User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Wugapodes. Thank you so much for granting me Pending Changes Reviewer, it means a lot. I saw that this rank expires in February, is there any way that I can extend this once February comes along! Thanks. Helpthepeople9 (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:PERM or post on my talk page. Either way, someone will review how you've used the tool for the last few months. If you've been using it to review pending changes and your reviews have been good, you'll likely get granted the permission indefinitely. Hope that helps! — Wug·a·po·des

​ 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Wugapodes! I grew up in Dayton, Ohio, which currently has its pronounciation rendered as (/ˈdeɪtən/, which looks to me like DAYt'n. Which isn't incorrect, that's how newscasters and extremely careful people would pronounce it, but most locals actually pronounce it with a T-glottalization, sort of DAY'n. I'd like to add it as an alternative pronunciation if appropriate. 1. Do I need some reliable source for this likely-noncontroversial-to-anyone-from-Dayton addition? Because I don't even know where to look for that, and 2. How would that be rendered? Thanks for any help, I tried to figure out how to render it but quickly realized that was't going to happen. —valereee (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Bath (Somerset).

For the local pronunciation, you would probably want a source at least attesting that t-glottalization occurs routinely in the dialect because other possibilities exist. Unfortunately, I don't know of any such sources off the top of my head. The only paper I could find on t-glottalization in American English (after an admittedly cursory search) was Eddington and Taylor (2009) which surveys the whole country but has some participants from Ohio. They look at intervocalic t-glottalization across word boundaries (e.g. right ankle), so different from the Dayton example but still comparable because patterns across word boundaries tend to originate as patterns within words. They find that t-glottalization is favored following front vowels (which is the case for Dayton), most common in young women (which you were, by definition, when growing up), and more frequent in the western US (not applicable).

There is a lot more work on variable t-release (but still not specific to Ohio) which I would view as the alternate hypothesis, but as I mentioned I don't think anyone's looked at this specifically. I think the most likely pronunciation would be [deɪt̚n̩] where the [t] has no audible release, the schwa is deleted, and the [n] is a syllabic consonant. That's an empirical question though, and it's quite possible that this is a change-in-progress to something like [deɪʔn̩]. Sorry that I don't have a more definitive answer, but hopefully this helps! — Wug·a·po·des

​ 22:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Inaudible release, glottalization, or glottal reinforcement in /ˈVtən/ is nothing unusual, but rather the norm, in North American English. (That is, you rarely hear a clear, released [

diaphonemic. I don't see how it would be appropriate to add an allophonic transcription since what you're describing is the normal pronunciation not particular to the region. Nardog (talk

) 04:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd chime in! Nardog has a better knowledge of our IPA transcription style, so I would trust their judgment more than mine. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's flattering but in principle we should never trust any one person's judgment on Wikipedia. ;) I can also see where Valereee is coming from. "If the IPA is only understood by linguists, what use is there?" is a frequent criticism, and as much as I find that to be the fault of education, not of the IPA or linguistics themselves—you rarely hear the same criticism against the periodic table or mathematical expressions, and that's because even non-chemists and non-mathematicians learn about them in education—I can understand why some people see a problem if e.g. /t/ is so often misunderstood to always represent an audibly released [t], whereas I see a problem in adding allophonic transcriptions predictable from diaphonemic ones from the perspective of theoretical and editorial consistency/efficiency. So adding audio recordings might be a better way to mitigate that. Nardog (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nardog and Wug, thanks so much! I'd be happy to add an audio recording...I'll look into it further, see if I can figure out how. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Should the other levels of the Uw-genre warning template be protected (as they are currently not), and also all other warning templates without protection (when they are used by twinkle) be protected? A quick random check of around 10 of them gives me three which have no protection:

@Dreamy Jazz: I'd never taken a systematic look at the series so thank you for doing that! I'd say yes, if you come across user warnings used in Twinkle or RedWarn (and they're not newly created templates) semi-protection is justified. Since user warnings are substituted, cleaning up vandalism is actually a lot harder. With transclusion we can just revert and everything goes back to normal, but because substitution leaves no backlink and reverting the template doesn't affect the substituted code. If a vandalized version gets substituted, we would need to track down the affected substitutions without "What links here" and fix them by hand/bot. Preventing helpful edits from anons and non-AC editors is certainly a cost, but the risk-reward trade-off makes me more liberal with semi-protection on templates substituted by user scripts. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll go around and protect the ones which are used by twinkle or red warn. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell, all the ones listed in Template:Multi notice links are now at least semi protected. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I see your name on parts of

• Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps

A publisher wrote in to the WP:Volunteer Response Team asking whom they should credit if they republish this map. There is a lot of media here, including the map, data, the template, and I am not sure what else.

Interactive maps are new for wiki but you seem particularly involved in curating this so I thought I would ask you. How should a publisher give credit for reuse of media like this? Also, are you the chief developer of this? Does any other wiki user come to mind as key in the development of this map? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@

MIT license. Beyond Vega and WugBot scripts, there shouldn't be any other software required to get the map up and running. If downstream re-users have issues they can email me or post on my talk page and I'll do my best to troubleshoot. Hope that helps! — Wug·a·po·des

​ 22:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I thought there would be a more complicated than typical situation.

Are you aware of existing documentation for the general case of giving credit for content in Wikipedia, when that content includes Wikidata, datasets from Commons, and perhaps somehow even datasets from off-wiki somehow oddly brought into Wikipedia? I am a bit interested in starting to draft something, but I think I will ask around first if anyone already did some documentation. If and when I do this I expect that this COVID map is going to be the case study, and I will let you know. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@

CC0 which made the CC By-SA problem moot. Had these things not fallen into place though, there would have been larger problems as described above. License compatibility is a massive topic that even lawyers can struggle with, but in most cases it's just reading a chart or documentation page like those I linked you to earlier. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 00:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

Hope you are doing well. Coudl you please help me to remove my account from wikipedia and all of my comments/presence?

Regards Mirhasanov (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: I'm doing well, thanks for asking, though I'm sorry to hear that you've decided to leave. I hope you're doing well aside from this whole mess. Our content licenses forbid account deletion, and in general we don't remove comments and contributions already made; vanishing just changes your name and deletes your userpage. If you want to leave, you can simply stop editing, and I think this is your best option. Not only does it leave the possibility for you to return in the future, you avoid having to stick around to deal with the bureaucratic process of vanishing. I should warn you, like ProcrastinatingReader did, that a request to vanish is likely to be denied, and you will probably just get more frustrated. Personally, I would support you in your request because I have a very expansive view on who is eligible for vanishing, but my view is not shared by most of the community and even with my endorsement you should not expect your request to be honored. Unless you have a really good reason to not want your username associated with your edits, it is probably best to just leave and let us forget about you. However, if you still seriously want to request a courtesy vanishing, you should follow the instructions since I do not have the technical ability to fulfill those requests. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I trust you and see that you understand me. You are right that I don't want go through another frustrated process which makes me emotional, seems like the only way is changing password to some complex one and forget forever. Take care and have a great day.Mirhasanov (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I speak to you in relation to this? I've had a few days to gather my thoughts and I want to ask if you could reconsider the sanction. There's much that I woant to say and I will take this opportunity to clear up any confusion/uncertainties that I have about the encyclopedia (in particular its policies on content dispute resolution) now that I am in direct communication with an administrator. This is the first time that I've been subject to an administrative sanction (of any sort) and I will ensure that it will never happen again. Flaughtin (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:AE where it will be heard by uninvolved administrators. If at that point you've been productive and make the same promise you just made to me, I think you have a good chance of success. Worst case, the ban is time limited and will expire in 6 months regardless of what we all do. I hope that helps, and let me know if there's anything I should clarify. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 01:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

AN/I on user you closed the community topic ban on.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes, your opinion would be welcome at

Looking into it — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

@

WP:BACKLOG and find stuff to do that's completely unrelated to American politics or the Middle East. My assumption of good faith rests on you being helpful outside of those topics, and if you wind up with a topic ban instead of an indef block, you'll need to get used to that anyway. Better to start now. To your immediate request, I looked and don't see a reason to remove it. It's supported by diffs, a day old, and later brought to a noticeboard for discussion. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 01:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

So, this idea of a micro-block. I've literally always tried to give the shortest reasonable block as a way of being less harsh, thinking of it as a way to get some basically-well-intentioned-but-currently-problematic editor's attention after multiple ignored warnings without blocking them for any longer than necessary, but it's clear these aren't seen as positive basically in any way. Can you...okay, the hubs would laugh at me, this is exactly the wording his clients use disingenuously when they're hoping he doesn't actually have firm legal ground to stand on, but can you help me understand? I thought I was being kind not to block longer than required to gain compliance. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a

31 hours, it's not worth your while. It sounds shrewd, but if you're going to draw anger no matter what you do, you might as well take off the kid-gloves. My brain's dead after a long drive, so this is the best thinking I've got right now. Hopefully it helps? — Wug·a·po·des

​ 03:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wug, that does help. Thank you for the insights! I love that meatballwiki site, too —valereee (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a
  speedy deletion criterion
  or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the
  2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page
  .

I didn't want to add anything more to a conversation that was becoming a side distraction, but since it's been closed, I want to say thank you for this comment. You hit a nail on the head that I didn't know was sticking out, to take a metaphor somewhere it's not supposed to go. I don't have any followup but you gave me something to think about, and I appreciate that. Sorry to be kind of vague about it but I'm not really here to invite discussion, just to say thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:AHRFC, and that's a substantial bit of progress that you should be proud to have catalyzed. I know you said no discussion, so no need to carry this on, but in my own long-winded way I really do want to thank you and make sure you know that you're appreciated for the thread and not just despite it. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 03:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wugapodes

For some reason, WugBot keeps creating Template:Interactive Covid-19 maps/common and then it gets deleted, recreated & deleted, over and over again. Is this template being used or is the bot buggy? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! There was a typo at User:WugBot/CovidConfig.json that had the bot editing the uncapitalized page rather than the actual template. It should be fixed now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

This is HauntingStomper. First, I want to say thank you for giving me rollback rights. The fact that you trusted me means a lot. That being said, I never was able to use it like I was hoping for. Thankfully, the rollback rights were temporary. The trust is there, but I'm not ready for rollback. Once I find more of a use, I will request it again. For right now, I'm fine with just being an editor while finding the usual vandal every now and again.

Thank you again,

--HauntingStomper (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@HauntingStomper: Thanks for the note! No worries about not using it; honestly tools like Twinkle, Huggle, and RedWarn do the job better than standard rollback so personally I'm not entirely sure why we keep the usergroup around. If you do think rollback or another permission would make your work easier, feel free to let me know or ask at PERM. We all want to empower editors to maintain the wiki, and it's just a practical matter that we shouldn't hand out power tools to everyone the who makes an account. Keep up the good work and let me know if you need anything else. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wugapodes,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the

redirect whitelist

.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	talk )	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with the sockpuppets. You added BarrelProof who is not a sock of MajorBuxton. Xenophon71 is the sockpuppet I think you wanted to add. Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Majorbuxton Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Majorbuxton. Is this something only you should correct or something I can correct? -- Hyderabad22 (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hyderabad22: No problem, thanks for such a helpful report! Took me a second but I figured out the problem. When you want to link to categories you need to add a colon in front of them like I did in your above message. When you posted on BarrelProof's and my talk pages, you accidentally added us to the sock categories instead of linking to them. It should be fixed now. For the sake of completeness, you might want to look at Help:Category#Linking to category pages but it basically says the same thing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I read your message that you left for me. I am really trying to withdraw myself now. But it's good to see that you notice that my changes are not meant to be disruptive in any way. Like I said before there's a bias towards a specific artist. And it's getting really hard and tiring to work against. I'm trying not the give it any attention anymore and just edit what needs to be edit. Best Regards. x Mirrored7 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just have a quick question regarding my t-ban. I'd like to re-arrange the images in the Religion section in the Poland article, just to de-clutter the format a bit (part of an article wide clean up), and a couple of images are related to Christianity, would that violate the t-ban if I move them up a bit or would that be considered just a generic clean up edit? --E-960 (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:BANEX. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 19:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I recently moved some articles that went against consensus at

Replied on your talk. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Wugapodes, 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.

Wugapodes,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a

Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

00:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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

Happy New Year!

Wugapodes,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 02:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes Hammersoft Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac Oversight changes Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment
  .

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.