RfCs on points of formatting/accessibility, so I though you may be interested in taking one up.

The guidance in

Hi

a page I quickly threw together last night has been linked from the Main page without making it work on mobile... 😬), so I won't be able to help with this specifically, but I hope you find someone and are able to bring the issue to a resolution. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

12:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I just completed the whole level 5 vital article categories for Video games (215 articles), Gambling (14 articles), Other games and plays (44 articles), Sports Basics (14 articles), Sports equipment (27 articles), and International competitions (top 12 articles). Plus, I did an odd one here and there. It takes a lot longer than expected because I have to patrol each article one by one to check the short desc. since the pet scan link takes too long to load and yields no results. I plan to do many more categories, as this kind of tedious work interests me. So, do I get a barnstar? Huggums537 (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply! The rewards board ask was technically to complete all the level 5 categories, but yeah, that's probably a bigger lift than any one editor could take on. Your work looks like it's taken care of a good chunk of the pages, so I'd say you've earned the star; here you go! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem about the delay, and yeah it is a lot of work for one editor, but I think over time I'll be able to knock out a large swathe of it just by myself, so thank you for the barnstar! Huggums537 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb!

My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.

I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.

Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dalorleon! Yes, I'm happy to share my thoughts; feel free to ask what you'd like to know! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb!

Thanks so much for agreeing to speak with me. My questions are below; let me know if you need me to clarify any of them.

1) How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you been an active editor of the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article?

2) When adding content to the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are relevant / notable enough to warrant inclusion?

3) When removing content from the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are irrelevant / non-notable enough to warrant deletion?

4) Are there any particular Wikipedia policy / guidelines pages that you rely on to guide your editing? (Like “Wikipedia:Editing policy,” “Wikipedia:Writing better articles,” etc.)

5) Do you feel that Wikipedia’s “official” editing guidelines are helpful, or do you generally ignore them? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?

6) Has adding or deleting content from the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article ever brought you into conflict with another Wikipedian? If so, how were those disputes resolved?

7) Do you identify more as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither / something else?

Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! Feel free to weigh in on anything I didn’t specifically ask in regards to your editing practices. I’m primarily curious to learn about what factors you consider when deciding what content ought to be added / removed from Wikipedia articles.

Finally, if I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! --Dalorleon (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

1. @
   associated WikiProject, but I focused mainly on the main pandemic page, since it's one of the highest-viewed pages and has less medical content than COVID-19
   (I generally focus more on the societal aspects of the pandemic rather than the medical aspects, since I don't have medical expertise).
2. Wikipedia's guidance on that is
   supposed to be a summary of the body, and thus has an even higher bar for inclusion). I argued for it based in part on a front-page NYT article and similar coverage (here's the discussion
   for the U.S. article, which is a little less messy than the one for the global page), but given all that's happened between late March and now, if we revisited the question I'm not sure I'd still support it being there; the death toll and economic impact seem like more the main story. That perspective change is partially due to the fact that there's been less coverage of xenophobia after the initial burst, but in large part it's just a call I'd make based on my understanding of the world.
3. A lot of the removals I make are pretty easy calls. They're often edits from new editors who haven't checked the talk page and don't realize that the topic they're editing about has already been discussed at length at the talk page and is the way it is because of an established consensus. See the
   WP:BRD
   to avoid edit wars.
4. Yeah, I rely on all the policies/guidelines and occasionally essays to guide my editing, and to help justify my edits when there are conflicts. I cited some above, and if you look at the talk page archives you'll see the more competent editors citing them regularly. Some of the key ones can be found linked from Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
5. Wikipedia is a complex operation, and this creates a need for rules, so I'm glad they exist and think they're generally helpful. Sometimes I propose changes to them if they don't seem to be working as intended, and one of the areas I work in is trying to condense them and make them more accessible to newcomers, but there's a limit to the amount it'd be possible to condense them. One of Wikipedia's most famous policies (policies supersede guidelines, which themselves supersede information pages or essays) is WP:Ignore all rules (IAR), which has existed since Wikipedia's early days (when things were a lot less structured). Different editors interpret it differently, and nowadays I think it's often invoked more in name than in practice; there are few situations in which you can do something justified only by IAR and get away with it. But the point is to avoid following rules just for the sake of following rules, and sometimes when I see a pointless piece of bureaucracy I wish it'd be invoked more. Here's a recent example of a particularly bureaucratic insidery incident.
6. Yeah, definitely. When you edit a high-traffic page regularly, you get to know the other editors that frequent that page. Some of them are more competent than others, and some are easier or less easy to work with. Wikipedia has a whole host of policies/guidelines on dispute resolution, but the basic normal process is outlined at
   requests for comment
   for bigger disputes or disputes more in need of attention from a wide audience.
7. Ah, that's a big question. I'd say I have elements of each. On the deletionist side,
   general notability guideline
   , our primary criteria for inclusion/deletion, is about the right level of restrictive.

Regarding attribution, you're free to use my username and the biographical details I share on my userpage; this page and that one are publicly accessible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thorough response, Sdkb! I really appreciate your answers; they'll be quite useful for my research. I'll let you know if I have any follow-up questions. But, for now, I wish you the best of luck! --Dalorleon (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created,

@

WP:BEFORE before you draftify. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

22:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyhow, hopefully the page will settle down soon and a permanent wording can be found. Regards, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Giraffer: No worries. We're trying to navigate a complex circumstance without a good solution, and while I'm frustrated we've ended up here, I don't blame anyone trying in good faith to work things out, and I don't think you particularly inflamed anything. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring this ref [3] I had deleted from Whitey (slang). I had read the page before I deleted it and thought it didn't mention "whitey", but I just read it again and saw that it does mention that "yt" can be an abbreviation for "whitey". I don't know why I missed that. Anyway, thanks for restoring it! — Chrisahn (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: I actually had a weird deja vu moment, since I found and added the reference before I caught up on the recent spate of edits and realized I was actually just restoring it haha. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please comment on an undesirable effect I described at

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2021/January#A bug? Bot removed an equal sign from section titles

and

Template talk:Happy New Year fireworks#HTML comment in a Section header and the archiving bot

which resulted from your edit Special:Diff/997387763 (the second line of the template's cod)...? --CiaPan (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@CiaPan: From the discussions you linked, it seems the issue arose because of a bug with Cluebot, which my edit just happened to trigger, so the core issue needs to be resolved by the Cluebot folks, not me. Still, I moved the hidden comment to circumvent the error. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I know the problem is in bot's parser but I thought it might be shorter to avoid it than fix it :)

And if it wasn't fixed soon we would all forget about the problem until the next new year. Thank you for a prompt action. --CiaPan (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb,

here's my view on the latest kerfuffle at Donald Trump (an adapted copy of my comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GoodDay).

tl;dr: Let's cool down. :-)

The situation at Donald Trump is indeed very messy. Despite multiple attempts, we haven't yet been able to develop a consensus about the first sentence. You argue there has been "prevailing consensus" for using the word "was" instead of "served as", but that has been disputed, and the relevant item #17 on Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus currently simply says "Note that this item is obsolete given that Trump is no longer the current president".

You argue that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the status quo, which was "Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States", and replace "is" by "was" while changing little else. That's a reasonable position.

But others have argued that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the wording in other articles about former US presidents, which is "X is an American [occupation] who served as [n]th president of the United States". That's also a reasonable position.

So the problem is that we neither have a consensus for a long-term solution, nor a consensus for an interim stop-gap solution.

In the last two days, several users (roughly half a dozen) changed the first sentence to "served as", and you repeatedly changed it back to "was" (here, here, and here).

You added warnings about edit warring and sanctions on other users' talk pages (here, here, and here), using the words "you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree". But these words would also be a correct description of your actions on Donald Trump in the last two days.

Now you're trying to sanction other users. Somewhat understandable. But based on the same criteria, others would be justified to try to sanction you.

In conclusion: Yes, the situation at Donald Trump is messy, but neither "was" nor "served as" is a terrible solution for the first sentence. As long as we don't have a consensus, it will probably be changed back and forth a few more times. But let's not make the situation even messier by starting a back and forth of enforcement requests. Let's cool down, everyone.

I'd suggest that you take a step back, and take a deep breath. I'm sure someone will change the first sentence to "served as" again in the next 24 hours, and others will change it back to "was", whether you are involved or not. It's an unfortunate situation, and I wish I could think of a better solution. But neither "saved as" nor "was" is awful. Not really worth fighting about. I'm sure the situation will be resolved in a couple of days.

Take care!

— Chrisahn (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Thanks for leaving the note. I have a few quibbles with your characterization which I noted at the enforcement request, but broadly I take your point and agree that we should try to de-escalate. Seeing that GoodDay self-reverted, I have moved to withdraw the request. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommend (in future) you hold off from handing out so many warnings & take a 24-hr waiting period, before you decide making any report on anyone. The idea for such reports are preventative, not punitive. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sdkb. I'm just posting to let you know that

@Giants2008: It looks good to me; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't tell other editors that content in articles, particularly content in embedded lists, must be

@

WP:DUE. Does your perspective differ? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

04:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

independently notable

.

In practice, I don't find this to be a significant problem. In nearly every case, people who should not be included in a list can be removed simply because their inclusion isn't supported by a reference. That is always a valid reason for removing material from an article.

(Much of this confusion is caused by the unfortunate selection of "notable" as the adjective of choice to say "meets our standards for an independent Wikipedia article." That definition is much more narrow than the common understanding and use of the word, including how it's used in many articles especially the sections of articles labeled "Notable <something>." Sometimes I use "noteworthy" in discussions with other editors to try to avoid this confusion when talking about material that can or should be included in an article although it doesn't merit its own independent article but that's not a common enough practice to really be helpful.)

ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am hoping to get an honorific parameter added to template:sortname for titles like "Sir", "Rev", "Dr" etc which will be displayed but neither linked to or sorted on. E.g. {{sortname|James|Wales|ttl=Sir|dab=British Army officer}} which would display Sir James Wales, link to James Wales (British Army officer) and sort on Wales, James. Can you help? Thanks Greenshed (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi

MOS:HONORIFIC is pretty restrictive about the circumstances in which honorifics should be used, so I'd first double check that it's truly appropriate for the use case you have in mind. If you do want to go ahead with it, it might be better to use span data-sort-value, as shown here, rather than building it into the template, as doing that might encourage improper use. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

22:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Sdkb! Thanks for this revert. Actually I was using twinkle for the very first time so unfortunately that mistake happened. Now I will never use twinkle 🙁. Sorry and thanks!

@Hyderabadi Wikipedian: No worries; it was just a click! Twinkle can be very useful for some more advanced tasks, so I hope you'll be ready to return to it at some point! You can always experiment first in your sandbox to find your footing. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I am utterly lost in how to create a Wikipedia page. You said there were a whole heap of things wrong with what I submitted but I find all the instructions on correct practice utterly baffling. So if we want to create an academic profile for our employer please can you tell me what is the right process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Paulsen (talk • contribs) 05:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ian Paulsen: I am a volunteer. You are being paid. I generously provided you with the links you need, but I'm not going to do your work for you by holding your hand through each step of the process. Please read the links I provided to you and follow the instructions, including respecting the volunteer nature of the project. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marilyn Manson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

On 5 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frank LoMonte, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that lawyer and press freedom advocate Frank LoMonte helped pass legislation in 14 U.S. states outlawing censorship of student media by school administrators? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frank LoMonte. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Frank LoMonte), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor this page is mine and i am the CEO of this website i made this article my self but they marked as a speedy deletion kindly help me to improve this article my page name is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Www.bismatrimony.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setmroger (talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:PAID. Regarding the rest of your request, as I told you at the Teahouse, we are not going to do your advertising for you. Read the rules and stop wasting our time as volunteers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

07:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Saturday Jan. 30, 2pm Pacific / 5 PM Eastern (with Pete)
• Tuesday Feb. 2, 5pm Pacific / 8pm Eastern (with Pete)
• Wednesday Feb. 3, 12:30pm Pacific / 3:30 PM Eastern (with Sherry)
• Thursday Feb. 4, 12:30pm Pacific / 3:30 PM Eastern (with Sherry)

We hope to hear from you soon! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Peteforsyth, there is a vital outstanding task for WikiProject Newspapers that the project is too inactive to take on. If you actually have a coordinated community of editors able to take on collaborations, I would strongly suggest making it your top priority.

There are currently only three featured newspaper articles on Wikipedia: the long-defunct Illustrated Daily News of Los Angeles, the Sunderland Echo (a small British paper with <10k circulation), and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Of these, the Inquirer is clearly the most significant. It's also currently undergoing a FARC, and without coordinated intervention is all but guaranteed to be delisted. It's not based in the Caribbean or Washington state or black-owned, but it is vital to the development of every newspaper article on Wikipedia that there be a roster of featured-class newspapers that editors can look to as models. The Inquirer is an indispensable part of that dwindling roster, and keeping it from getting delisted should be the #1 task right now for any newspaper-focused Wikipedian. So far, I'm the only one who's engaged. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and Peteforsyth/Shanluan, another important (albeit less time-sensitive) newspaper-related task that will take a group effort is adding wikilinks to newspapers where they appear in references. This will help readers more easily verify the reliability of newspapers used as references, which given News On Wiki's stated aim to help build trust in credible news sources should fit very squarely with the project's goals. It does require AWB; details here and in linked discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Peteforsyth/Shanluan, the window closed; page has been delisted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I agree that it's an important issue, but it's a bit outside our remit of what we're specifically trying (or equipped) to accomplish. I'll see if I can find a way to nudge it back toward FA. I'm interested to talk some more about the best approach to linking newspapers systematically in footnotes; I'm pretty familiar with AWB, so maybe I can pitch in on that as well. Excellent stuff, thank you. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: The next step for the linking is probably to solidify the consensus that it's a beneficial thing to do. So far, I've done a few AWB runs to change e.g. New York Times to The New York Times, with the rationale being that if someone hasn't been picky enough to get the name correct, they're unlikely to have strong feelings about linking vs. not linking. I'm a little more hesitant to do The New York Times to The New York Times runs, though, since I'm guessing at some point I'll run into someone who prefers it delinked and objects. It'd be good to have a discussion to point to that establishes that, while certainly not required, when there's a question linking should be preferred. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty sensible approach to me. I'd be happy to brainstorm what might be an effective and manageable way to broaden the discussion, if you'd like. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Sure, sounds good. I'm not sure exactly what venue or framing of the discussion would be best. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Might you be open to bouncing some ideas around in a voice call? I could put together some ideas here on wiki if you prefer. I look at this kind of thing more as "art" than "science," I think having a few small-ish discussions can often be more effective than trying to start with one "authoritative" one. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I tend to prefer on-wiki discussions for something like this if that's alright. Starting with smallish ones sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'd suggest something like this:

• Identify a set of articles to try it on, that are in the remit of a WikiProject besides journalism/newspapers
• Boldly edit one article in that area to link every newspaper
• Using that article as an example, initiate a discussion at
  WT:WPNEWS
  or the topical WikiProject, with prominent invitations all relevant WikiProjects
• Rather than asking whether this should be done for all of Wikipedia, propose that it be expanded to all articles in the set identified above (as a further step in an experiment / conversation-starter)
• If consensus is gained, implement that, then write about it for the Signpost or similar prominent venue

For a topic, I suggest we choose an area where we know we have a good variety of newspapers-as-sources that have Wikipedia articles. I might suggest Category:Oregon politicians, which is an area I've worked in extensively, it draws on a lot of local papers, and we have articles about a lot of those papers.

It might also present a good opportunity to talk about general goals re: newspapers, such as notability standards, the featured article issue you mention, etc. But maybe that's something to come back to once discussion is underway, so that we're not bringing up too many topics at once at the outset.

Thoughts? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• The issue with systematic linking IMO is that some Wikipedia articles might cite 10 NYT articles, but many Wikipedians would argue that you only want to link the first one to avoid seas of blue. So I would run only on pages that don't already link to The New York Times article. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  @

  MOS:LINKDUP. Personally, I tend to favor repeating links in captions/footnotes, since those things aren't read through in order the same way body text is, so a link above isn't a guarantee someone will already have come across it. As a reader, I've certainly had plenty of times where I've come across black text and wished there was a duplicate link, but I've never seen a duplicate link and been annoyed by it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

  04:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m relatively new to Wikipedia. Even though I joined a few years ago, I never had time to contribute until now. So, I look forward to making contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Phoenix7119 (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb. I guess I need to stop writing at 2 A.M. Wow! I really asked you how to create an article:) If you have a moment, I would like more information on how to create articles for myself. And if you could offer some suggestions on how I might correct the issues with my Rasmussen article, I would appreciate your assistance. If you're too busy, I understand. So, please point me in the right direction. Thanks again for help. Phoenix7119 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

autoconfirmed, you have the option to create an article directly in the article space (by searching for a term and clicking the redlink) rather than creating and submitting a draft through Articles for creation

. It'll still be reviewed by other editors before appearing in Google search results, though.

Re (2), looking more closely at it, I'm not seeing any major issues. A few small things I notice:

• Every wealthy person likes to call themselves a philanthropist, so it'd be good to have some sourcing establishing that choosing how to spend his money was a significant occupation for him, not just that he made some donations.
• The language rose to the top of the business is a little flowery – it'd be better to just describe directly.
• The standard way to title a reputation section is just "reputation", not "Reputation as a no-nonsense businessman".

Regarding a tutorial, Help:Introduction covers the basics, but for developing your page further WP:Article development might be more useful. I hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb Thanks so much! Yes, this information helps a lot. I'll do my best to locate additional sources and make the corrections. Also, could you help me with something else? I received the following notice yesterday: "Hello, Phoenix7119, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources." When I asked for an explanation, the person said the wrong template was used to send a "welcome message." Since the message was rather lengthy, I don't know which part of the message was the template and which part was the actual message. The person has yet to offer an explanation or clarification. So, I'm a little confused. Is there a possibility that my Rasmussen article "may not be retained?" Is Rasmussen's notability still being questioned? Since you are the most professional and straightforward person with whom I have corresponded thus far, I thought I had better ask you. I know you'll give me a straight answer. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't trouble you with something like this, but if you remember, you settled the issue with Rasmussen's notability in the first message I received from you. So, I don't understand why other people keep raising this issue. I know I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so am I missing something? I would appreciate your help with this matter. Thanks for your time. Phoenix7119 (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Phoenix7119: The message was 100% a template (this one, to be precise). From the reply you got here, the editor misclicked, and meant to give you I think {{Welcome-belated}}. So basically don't worry about it at all; I can never promise for sure but I think it's unlikely the page would be deleted given the strength of sourcing. You can delete the message from your talk page if you want, or just leave it and carry on. Sorry about the confusion it caused! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb OK. I appreciate the clarification. Thanks so much! Phoenix7119 (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the source, it was actually Mt. San Antonio College. Thanks for calling my attention to it; not sure how that mistake was made. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem, and glad to see it fixed! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well! Not sure how I overlooked that one. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Before I'm shortly exiled to Commons, i'd be interested in your thoughts on the change I sandboxed to the header. The transclusion was in there already, i just un-nested it and it appeared again. The featured host images work alright in the testcases but the dimensions seem too big, right? Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Zindor, looking at the current header, the title seems to be off-center. Is there a specific problem you're trying to address with your changes? If so, maybe seek out someone better at CSS than me, and if not, just leave as is. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the featured host images disappeared when the DJ was moving the styles externally. I just remembered recently to take a look at it. I posted on TH Talk but no response so thought I'd ask you, as you'd previously done some styling on it. I'm not bad at CSS or wikitext, so will wrap my head around what's going on in there soon enough. I won't make anything live unless i've got it nailed down. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

First of all, forgive me if I am doing something wrong here as this is the first time I try to edit something.

I wanted to add some relevant information about bicycle-sharing systems. The added information was rejected due to "No evidence this paper has been covered in reliable sources".

This information (my edit) is supported by a couple of references, the main one being a paper published back in 2017/2018 in the IEEE Access. For those who don't know this journal, it is the open-access (meaning the content can be consulted for free) journal of the IEEE, which is the main Engineering association in the world. This IEEE Access is a Q1 scientific journal (top category) with a high impact level (3.75).

Therefore, I don´t understand how this can be deemed as a non-reliable source, I am sure plenty of references in loads of Wikipedia articles are based on similar references.

Please can you help me clarify this?

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 232m232 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi

secondary sources, such as newspapers. Discussing a research paper by citing the research paper itself, as in your edit, is citing a primary source. Are there any newspapers that have discussed García's paper? If so, we can add it back. If not, Wikipedia isn't the place for that information yet. Also, if you have any personal connections to García, you should disclose that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

23:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb,

Do you expect this category to ever be used? It is not connected to any parent category and just exists in isolation. I just happened to stumble upon it, it's not part of the Wikipedia category structure. If it is going to remain empty, it should be deleted according to CSD C1 criteria.

If you can find ONE page that is appropriately categorized into it (and not just any random page), its existence can be justified, otherwise it will be tagged for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: If I'm remembering correctly, I believe it's a tracking category. The idea is, per the link at the top, all Department of Fun articles should be stub-quality, and any that are accidentally given a better rating end up in the category. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi SDKB! I'm a graphic design senior at Parsons School of Design, who is creating a series of zines on Wikipedia Community/Culture. I was wondering if I could feature the interview conducted by Dalorleon in a magazine that I am making? The zine, of course, will not be for profit, but instead be a free downloadable copy for whoever wants to access it. Here's a sample of what it might look like: https://www.ceciliazhang.work/blank-1-3-1 Let me know it's cool with you if I use some of your words! Thanks for reading! Hotplates (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hotplates: Sure, that's fine; only condition is that you send me a link once it's out so I can see it! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh how exciting- thank you so much! In fact, if you're in North America, I'd be happy to send you a risographed printed copy as well. Cheers!Hotplates (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be fantastic! I sent you an email. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

On 17 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Bread Factory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2018 comedy film A Bread Factory, about the difficulty of producing meaningful artistic work in a market economy, received acclaim from critics but earned less than $18,000 at the box office? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Bread Factory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A Bread Factory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone is complaining about the length of the FAC at Biblical criticism and asking if discussions such as the one you anchored could be moved to the talk page. I would deeply appreciate anything you could do to help with this. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swati Sharma (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple hills???!!! Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

On 1 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Woodford, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that for nearly two decades Alfred Woodford was the sole professor in Pomona College's geology department? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Woodford. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Woodford), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

On 2 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Custis Vezey, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that poet Mary Custis Vezey, an eleventh-generation American, published much of her work in Russian? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Custis Vezey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the seventeenth 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: the team is continuing to engineer on our first "structured task", which will break down the workflow of adding wikilinks to articles, and assist newcomers with an algorithm to identify words and phrases that could be made into links.

Add an image: even as we build our first structured task, we have been thinking about the next one. "Add an image" is a structured task in which newcomers would be recommended images from Wikimedia Commons to add to unillustrated articles. This is an ambitious idea with many details to consider. We have already learned a lot from community members, and we encourage everyone to look at the project page and join the discussion.

Moving forward: more wikis to get the features

Last November, our team published the analysis of the impact of newcomer tasks. We announced that we found that the Growth features, and particularly newcomer tasks, lead to increased editing from newcomers. Because of these results, we believe all Wikipedias should implement these features.

We have started to contact more wikis to deploy the features, including Wikipedias of all sizes. Bengali Wikipedia recently began using Growth features, and Danish, Thai, Indonesian, and Romanian Wikipedias will be coming soon. Please contact us if you have questions regarding deployment.

We are looking for translators who can help by translating the interface. Translating is done on Translatewiki.net (it requires a different account that your Wikimedia one). Communities that already have the Growth features being deployed are invited to check on the translations. Access translations here.

Variant testing

As mentioned in our previous newsletter, we ran a test of two variants of the newcomer homepage, meant to find a version that increases users completing suggested edits. We have completed the experiment, and learned that one of the variants leads to more edits on desktop while the other leads to more edits on mobile. Therefore, we will deploy the strongest variants for each platform to all newcomers.

News for mentors

Mentor dashboard: we have interviewed mentors from several communities as we plan a mentor dashboard feature, which would help mentors track the progress of their mentees. We encourage all mentors to share their thoughts on tools that would help them.

Magic word for mentors: it is now possible to use a magic word, {{#mentor}}, to display the name of a given newcomer's mentor. This can be used on welcome messages, userboxes, etc.

Help panel questions going to mentors: in most wikis, newcomers using the help panel ask questions to the help desk. On Czech Wikipedia, we have experimented with sending these questions to mentors instead. This simplifies the newcomer experience, and only led to a increase in mentorship questions of about 30%. We tried this in Arabic, Bengali, French and Vietnamese Wikipedias, and we are making it the default experience.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

On 9 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gary Kates, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that historian Gary Kates turned down recruiters seeking to help make him a college president so that he could teach undergraduate history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gary Kates. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gary Kates), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)