User talk:Pbsouthwood/Archive 23
 | 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. |
| Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 29 |
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Pbsouthwood,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 858 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do 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.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Geography and places Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
Technical news
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
|
Wishing Pbsouthwood a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Computer program on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:15.ai on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:FB MSBS Grot on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Question from BlackWidow456 (10:10, 17 June 2022)
Hello Can We Find Something On India --BlackWidow456 (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, BlackWidow456, we have thousands of articles on India, one of them is India. If you have a specific topic related to India you want to look up, type the topic name into the search box and enter. Either you will go to a page with that title, or the search results will show a list of articles which are the closest the search engine can find to your search string. Where the search box displays depends on whether you are using desktop view or mobile view, but it will always be somewhere near the top of the page. If you want an overview of what is available on India, you can try Portal:India or Category:India, which will have a lot of subcategories for similar topics. If you cant find what you are looking for, let me know what it is. If there is no article on the specific topic, it may not have been written yet. If it is a valid encyclopedic topic, you could consider researching it and writing the article yourself, or requesting an article, though that may take some time to get done as we are fairly busy here, and people write about what they are interested in and can get verifiable information on - not all topics are suitable for Wikipedia. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello Pbsouthwood,
- Backlog status
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
- Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. 
Barnstars will be awarded.
- TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
- Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 12925 articles, as of 20:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
- 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.
- Notes
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the deletion of your work at the English Vikidia.
Good afternoon @Pbsouthwood:. My name is Christian, and I'm one of the English Vikidia's administration team.
I left a message on your talk page there, but since you said you weren't coming back, I thought I'd contact you here too.
I apologise if you found the deletion of your work unwarranted and bitey; normally we'd leave you a welcome message when you join, which explains that Vikidia does not allow its users (on any of the languages it serves) to copy articles from Wikipedia.
We don't mind users writing, as long as they do it in their own words, and that applies to all users, adults and kids alike.
Sorry you didn't enjoy the experience.
Regards, Dane|Geld 13:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi DaneGeld, Thank you for taking the trouble to contact me here, but a rule like that one should be available where the potential contributor can see it before taking the trouble to create and edit an article, and before deleting an article made in good faith, and compliant with the relevant licenses, the contributor should be afforded the simple courtesy of at least being informed that the article is against a hidden rule, and given a link to that rule. Besides that, I consider the rule either misguided or poorly expressed. I explained in my edit summary that the copied text was intended to be used as a starting point. That can be borne out by the fact that I considerably modified the content before it was deleted, and was half way through an edit when the deletion occurred and I found out about it by trying to save to an article that was no longer there. Incidentally, the copied text was "in my own words", so it even complies with that requirement. While there may be admins on English Wikioedia who would do that, they would probably be hauled over the coals for it by someone, and if repeated, may lose their bit. I doubt that Vikidia have so many editors that they can afford to treat them like that, and I am sure Wikipedia has lost many potentially productive editors in that way. I have seen it happen.
- The other reason why I will not be creating any more articles on Vikidia is that the rule, as it stands, is in my opinion counterproductive and ill-conceived. I had intended to write a series of articles on underwater diving, condensed from the articles I have already written or largely contributed to, on Wikipedia. In doing so, I would have made use of existing material, complete with references, copied over and mentioned in edit summaries for attribution, then rewritten and condensed to simpler, more explanatory language. This would be efficient for me, and compliant with the relevant licenses, and the end result would have been virtually unrecognisable as originating on Wikipedia. Vikidia could have benefited by good, understandable, reliable information on a topic which may be of interest to many readers, and as far as I can tell is currently not available on Vikidia, but that will not happen because Vikidia's rules make it unnecessarily tiresome for me to contribute, and I am not prepared to jump through unnecessary and apparently arbitrary hoops, for the possible reward of not having my work deleted. I may continue to respond to discussion on my talk page on Vikidia if it seems it might serve some useful purpose, as I still think the project is of social value. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Question from Taegucci888 (16:25, 26 June 2022)
Hello Pbsouthwood! I have a question. I accidentally put an incorrect email address in the recovery email. Is there any way I can change it? --Taegucci888 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Taegucci888, Try putting the correct one in the same way you put in the wrong one. It must be possible to change, many people change their email addresses, but I have never needed to try. since I still use the same one. If that does not work, ask at the WP:Help desk. Let me know how it goes. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- pingTaegucci888, see above. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lavender oil on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Question from Stonistone (03:21, 1 July 2022)
Hi mentor, I'm excited to connect with you. I have a couple of issues. A page I created was moved to draft. What can I do to get it back to namespace? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Drake_Homes --Stonistone (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Stonistone, Did you request review before the article was moved? I also see that you have requested the admin who draftified the article for their reasons. That is an appropriate way to find out. Also, if you browse through the article's history, you will see that it was tagged for speedy deletion, but was draftified to give you a chance to fix it . The tag said:
a) as an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7. b) because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.
Item (a) was addressed by moving back to draft space where you can attempt to show notability. Item (b) has been addressed by the admin who draftified, so the speedy deletion notices have been removed. The person who moved the article to main space does not appear to have reviewed it correctly. I am looking into that. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC) - I suggest that you look up the notability requirements for an article about a business, and ensure that the article meets those requirements, as well as the requirements for not being promotional. If you want to write an article on housing in Nigeria, that should be a separate article, also needing evidence of notability, which should be easier to find. Start by reading Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Last universal common ancestor on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
| New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Glossary of areas of mathematics on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Geography and places Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Toms River on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
|
|
Technical news
user_global_editcountis a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Pbsouthwood,
Could you either remove the red link category from this page or create an appropriate category that fits into the Wikipedia category structure? WP:REDNO states that we can't have red link categories on any page and not only am I reluctant to remove this category from this template page, I can't figure out how that even would be done! Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 17:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Liz, no problem, I had forgotten about that. I have removed the category link from the template documentation page. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
Administrator changes
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.
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello Pbsouthwood,
- 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) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on "All RFCs" request for comments, and at Talk:Perry County, Tennessee and Talk:Woking on "Geography and places" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Marine Air Terminal and Talk:Tellico Dam on "Engineering and technology" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Josephoartigasia on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Marq2 transit corridor and Talk:Joshua Lionel Cowen on "Engineering and technology" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake and Talk:1997 Bojnurd earthquake on "Natural sciences" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Bethlehem, Georgia on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:1996 Biak earthquake on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Question from Angiopteridaceaes regarding "Bühlmann decompression algorithm" article
Hello Pbsouthwood! I have a question regarding the article "Bühlmann decompression algorithm" , more specifically the table in "Principles" section. In such table, in row 4th , the value "0.7725" shouldn't be "0.7825" ? I have both the Bühlmann Vollm Nussberger , Tauchmedizin 2002 edition and the Decompression Sickness of 1983 and the value shown in Wikipedia does not appear in the books. In Tauchmedizin all other table values for N2 are quasy identical as in your article , and in the old book the values are different as we all know.
Also, I am having trouble finding the source of the "b" values for He. The values in Tauchmedizin are different ( the "a" values are very similar).
Link of reference [8] doesn't work for me
Any chance I can send you images of the books ?
Thanks for your patience
J.
Angiopteridaceaes (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Angiopteridaceaes, Thank you for you interest. The values in the table used a source that appears to no longer be accessible on the internet, making it difficult to check whether the values in that source are actually the same as those in the table. However, I found an alternative source for the same document and have changed the citation accordingly, but not made exhaustive checks of the table values (the ones I checked are the same). It would appear that the Chapman paper was written before Tauchmedizin (2002) was published and the values may have been updated by Bühlmann.
Since you have Tauchmedizin and it is the authoritative source, the table can be changed to show the values published by Bühlmann, and the reference changed accordingly.
You can send me images by email attachment from desktop view. There is a link Email this user in the left side menu column (toolbar) of my user page. You could also make the corrections yourself if you feel confident that you can figure out the table formatting and correct the reference. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, (though some skill is required to do it well) and we encourage all constructive edits. If you do, let me know and I will make sure that all the formatting is correct. Regardless of whether you do it yourself or leave it to me, I would appreciate a copy of the values in Tauchmedizin as I don't have access to a copy. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Angiopteridaceaes, I got a notification that you sent me e-mail, but have not received it yet. My email can sometimes be unreliable and erratic, and it may still be somewhere in the system, but the usual reason for failure is large attachments. I am limited to 10MB per email. It seems unlikely that a couple of excerpts from a book would exceed that, but you might want to check. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I confirm I sent an email via wikipedia. The email did not contain attachments but two links. I will try again with no links so you can retrieve my gmail adress. J. Angiopteridaceaes (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Angiopteridaceaes, You can just leave links here on my talk page if you don't mind other people maybe clicking on them. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Angiopteridaceaes, I have now sent you an email via Wikipedia in the hope that it will bypass whatever problem is stopping yours from reaching me. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I just answered your email
- J. Angiopteridaceaes (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I shall watch for it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Angiopteridaceaes, It arrived and I have sent a reply. Maybe we are getting somewhere at last. Cheers. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I shall watch for it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Angiopteridaceaes, I have now sent you an email via Wikipedia in the hope that it will bypass whatever problem is stopping yours from reaching me. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Here the first part of the links:
drive.google.com/file/
The second part is via email
Thanks Angiopteridaceaes (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Angiopteridaceaes, it worked. I am currently looking for the table in the English version. Thanks. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I found it in the German version, and the table at Bühlmann decompression algorithm has been updated. Thanks for all the effort you put into getting me access to the books, It is much appreciated. I am impressed that you even found the discrepancy in the first place. It is not an obvious error. If you find any other errors, omissions, or lack of clarity in any of our diving or diving related articles, please feel welcome to let me know and I will see if I can fix or improve. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
it has been a pleasure J. Angiopteridaceaes (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Question from Mnathis (22:47, 8 August 2022)
I want when people search me on internet to get or see my biography how to set that? --Mnathis (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mnathis: (talk page stalker) There are various ways of doing that, but not by using Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a medium for promoting, advertising, or publicising anything, including oneself or one's work. JBW (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mnathis:, As JBW said, there are many ways. I have no idea which ones may be best suited to your needs, so cannot advise you which to choose. Articles on Wikipedia are based on what reliable independent source have published about encyclopedic topics, and should not be written by the subject. Your user page may contain a small amount of non-promotional information about your work on Wikipedia and some other relevant information. If you achieve sufficient notability for any reason that you are discussed in detail by independent, reliable, third party sources it may happen that someone else writes a Wikipedia article about you one day. Please read the welcome message on your talk page, and the policy and guidance pages that it links to, so that you can understand what Wikipedia is, and what it is not, and how you can contribute within the terms of use. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Question from DDXIEvan (19:58, 12 August 2022)
Is there a template for a biography I can fill in... I am trying to make a new article for record producer that I manage Thank yoU --DDXIEvan (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- DDXIEvan, You want to do one of the most difficult things to get right on Wikipedia, and one which has the most stringent and strongly applied rules. Before attempting to start an article on Wikipedia, please read and understand the Terms of use, particularly section 4.Refraining from Certain Activities, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly the section on Undisclosed paid editing, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and if you still think that what you want to do will be acceptable and encyclopedic, read Help:Your first article, Wikipedia:Notability, and be sure to comply with the policy and guidance explained in all of those pages.
- As a new editor you will not be able to create a new article until you have made sufficient edits to existing articles, though you can create a draft in user space or draft space, (your sandbox would be appropriate, for example) which can be moved to main space after it has been checked by a reviewer to ensure that it complies with the guidance and policies I have listed for your attention, and any others that may apply in the specific case. For more help you might find Wikipedia:Teahouse useful, as I am not a specialist on biographies or the entertainment industry. There may be a standard format for such articles, but I am not aware of it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Production or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music may have useful information.
- Some general purpose advice that applies to all content:
- Stick to facts that are supported by reliable sources, and cite your sources.
- Do not use a promotional style of language, or any kind of hype.
- Exceptional claims require strong evidence.
- Regards, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Question from Iterresise (03:50, 3 August 2022)
See also: User:Iterresise/sandbox
I don't think editors understand the issue with the template "largest cities". The issue is that the table is very limited in what it can display. Should I list them for deletion? --Iterresise (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Iterresise, You do not provide enough information for me to understand the problem. All templates are limited in what they can and should display. They are coded for a specific purpose, and should be used for that purpose. You have not indicated what limitation concerns you, so it is not possible to judge whether it is a valid problem. Also, if you have a problem with a specific template the correct approach is to discuss it on the template's talk page, where you should explain the problem in sufficient detail that the editors who maintain it can assess the issue, and whether anything can and should be done about it. A useful template should not be nominated for deletion without sufficient cause. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the discussion here. Iterresise (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- I see. I would recommend basing your arguments on logic, avoiding the use of shortcuts as a substitute for reasoning, suggesting realistic, practicable and acceptable alternatives, possibly by demonstrating a better alternative and establishing some degree of consensus before removing established content, and using a less adversarial format of argument. Ad hominem is almost guaranteed to fail in the long run, particularly when it is true. When you remove content that is likely to be considered useful by other involved editors, because of a perceived problem with the format it is more likely to be accepted if you replace the relevant content in an improved format, with an explanation of why the new method of presenting the information is an improvement. Finally, before you publish your response, preview it and read it from the point of view of the other person. Think of how how would respond if someone said it to you. Try to be sure that it means what you intended and really makes sense. Also consider whether the other people have a valid point. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. To explain: what I did was remove them from the pages they were on but there was objection even though they didn't address my concerns. I don't want any blow back because they get deleted and then the argument comes up that they can't be removed because it is valid content for a section even if it is the only content for a section. Iterresise (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- No-one is obliged to address your concerns, It is a double edged sword, as you are not obliged to address theirs either. We are expected to work cooperatively, but, as volunteers, are not obliged to do anything specific outside of following terms of use, policy and to a lesser extent, guidance. The WMF's code of conduct is a less well defined area at present, but on English Wikipedia we are required to be "civil" which is open to interpretation, and not permitted to make personal attacks during content debates. If you want people to work with you, you need to make it appear advantageous to them. Something that is obvious to one person may appear simply wrong to another, without sufficient explanation, and there are things that are neither right nor wrong, but may be strongly preferred by one person and considered quite inappropriate by another. Some effort may be required to reach a workable compromise. Content and formatting that has been accepted for a long time without comment or objection is traditionally viewed as having implicit consensus. Whether that is reasonable is debatable, but that is the current reality. To change something against an objection requires specific consensus, which may be local to the page or project wide. People who cannot deal with working cooperatively tend to either find a niche where they can do their own thing within accepted limits, leave the project of their own volition, or get thrown out for wasting other people's time in pointless conflict. Sometimes it can take years, if they are producing enough good content. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well this is WP:CON isn't it and not a vote? Aren't votes ignored at deletion venues like WP:TFD? Iterresise (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- You can nominate the template for deletion. Almost anyone can do that. You asked me if you "should", and I answered that question. The advice I have given stands for that choice of action too. I recommend that you read up on the discussion/deletion process first. You will still need to explain why the template is undesirable or unnecessary, and/or propose a better solution. I would estimate your chances of success to be slightly lower by that route, but in is your choice. When it comes to consensus in deletion discussions, policy technically outweighs what the participants personally prefer, but a lot depends on who participates, and how the closer interprets the arguments and policy.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've made a deletion rationale in this. Tell me what you think.Iterresise (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- I left some comments and suggestions in your sandbox. I am still not clear on exactly what you want to achieve, or whether getting the templates deleted is a good way to approach that. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- I understand that the policy of WP:UNDUE might not seem to apply to population, but the templates aren't expandable to include all the metrics that are relevant nor does it make any sense to include a large number of metrics. Even an additional metric of area would seem pretty basic and following on that definitely population density. This template isn't sortable either. These templates don't seem workable and it would be best if they were deleted. Iterresise (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've made some revisions to the proposal. The set of templates is the "largest cities of" templates. Let me know if it is still confusing. Iterresise (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I left some comments and suggestions in your sandbox. I am still not clear on exactly what you want to achieve, or whether getting the templates deleted is a good way to approach that. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've made a deletion rationale in this. Tell me what you think.Iterresise (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- You can nominate the template for deletion. Almost anyone can do that. You asked me if you "should", and I answered that question. The advice I have given stands for that choice of action too. I recommend that you read up on the discussion/deletion process first. You will still need to explain why the template is undesirable or unnecessary, and/or propose a better solution. I would estimate your chances of success to be slightly lower by that route, but in is your choice. When it comes to consensus in deletion discussions, policy technically outweighs what the participants personally prefer, but a lot depends on who participates, and how the closer interprets the arguments and policy.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well this is WP:CON isn't it and not a vote? Aren't votes ignored at deletion venues like WP:TFD? Iterresise (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- No-one is obliged to address your concerns, It is a double edged sword, as you are not obliged to address theirs either. We are expected to work cooperatively, but, as volunteers, are not obliged to do anything specific outside of following terms of use, policy and to a lesser extent, guidance. The WMF's code of conduct is a less well defined area at present, but on English Wikipedia we are required to be "civil" which is open to interpretation, and not permitted to make personal attacks during content debates. If you want people to work with you, you need to make it appear advantageous to them. Something that is obvious to one person may appear simply wrong to another, without sufficient explanation, and there are things that are neither right nor wrong, but may be strongly preferred by one person and considered quite inappropriate by another. Some effort may be required to reach a workable compromise. Content and formatting that has been accepted for a long time without comment or objection is traditionally viewed as having implicit consensus. Whether that is reasonable is debatable, but that is the current reality. To change something against an objection requires specific consensus, which may be local to the page or project wide. People who cannot deal with working cooperatively tend to either find a niche where they can do their own thing within accepted limits, leave the project of their own volition, or get thrown out for wasting other people's time in pointless conflict. Sometimes it can take years, if they are producing enough good content. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. To explain: what I did was remove them from the pages they were on but there was objection even though they didn't address my concerns. I don't want any blow back because they get deleted and then the argument comes up that they can't be removed because it is valid content for a section even if it is the only content for a section. Iterresise (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- I see. I would recommend basing your arguments on logic, avoiding the use of shortcuts as a substitute for reasoning, suggesting realistic, practicable and acceptable alternatives, possibly by demonstrating a better alternative and establishing some degree of consensus before removing established content, and using a less adversarial format of argument. Ad hominem is almost guaranteed to fail in the long run, particularly when it is true. When you remove content that is likely to be considered useful by other involved editors, because of a perceived problem with the format it is more likely to be accepted if you replace the relevant content in an improved format, with an explanation of why the new method of presenting the information is an improvement. Finally, before you publish your response, preview it and read it from the point of view of the other person. Think of how how would respond if someone said it to you. Try to be sure that it means what you intended and really makes sense. Also consider whether the other people have a valid point. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the discussion here. Iterresise (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Iterresise, It is getting clearer, but:
- a person who has not been following the discussion is still unlikely to know what templates you are referring to. It is clearer to state unequivocally the names of the templates you propose to delete, so anyone reading your opening statement is immediately aware of the scope of the proposal.
- It is also still not clear what you consider the appropriate alternative.
- Are you saying that all of a particular class of article would be affected, or only some?
- Where would you recommend putting the information? I see you suggesting main and see also links, which are fine when those articles exist, but how do you propose dealing with the cases where those articles do not exist? Main and see also hatnote links imply a summary style section in the article from which the main and see also articles are to be linked. This is standard MoS, so it may be helpful to explain what should or could be in those summary sections. (This is often the same sort of information that would be in the lead of the main article. When there is also a see also article it can become more complicated).
- Are you saying that there are no legitimate uses for the templates?
- Are you suggesting that due to the inherent inflexibility of a template, the demographics sections of region articles should not use templates to display any type of demographic information, but should rather use a list or table or plain paragraph text which can be locally adjusted to contain any relevant data type (population, area, GDP etd), and which should be split off to an article on the demographics of the region as soon as the section is big enough/too big for the region's main article, and linked by hatnotes?
- Something else?
To summarise, my advice is to:
- Describe the problem, (In this case explaining why the templates are part of the problem}
- Describe the proposed solution, (In this case what format would be used to present the information that fixes or avoids the problem, and how this makes the templates redundant)
- Request alternative solutions, there may be a better one, and discussion of the proposal.
- If the discussion shows that your, or some other proposed solution will work better, (a demonstration may be necessary) then open an XfD on the templates.
- I've addressed your concerns. Please let me know what you think. Iterresise (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Iterresise, I took another look and made some edits I consider relevant. I think the strongest objection is based on single use per template, which is not normally what a template is for. A few have been used twice, but for that a section or excerpt transclusion would be sufficient. I recommend that you complete the listing of which articles in main and portal space each template is linked from, so that anyone reading your proposal is not required to do that for themself, and the evidence is clear. There may be some which are used in several places, and if so they should be identified so an alternative can be considered that will also work for them. The evidence I am finding is persuading me that these templates are not sufficiently useful to be kept, but other editors may not see the necessity to investigate for themselves, and argue from prejudice. Reduce this risk by presenting the evidence unambiguously in your proposal, with links where necessary. A link to a diff is seldom good for presenting an argument, that is for providing evidence to support the argument. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- With regard to {{section}}, it doesn't seem to be functional. Looking at {{Excerpt}}, I don't think that would work because list articles such as List of cities in China and List of cities and towns in Bulgaria are formatted differently.
- So a section or excerpt transclusion won't solve the problem. This is an issue with the templates and until there is a consistent format with the "list of cities in ..." articles, the templates will remain problematic. And if I am not mistaken, sortability cannot be added. Iterresise (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Iterresise, I had not noticed that {{section}} was broken. I have not used either of these templates recently, so I am not familiar with the details. I have used {{Transclude lead excerpt}}, which works as described in the documentation, but is not suitable for this application.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- As there is no prescribed format for most Wikipedia articles, one has to adapt to suit the situation. Sometimes a transclusion may work, sometimes not. It is somewhat unpredicatble, but the system is flexible. Also geography and demographics is a field I do not specialise in, so look at my comments as from an ordinary Wikipedian with some experience and a reasonable understanding of how things work here in practice. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- See my last reply [just a few moments before] on this talk page. Iterresise (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Using {{section}} and {{excerpt}} are convincing; however, there should be a standard if we are to use them across all the countries. As I cited the example of Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo where there are cities/communities distributed across a vast area, there is little use for comparison. People can opine something is useful but without any reason, that is simply an opinion. I have a reason that it isn't useful. Has anyone come up with any reason that these templates are useful? Iterresise (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- As there is no prescribed format for most Wikipedia articles, one has to adapt to suit the situation. Sometimes a transclusion may work, sometimes not. It is somewhat unpredicatble, but the system is flexible. Also geography and demographics is a field I do not specialise in, so look at my comments as from an ordinary Wikipedian with some experience and a reasonable understanding of how things work here in practice. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Iterresise, I had not noticed that {{section}} was broken. I have not used either of these templates recently, so I am not familiar with the details. I have used {{Transclude lead excerpt}}, which works as described in the documentation, but is not suitable for this application.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've noticed you made annotations in my sandbox with regard to where these templates are used. Have you taken a look at all the templates? Iterresise (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not all, just those I annotated, and it is possible that I missed some aspects that could be important.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- I just finished reading your comments. If I can summarize your concerns, you believe that because some templates are used in geography and demography, deleting the templates outright might not be viable. It don't see this as a problem because the templates are not germane or relevant to those sorts of articles. Iterresise (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Iterresise, If you think the templates, and the content they display, are not relevant, you will need to convince others that this is the case, once again, using logic and evidence, not just linking to guidance pages or sections. Presenting a reasoned proposal for what should go into the section in place of the templated content would be more likely to keep the discussion on track. If you don't have a clear idea of what the sections should contain it will be difficult to persuade others to agree. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- In most articles, it is just the section. It is most likely the case that the whole section should go. Iterresise (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've added some stuff in my sandbox and here. Something else I've come up with since yesterday:
- countries are not cities
- cities are in countries
- countries distribute federal funding as tax to cities
- cities are taxed by countries
- As always, let me know what you think. Iterresise (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've added some stuff in my sandbox and here. Something else I've come up with since yesterday:
- In most articles, it is just the section. It is most likely the case that the whole section should go. Iterresise (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Iterresise, If you think the templates, and the content they display, are not relevant, you will need to convince others that this is the case, once again, using logic and evidence, not just linking to guidance pages or sections. Presenting a reasoned proposal for what should go into the section in place of the templated content would be more likely to keep the discussion on track. If you don't have a clear idea of what the sections should contain it will be difficult to persuade others to agree. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- As always, let me know what you think. I haven't made any edit summaries today but take a look at the edit history if you need more information. Iterresise (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- At least two have been used in 5 articles each. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- And what do you mean "particularly when it is true"? Iterresise (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Many people can shrug off personal attacks which are off the mark, put when it gets too close to the truth they may take it very seriously, and they can carry a grudge, which can make having to work with them much more difficult.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- And what do you mean "particularly when it is true"? Iterresise (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Iterresise, I took another look and made some edits I consider relevant. I think the strongest objection is based on single use per template, which is not normally what a template is for. A few have been used twice, but for that a section or excerpt transclusion would be sufficient. I recommend that you complete the listing of which articles in main and portal space each template is linked from, so that anyone reading your proposal is not required to do that for themself, and the evidence is clear. There may be some which are used in several places, and if so they should be identified so an alternative can be considered that will also work for them. The evidence I am finding is persuading me that these templates are not sufficiently useful to be kept, but other editors may not see the necessity to investigate for themselves, and argue from prejudice. Reduce this risk by presenting the evidence unambiguously in your proposal, with links where necessary. A link to a diff is seldom good for presenting an argument, that is for providing evidence to support the argument. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The Points Guy help
Hello. I saw you’re a member of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, and was hoping you could assist on The Points Guy. I posted a few suggested updates to the Talk page Talk:The_Points_Guy#Proposed_Updates_to_Article to improve the article - if possible, can you review the proposed changes? I have a COI, and didn’t want to update the article directly. Thank you for your help! Cheergirl325 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)