Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Transcluded from User talk:Wugapodes/Tasks

GAN report: mystery solved?

Wugapodes, you may recall that in the GAN report's Malformed nominations sections, an "Unknown nomination" link to the Film section of the page, but with no other information beyond that, showed up for this first time on June 1, 2019. It finally disappeared last night, and I have a tentative diagnosis.

I believe the nomination in question was for Rushmore (film), which was originally made on May 31, 2019, during the day and with a subtopic of "Film". It was clearly a handmade GA nominee template (people are supposed to substitute the GAN template): what I thought was the problem here was that there were no links for the nominator or their talk page, which I fixed. What I missed when I finally started investigating in mid-June—and what I think caused your bot to pick up on the error—was that the date/time field was malformed: all times are supposed to have two digits for the hour and two for the minutes, and this was formatted "8:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)" rather than "08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)", something I didn't notice until today, when I was trying to figure out what went wrong.

I think it was the problematic date that caused the problem, though there may have been something else about this nomination that caused it—this is a tentative diagnosis, after all, and it may be accurate, partially accurate, or not the actual issue at all. Still, this info might help you track down where in the code the error might have been generated, and why the link was to the section rather than the actual (problematic) nomination.

Hope all is well, and best of luck tracking this down. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yeah, that's probably it. The regular expression which parses the noms assumes that the timestamp has two digits for the hour, so that's an easy fix. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GANs to do

• Talk:Park Avenue main line/GA1
• Talk:Martin Scorsese/GA1 (unless someone gets there first)

New Years Greetings

I've noticed that some of these GANs directly above are either done or on hold. In case you might be interested, I've recently listed the biography for the film director Martin Scorsese as a nomination. He is nominated for an Oscar this year and I thought it might be nice if his article could be brought to peer review quality before the Oscars next month, if you might be inclined to look at it. CodexJustin (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listening to me and making the changes. May I also suggest you consider changing the rather long sentence: "It used to be only the study of the systems of phonemes in spoken languages, but it now may also cover any linguistic analysis either at a level beneath the word (including syllable, onset and rime, articulatory gestures, articulatory features, mora, etc.) or at all levels of language where sound or signs are structured to convey linguistic meaning." I count about 66 words which requires a grade 31 to read (how many PHDs is that :). Here is a suggested revision: At one time it only related to the study of the systems of phonemes in spoken languages. Now it may cover either a) any linguistic analysis either at a level beneath the word (including syllable, onset and rime, articulatory gestures, articulatory features, mora, etc.), or b) all levels of language where sound or signs are structured to convey linguistic meaning. I will leave it too you. Cheers. John (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

How do I place my citation well? --Ngozi osadebe (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ngozi osadebe, we generally prefer citations to be placed at the end of a sentence, after punctuation, and using footnotes.^[1] You can read more at Help:Footnotes, and feel free to ask me any follow-up or clarifying questions you might have. Happy editing! — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wugapodes - hope you are well. I've pinged you in my comments regarding the addition of a topic-ban to the case (added in the last few hours). I see your point in your text for the topic ban, and with regards to this "If Lugnuts wishes to help and can offer a specific plan with measurable objectives, it can be offered and evaluated in an unban request" I'd like to draw your attention to this record of work I've been doing since my article creation ban was enforced. This is work I was doing before the case started, and something I wish to continue with. I don't know how "specific" or "measurable" it is - I just work my way through articles and fix them (about 1 every other day).

If you have any further questions, please get in touch. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a very nice tool! However I noticed that it doesn't generate a summary for the categorization templates. Is this considered a good idea? (Instead of the generic "modify using Capricon", it could be "+R with possibilities, R printworthy, R to subtopic with Capricorn") Thanks. 0xDeadbeef 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea 0xDeadbeef. The edit summary isn't set up that way for a few reasons. First, the edit summary has a character limit, so in cases where a lot of categories get changed then information would be lost and the edit summary an incomplete picture of what got changed which is not ideal. Second, what got changed will always be available in the edit diff, and since redirect categories are pretty simple changes, the diffs aren't hard to read. Second, Third, for the majority of editors, knowing that categories were changed using a semi-automated script is enough info (some don't even know what redirect categories are, so the RCAT link is helpful); if power editors want to know exactly what got changed they can look at the diff. Fourth, for editors who do want that information, a consistent edit summary makes the diff easier to find while skimming edit histories or contribution histories; you can ctrl+f for the summary or just skim for the text since it won't vary between pages. All together, I think a simple edit summary makes edit histories more consistent and useful for a wide range of editors while still highlighting which diffs to look at if more information is needed. It's a design choice on my end, but I think it strikes the right balance among the needs of various kinds of editors. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comprehensive response. 0xDeadbeef 10:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to create a Wikipedia page about myself. How can I do this? --Sahnidev87 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sahnidev87 and thanks for your interest! We strongly discourage writing about yourself because it constitutes a conflict of interest. Articles must meet our inclusion criteria which for most people is a very high bar as well. You might have more fun improving existing articles rather than starting a brand-new article. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

Hello Wugapodes,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing ((subst:NPR invite)) on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, You left a comment on my Talk page suggesting that my academic research and years of academic publishing on professional ethics and healthcare ethics vs. militarism is all just "personal opinions". Your comment seems to be just a layperson's perspective on the subject area of professional ethics, military ethics and healthcare ethics. There are entire research literatures about these things, and Robert Jay Lifton's seminal book The Nazi Doctors is a good place to start. Was his research and interviews with those medical professionals just personal opinion too?

This concerns your deletion of 5 entire sections of the history of the Code of Ethics for the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). They were already well-documented with a citation for almost every sentence, but I will try to address your specific concerns when replacing that content. Rather than simply deleting large amounts of other people's work, it would be helpful and constructive if you could correct it instead, or let the contributor know that something needs adjustment. Simply erasing 5 entire sections of history compromises the integrity of Wikipedia.

I replied back to your comment on my own Talk page, but thought it should also be noted on your Talk page that you appear to be making changes and major deletions based on your own personal opinions, in subject areas where you don't seem to have expertise or professional experience. PsycProf (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PsychProf: I would encourage you to read the policies I linked in the edit summaries and lengthy talk page explanation summarizing them. Consider that, despite your (alleged) expertise in medical ethics, you might not be an expert on Wikipedia's policies and reconsider your approach. Boasting about your credentials is unlikely to get you very far; you'll notice I don't go and bring up my my degrees or academic research in content discussions, and it's because no one here really cares. If you want to write whatever you want, post it on your own website or get your original research on medical ethics through peer review at an actual journal, but content on Wikipedia must comply with our policies. It's painfully obvious that you're here to push a particular point of view, and that needs to stop immediately or you may be blocked from editing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]