User talk:Wumbolo/Archive 1

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Apple Neural Engine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple Neural Engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darius robin (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't restore material that is not cited to reliable sources. If you believe sources like News Busters and The Daily Caller are reliable, you are welcome to inquire at WP:RSN. Also, please see WP:BURDEN.- MrX 🖋 22:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: The Daily Caller was decided reliable multiple times at RSN. wumbolo ^^^ 23:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Links please of the Daily Caller being decided reliable multiple times?- MrX 🖋 23:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I merely skimmed over some of the discussions, but this one (this one is the most recent) pretty explicitly decides that the Daily Caller is reliable (albeit partisan). There's also this and this which perhaps did not reach a meaningful consensus. wumbolo ^^^ 07:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article If You Don't Love Me At My is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If You Don't Love Me At My until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KingAndGod 07:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

On 5 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Slither.io, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the online game slither.io was the most Googled game in the United States in 2016? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Slither.io. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Slither.io), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please be very careful about how Reddit is used on this encyclopedia. You've already been warned that Reddit is considered an unreliable source, and there's good reason for it too: it's because Reddit is mostly user-generated content. If you would like to re-add the information, please consider finding a better source rather than blindly reverting. See WP:UGC. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Besides the lack of sourcing in the MeToo article, what's wrong with including it? It seems to me that it shows the world-wide adoption of the message. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: nothing is wrong with including it except the external links. I believe the hashtags should be unlinked because they violate the WP:EL guideline. Ꞷumbolo 18:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I'm sorry I misread your suggestion at first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Link in section heading added by me

There was only one Individual that I could find online verification for. But as Split is a Very Old City I Can Virtually Guarantee there is More than Just Admiral Phillip Andrews, USN who have received the Honour. If you can find others and want to add to the page go ahead. Michael Drew (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Drew: I have added more people to List of honorary citizens of Split using a Croatian language source. I'm not sure whether I have properly translated the session names. Question: where do you draw the line? Many articles about the honorary citizens lack reliable secondary sources, while primary sources are available for even smaller cities. wumbolo ^^^ 21:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Instead of deprecating the table of "Comparison of YouTube media encoding options" in https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=YouTube&oldid=800910021#Quality_and_formats, would it be possible to move it to, say, https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Using_YouTube_Videos/Downloading_YouTube_Videos so the content does not get lost and can get updated by the wiki community? Thanks! Zse1234567890 (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zse1234567890: I don't know how wikibooks works, I would assume yes, if it isn't a copyright violation. You may put {{Copy to Wikibooks|Using YouTube Videos/Downloading YouTube Videos}} on the page. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 07:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I literally just pulled up the Chicago Tribune article in another tab. Great minds think alike. GMG^talk 17:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that I don't think your changes 1 2 3 to the Marlon Bundo books pages qualify as WP:Minor. It is explicitly a modification to the content which goes beyond the scope of a minor change in my reading. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I didn't want to bombard multiple articles with the same non-minor edit. I thought it passed under "obvious factual error" of WP:Minor as my edits are supported by consensus at Mike Pence. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 14:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 San Bruno, California shooting: I agree with your logic; I had half a mind to do the same thing. The issue is, Wikipedians are inveterate narrative-writers. It's been written about. They want to jot their thoughts about absolutely everything and for that reason they ignore WP:NOTNEWS, especially the point that "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I fought a similar battle. Wikipedia thrives on letting everyone write what they want to write and it's near impossible for an organization to stifle that impulse. I hate to see you do like I did and run your head into a brick wall on principle. Let the baby have their bottle. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw a notice that you had reverted my changes for the International Olympiad for Informatics page recently due to lack of a citation. There is no direct citation available for the change I made, but I am the leader of the USA team referenced by the prior text, and I was clarifying a statement that was written in a misleading way. The prior statement said "The US team leader decided not to travel to Iran". While technically correct, this is because one week before the event, the US team leader's visa had still been denied by Iran, so there was no feasible way to organize travel and the USA team therefore notified the Iranians that they would be unable to attend due to this reason. By saying simply that I decided not to travel to Iran, the information is presented as if there had been no interest in traveling to the IOI in Iran in the first place, which is misleading, as we had spent months working very hard to try and make sure we could make it to the event (and our Iranian counterparts had tried very hard to make this happen as well; I think they were just as frustrated by the visa issues). I changed the passage to say that we were unable to attend due to visa issues -- not wanting to go into substantially more detail due to USA/Iran politics being complicated, so a drawn-out discussion about a minor and potentially politically charged issue is not something that would be appropriate for a high-level page about the IOI. 71.14.107.110 (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Brian Dean, USA team leader

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I was curious, do you see any reason why the Portland M4OL article should stay stand alone? It seems like the Albany one is going to get merged in with the patent article. Springee (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: I don't know if the Portland one has continued coverage, but it does lack international references. wumbolo ^^^ 22:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the references it doesn't. Also, what counts as continued coverage? We aren't one or two years out. The parent article has plenty of space for the content since perhaps 2/3rds of that article is an encyclopedicly questionable list of march locations. That information is already covered in a list article so it wouldn't be a loss to readers to simple go into that list article. I added a question about merging to the Portland article's talk page. I'll see what people say before progressing. Springee (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've posted an AfD for the page. Here is the link [[1]]. Springee (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Just saw this edit over at Blaire White: [2] and wanted to clarify. Your edit summary says "citation equates feminists with sjw's, and antifeminism is already mentioned in the sentence earlier", but maybe we're not looking at the same source? I sourced this to the Newsweek article, which says "White has been able to win over right-leaning YouTube viewers by taking shots at the usual conservative targets: Feminists, "social justice warriors," the media and even other trans or gender-nonconforming people. Some of her videos include "There Are Only 2 Genders," "Fat Acceptance Is Stupid," "Special Snowflake Syndrome" and "World’s Youngest Trans Kid (WTF?)."" This lists social justice warriors separately from feminists, and doesn't mention the term elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: "Feminists, "social justice warriors,"" I understood that the source implied that White called feminists "social justice warriors" which seemed most likely to me. I reverted my edit now. wumbolo ^^^ 22:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for double checking! It's definitely a little confusing with the lack of Oxford comma. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: nah, that would be the logical quotemarks around "social justice warriors" and the trailing comma, not a lack of an Oxford comma, that has nothing to do with it. wumbolo ^^^ 23:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Arb GG or Arb MOS scope cover GENDERID?

@GorillaWarfare: Does the GamerGate Arb case or the Manual of Style Arb case cover issues related to MOS:GENDERID? I'm asking because, currently, articles on transgender people are under GG scope, according to their talk pages. I took a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation but am unsure. wumbolo ^^^ 12:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

In the Gamergate case, the ArbCom did authorize discretionary sanctions for "any gender-related dispute or controversy", if that's what you're asking. The case itself didn't involve much related to MOS:GENDERID specifically. I wasn't an arbitrator during the MoS case and I haven't read through the whole proceeding that closely, but none of the remedies specifically mention MOS:GENDERID. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

On 24 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Parable of the Polygons, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Parable of the Polygons (pictured), an interactive blog post based on game theory, shows that even a slight demand for diversity can reverse residential segregation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Parable of the Polygons. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Parable of the Polygons), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

On 29 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marlon Bundo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a children's book illustrated by Gerald Kelley parodies another children's book written by Charlotte Pence about her pet rabbit Marlon Bundo (pictured) by portraying him as gay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marlon Bundo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marlon Bundo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

On 29 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charlotte Pence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a children's book illustrated by Gerald Kelley parodies another children's book written by Charlotte Pence about her pet rabbit Marlon Bundo (pictured) by portraying him as gay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlotte Pence. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Charlotte Pence), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

We did it! We got the bunny on the mainpage! Thanks for all your help. GMG^talk 13:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: You're welcome and thank YOU for your help! wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:R from dotless ISO 4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There's an article about the Portals WikiProject in the new issue of Signpost:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-05-24/WikiProject report

Enjoy.

P.S.: We now have 80 members. Evad37 just joined!    — The Transhumanist   01:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wumbolo. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 07:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Add a missing Associated Wikimedia section

Even a single edit will help.

Thank you,    — The Transhumanist   21:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, trying to resolve your request for an additional source, and just wanted to check—is it the hundreds of thousands piece or the America piece that you're looking for additional cite(s) for? Or both? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: the hundreds of thousands. wumbolo ^^^ 22:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We have grown to 89 members.

This is the seventh issue of this newsletter. For previous issues, see our newsletter archive.

Welcome

A warm welcome to our nearly one dozen new members...

Our new members include:

• Evad37
• Checkingfax
• Grey Wanderer
• Voceditenore
• TestPAKISTAN
• Godsy
• Greatedits1
• Charlesdrakew
• Ww2censor
• Simon Burchell
• TheGridExe

Be sure to say "hi" and welcome them to the team.

The portal set has shrunk

There were 1515 portals, but now we have 1475, because we speedy deleted a bunch of incompleted portals that had been sitting around for ages, that were empty shells or had very little content. Because they were speedied, they can be rebuilt from scratch without acquiring approval from WP:DRV.

Maintenance runs on the portals set have begun

This is what we have been gearing up for: upgrading the portals en masse, using AWB.

More than half of the Associated Wikimedia sections have been converted to no longer use a subpage. This chore will probably be completed over the next week or two.Many thanks to the WikiGnome Squad, who have added an Associated Wikimedia section to the many geography-related portals that lacked one. The rest of the subjects await. :)

The next maintenance drive will be on the intro sections. Notices have gone out to the WikiProjects for which one or more portals fall within their subject scope. Once enough time has elapsed for them to respond (1 week), AWB processing of intro sections will begin.

Thank you, you

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your part in the RfC. I went back and reread much of it. I believe your enthusiasm played a major part in turning the tide on there. I'm proud of all of you.

Why reread that mess, you ask?

To harvest ideas, and to keep the problems that need to be fixed firmly in mind. But, also to keep in touch. See below...

Thank yous all around

I've contacted all of the other opposers of the RfC proposal to delete portals, to thank them for their support, and to assure them that their decision was not made in vain. I updated them on our activities, provided the link to the interviews about this project in the Signpost, pointed out our newsletter archive so they can keep up-to-date with what we are doing, and I invited them all to come and have a look-see at our operations (on our talk page).

Sockpuppet, and reverting his work

It so happened that one of our members was a sockpuppet: JLJ001. According to the admin who blocked him, he was a particularly tricky long term abuser. This is a weird situation, since the user was quite helpful. He will be missed.

This has been somewhat disruptive, because admins are doing routine deletions of the pages (portals, templates, etc.) he created, and reversion of his edits (I don't know if they will be reverting all of them). Please bear with them, as they are only doing what is best in the long run.

The following pages have been deleted by the admins so far, that I know of:

• Portal:Plymouth
• Portal:Bedfordshire
• Portal:Suffolk
• Portal:Norfolk
• User:JLJ001/tag
• Template:Non-standard portal flag
• Template:Portal flag

Automation so far, section by section...

• Intro – {{Transclude lead excerpt}}
• Selected article – {{Transclude random excerpt}}
• In the news – {{Transclude selected current events}}
• Associated Wikimedia – {{Wikimedia for portals|species=no|voy=no}}
• Categories – {{#tag:categorytree|{{PAGENAME}}}}

Automatic article alerts is up and running

Automatic article alerts are now featured on the project page.

Some super out-of-date entries kept showing up on there, so posting it on the Project page was delayed. Thanks to Evad37 and AfroThundr for providing solutions on this one. Evad37 adjusted the workflow settings per Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing#Choosing workflows, to make sure only the appropriate page types show up. AfroThundr removed the tags from the old entries that caused them to keep showing up in the article alerts.

Other things that could use some automation

Noyster pointed out that it would be nice to automate the updating of the portals section at the Community bulletin board.

Another major component of the portal system is the main list of portals, at Portal:Contents/Portals. How would we go about automating the updating of that?

Please post your ideas on the WikiProject's talk page. Thank you.

Deletion discussion survivors

Keep in mind that we have already speedy deleted almost all of the nearly empty portals, which can be rebuilt without approval whenever it is convenient to do so. Other portals should be completed if at all possible rather than delete them through MfD (which requires approval from Deletion review to rebuild).

• Portal:Juanes – see the discussion

(Current deletion discussions are posted on our WikiProject page).

Portals needing repair

• Portal:Toys

Wrapping up

There's still more, but it will have to wait until next issue.

Until then, see ya around the project.    — The Transhumanist   12:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wumbolo,

Greetings and congratulations on your New Page Reviewer status.

I am surprised by your decision to move the article on Ekhoni to draft space. I request you to reconsider the move. Here are my reasons.

• The article was assessed for Wikipedia:Film and found suitable for Start class.
• The film complies with GNG: one National Award and two other awards are proof enough
• There are enough references for a start-class article.

If you have specific doubts about any of the references, I will be glad to discuss them. Meanwhile I request you to restore the article, perhaps with a refimprove tag.

Thanks! Amuk (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Amuk (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amuk: "Start" class and other classes are an assessment of an article's quality. Notability has nothing to do with quality, it is judged separately. The notability guideline we should look at here is WP:NFILM. The part about awards says: The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. The Indian National Film Awards barely qualify. The other awards are not so "major". Note that if a source fails some notability requirement, it is dismissed entirely. That's why only the National award contributes to notability (the other awards are not significant enough). Now, I would like a bit more, whether it is a reliable source discussing the film significantly, a full-length review by a nationally known critic, or any other aspect of WP:NFILM. Remember that awards have to be significant. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 12:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. When you wrote:"does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published", it seemed to be a comment on the quality of the article. That's why I mentioned the assessment.

Now to the real issue. You feel the notability of the film is not established. I beg to differ. Some arguments:

• • The film did win a National Award.
  • A notable film personality, Aparna Sen, "cherishes" having worked in the film. This is one of the criteria mentioned in WP:NFILM.
  • Most importantly perhaps, the film introduced a collective protagonist, which, according to the cited scholarly source, changed the idea of the protagonist in cinema.

For these reasons, I request you to restore the article. I will continue to work on it to improve it, as I do with all articles I've created. Thanks!

Incidentally, I'd like to take you up on your remark that the Indian National Film Awards "barely qualify" as major awards, but we can keep that for another time.Cheers. Amuk (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Amuk: thank you. Maybe some of it, like the protagonist bit, could be in the article lead. I will move it back to article space. wumbolo ^^^ 08:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks! I'll work to improve the article. I really appreciate our civil and reasoned exchange. Amuk (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wumbolo,Thanks for your request that I create the above talk page. I'm afraid that's rather redundant unfortunately. The page used to exist as the talk page of Portal :Portals which was moved to Portal:Contents/Portals on 6 December 2007 (creating a redirect). Portal talk:Portals, which was then orphaned, was itself moved to Portal talk:Contents/Portals also on 6 December 2007 (without creating a redirect), so it is pointless to now recreate it. I hope that makes sense. Cactus.man ✍ 17:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The WikiProject now has 92 participants, including 16 admins.

Welcome

A warm welcome to the newest members of the team:

• Keith D
• RL0919

Be sure to say hi.

Congrats

Pbsouthwood has just gotten through the grueling RfA process to become a Wikipedia administrator. Be sure to congratulate him.

The reason he went for it was: "For some time I expect to be busy with subpage deletion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals as mentioned above. The amount of work is expected to keep me busy for some time. I am primarly a content creator and contributor to policy discussions, but would be willing to consider other admin work on request, providing that I feel that my involvement would be appropriate and not too far outside my comfort zone."

New feature: Picture slideshow

Evad37 has figured out a way to let the user flip through pictures without purging the page. Purging is awkward because there is an intermediary confirmation screen that you have to click on "yes". In the new picture slideshow section, all you have to do is click on the > to go to the next picture or < to instantly show the previous feature. The feature also shuffles the pictures when the page is initiated, so that they are shown in a different order each time the user visits the page (or purges it).

It is featured in Portal:Sacramento, California. Check it out to the right.

Keep in mind that the feature is a beta version. Please share your comments on how to refine this feature, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Refining the Picture slideshow.

The one-page portal has been achieved

We now have a one-page portal design. It isn't fully automated, nor is it even fully semi-automated, as there are still some manually filled-in areas. But it no longer requires any subpages in portal space, and that is a huge improvement. For example, Portal:Sacramento, California utilizes the one-page design concept. While is employs heavy use of templates, it does not have any subpages of its own.

I commend you for your teamwork

This is the most cooperative team I've ever seen. With a strong spirit of working together to get an important job done. Kudos to you.

In conclusion...

There's more. A lot more. But it will have to wait until next issue, but you don't have to wait. See what's going on at the WikiProject's talk page.    — The Transhumanist   02:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• @The Transhumanist: you might want to use {{clear}} at the bottom of your message if it contains images etc. 😊 wumbolo ^^^ 20:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   20:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:DRC refers to users removing warnings from their own talk pages. Are you the same person who edits as Jane Chia? --bonadea contributions talk 20:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: not editing as Jane Chia, but am the person who gave her the uw-delete and uw-test (diffs linked) warnings for the edit, for which she today got the uw-vandalism warning. You can argue that uw-delete and uw-test are not equal to uw-vandalism, but that is gaming the system. wumbolo ^^^ 20:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this revision of yours on User talk:Jane Chia, WP:DRC concerns comments on a user’s own talk page. That is not my talk page, and you are not me.

My warning was regarding other revisions, unrelated to the previous warning by Cabayi. See also WP:TPO, which concerns removing others’ comments. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 23:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: that's not what WP:DRC means, please read it. It concerns any comment left by other users. Moreover, Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user, regardless of whether the talk page is for a registered editor or for an unregistered "anonymous" editor.

Your warning was regarding other revisions, but warnings are "stacked", so after giving a level-3 vandalism message for vandalizing a category, we would give a level-4 vandalism message for vandalizing an article. wumbolo ^^^ 09:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It it what WP:DRC means. WP:DRC is about restoring comments that people remove from their own talk pages.

For instance, if I removed a comment that I or someone else posted on my own talk page, you wouldn’t be allowed to restore it, and if you repeatedly restored it, you could be blocked.

You repeatedly removed a comment that I posted, which doesn’t have anything to do with WP:DRC. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 19:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed your comment because it violated WP:DRC. It violated DRC because Jane Chia had already removed here warnings related to the edit you were warning her about. wumbolo ^^^ 20:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

1) Replace the intro box sections on portals with an upgrade. See details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Tasks#AWB task: converting/upgrading intro sections.

2) Replace categories box sections on portals with an upgrade. See details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Tasks#AWB task: Converting category sections.

Enjoy.    — The Transhumanist   08:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are some incremental tasks for you to consider. Do one, or many, as time allows. Every little bit helps...

Task #1

We're getting close to having the main portals list up-to-date, but we aren't quite there yet. There are about 75 portals not yet listed there.

Therefore the first task, of course, is to add as many of these as you can. They can be found at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet. Instructions are there.

Task #2

The second task on this wish list is to convert one selected picture section to a picture slideshow section. The template to use for this is {{Random slideshow}}. Here are some examples of portals with a picture slideshow section: Portal:Bangladesh, Portal:Sacramento, California, Portal:Algae, and Portal:Reference works.

Note that selected picture sections display pictures from subpages (one subpage per pic), and that each picture would need to be listed in the {{Random slideshow}} template.

Tip: Some portals have only a single picture covered in the selected picture section. Replacing their selected picture sections with a slideshow would be easiest. Eight or more pictures make a decent slide show. Search for pictures at Wikimedia Commons.

Have fun! Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   09:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't mind that box to the right. We'll be talking about that later, below.

Almost done...

With the portals upgrades?

No. :)

What is almost done is the updating of the main list of portals!

There are 23 portals left to be listed.

Kudos to the WikiGnome Squadron, for spearheading this.

Once it is fully updated, we need to keep it up to date. When you complete a portal, remember to add it to Portal:Contents/Portals.

Concerning portal upgrades, we are working on those section-by-section...

Associated Wikimedia section conversion task complete

The Associated Wikimedia sections of the entire set of portals have been upgraded. These are now handled on each portal base page (bypassing the previously used corresponding subpages), using the {{Wikimedia for portals}} template rather than reiterated copied/pasted code.

So, to be more accurate on reporting upgrade progress, that's one section down (for the whole set of portals), with (about) nine sections to go. (Skipping curated portals, regarding custom content sections, of course).

Further section conversions (using AWB)

Work is underway on converting Portals' introduction sections, and the categories sections.

If you would like to help, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Upgrade introduction sections and Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#AWB task: Convert category sections

Further section conversions (by hand)

Work has also started with converting selected picture sections to picture slideshow sections. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Install picture slideshows.

Quality rating system for portals under development

Currently, there is no quality rating for portals: in the Portals WikiProject box on each portals' talk page, it just says "Portal". But times are a changin'. Quality assessment is on the way, and you can help. See the discussion.

What's coming: excerpt slideshows

Evad37 has figured out a way to apply the picture slideshow feature to displaying article excerpts (now you can check out the provided box above). :) This allows us to bypass page purging to see the next selection, and you can even click through them rather quickly. Currently, the wikicode for doing this for article excerpts is a bit eye-boggling, and so we are looking into simplifying it. A streamlined version may be just around the corner.

Note that this is a prototype, not ready for widespread use. Click on the box in between the lesser than and greater than signs, to see what I mean. It was meant for pictures, and so the thumbnail feature doesn't apply to article prose very well. I've presented it even though it isn't ready, to show the direction portal development is heading. See the discussion.

Wow

I'm amazed at how rapidly portals are evolving. And we're still within a single generation of portal technological evolution. Imagine what they might be in 2 or 3 more generations of developments. Pretty soon, portals will be able to shake your hand. :)    — The Transhumanist   11:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi.

Portal:Tamil civilization could sure use a picture slideshow. See instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Install picture slideshows.

Please add as many pictures as you have time for. Even adding a single picture helps.

Thank you. Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   00:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I like your wording better, so I've left it alone. But I just wanted to drop a note that the original wording did not imply that InfoWars was a conspiracy theory. The lack of any punctuation such as a comma following the words "conspiracy theory" indicate that it is to be read along with the next clause "and fake news" as qualifiers of the actual description; "website".

But, as I said, the potential for confusion was stronger with the original wording, as I think is self-evident. I'm only mentioning this here because your userpage indicates that English is not your first language, and I thought it might be appreciated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SethBling you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

While I understand your interpretation of the speedy keep criteria I object to your closure. There was an attempt to redirect and it was reverted (neither action by me) and so I brought it to a community place rather than spur any sort of edit war. I also did indicate that the topic itself is not notable having completed WP:BEFORE. I am attempting to honor alternatives to deletion by proposing the incorporation of content (as there is already a section about this at the destination article). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)@Barkeep49: you brought valid concerns, but merging should be discussed on the talk page, as AfD is called Articles for Deletion, and while redirecting can be discussed there, AfD is not for making redirects that must be left anyhow because of a merger. wumbolo ^^^ 00:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you saying that you brought valid concerns. So given that I'm curious how you interpret fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection. I have made successful deletion arguments with far fewer than I advanced here and so I believe I did advance an argument for deletion. I'm not an expert on AfD closures so this is a genuine question as I attempt to improve my knowledge. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I am no expert either; I just assumed the whole deletion rationale was actually just arguing for merging, since notability concerns are a valid reason for merging. Wouldn't hurt to ask an admin. wumbolo ^^^ 06:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about the wording now? -- Dolotta (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dolotta: good, thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 19:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Just a headsup: I reverted you and made the edit myself to preserve edits in the meantime. For future reference, you can use the VisualEditor to manipulate and remove whole columns and rows of tables without having to edit the wikitext. Regards SoWhy 14:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: but you removed a lot of other edits by reverting me. wumbolo ^^^ 16:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How so? All I did was revert back to the revision before your edit. All edits up to that one were preserved. Regards SoWhy 16:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: you effectively endorsed this edit which removed a bunch of edits. wumbolo ^^^ 17:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I still don't follow. That edit is a month old. If you disagree with the entries added or removed, you can always challenge those individually (and by explicitly stating your reasons!) but your edit effectively undid all changes between May 26 and today when all there was consensus for was removing one column and not to remove the other entries added in the mean time or to undo the other changes. Regards SoWhy 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: and your edit effectively removed all edits from May 9 to May 26. wumbolo ^^^ 17:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, now I get what you mean. However, if one compares the revision you reverted to and my revision diff, we lost three entries and lost the arbitrary subdivision and gained two entries and a bunch of fixes as well as the removal of text that no longer belongs to the article. So it seems my edit was a bit better than reverting to Parkwell's and redoing it from there. That said, I'll check those three entries that were removed and re-add them if they were removed incorrectly. Thanks for pointing that out. Regards SoWhy 18:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Rescued two from the old revision. The third one was a redlink. As for the section headings, I don't think they are useful since there is a navbar on top and without the references editing the page is now easier again. Regards SoWhy 18:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We've grown to 94 participants.

A warm welcome to dcljr and Kpgjhpjm.

Rating system for portals

We are in the process of developing a rating system specifically for portals, as the quality assessment scheme for articles does not apply to portals. It is coming along nicely. Your input would be very helpful. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/General#Proposed new quality class assessments.

Better than a barnstar

One of our participants got involved with this WikiProject through interest in how the new generation of portals would be handled in WP's MOS (Manual of Style). It didn't take long before he got sucked in deeper. This has given him an opportunity to look around, and so, he has made an assessment of this WikiProject's operations:

I'm quite frankly really impressed and inspired by what's happening here. If you'd asked me a year ago if I thought portals should just be scrapped as a failed, dragged-out experiment, I would have said "yes". This planning and the progress toward making it all practical is exemplary of the wiki spirit, in particular of a happy service-to-readers puppy properly wagging its technological and editorial tail instead of the other way around, and without "drama". It's also one of the few examples I've seen in a long time of a new wikiproject actually doing something useful and fomenting constructive activity (instead of acting as a barrier to participation, and a canvassing/ownership farm for PoV pushers). Kudos all around. — SMcCandlish

Congratulations, everyone. Keep up the great work.

Slideshow development

We've run into a glitch with slideshows: they don't work on mobile devices.

Initially, we will need to explore options that allow portals to have slideshows without adversely affecting mobile viewers. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Mobile view support.

Eventually, we may need another way to do slideshows. If we do go this route, and I don't see why we wouldn't, then (user configurable) automatic slideshows also become a possibility.

TemplateStyles RfC passed

Once implemented, this will allow editors to create and edit cascading style sheets for use with templates. This will expand what we can do with portals. For more detail, see mw:Extension:TemplateStyles and Wikipedia:TemplateStyles.

Automation effort

We've run into an obstacle using Lua-based selective transclusion: Lua is incapable (on Wikipedia) of reading in article names from categories. Because of this, we'll need to seek other approaches for fully automating the Selected article section. We are exploring sources other than categories, and other technologies besides Lua.

Speaking of using other sources, the template {{Transclude list item excerpt}} collects list items from a specified page, or from a section of that page, and transcludes the lead from a randomly selected link from that list. Courtesy of Certes. So, if you use this in a portal, and if the template specifies a page or section serviced by JL-Bot, you've now got yourself an automatically updated section in the portal. JL-Bot provides links to featured content and good articles, by subject.

What is "fully automated"? When you create a portal using a creation template, and the portal works thereafter without editor intervention, the portal is fully automated. That is, the portal is supported by features that fetch new content. If you have to add new article names every so often for it to display new content, then it is only semi-automated.

Currently, the Selected article section is semi-automated, because it requires that an editor supplies the names of the various articles for which excerpts are (automatically) displayed. For examples, look at the wikisource code of Portal:Reptiles, Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization, and Portal:Reference works.

So far, 3 sections are fully automatable: the introduction section, the categories section, and the Associated Wikimedia section.

Where is all this heading?

Henry.

Or some other name.

Eventually, the portal department will be a software program. And we won't have to do anything (unless we want to). Not even tell it what portals to create (unless we want to). It will just do it all (plus whatever else we want it to do). And we will of course give it good manners, and a name.

But, that is a few years off.

Until then, building portals is still (partially) up to us.    — The Transhumanist   13:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Akhiljaxxn. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Vandana Menon, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the page. Philip Delves Broughton which parts do you think need more citations RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@RonaldDuncan: The whole biography should be sourced (except the lead section, which should contain a minimal number of citations). In-line citations should be given at least once per paragraph, and should always be placed after quotes, statistics and contentious or controversial content. wumbolo ^^^ 13:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Thanks, I have added Citations and removed the stub and citations templates RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean with the comment and edit summary here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

More info: Time’s crying girl photo controversy, explained. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Infowars, owned by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, singled out Time and CNN for using the “completely misleading” image to push “open border propaganda.” [3] wumbolo ^^^ 10:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That is unsurprising, but InfoWars is not a RS. There were no "crisis actors", but a simple misunderstanding, for which a correction was issued. One could even argue that this was an exception that proves the rule, because in most of these situations, the child was indeed separated from the mother, usually without any method for reuniting them. There is also no attempt at "open borders", so that idea is itself a propaganda scare tactic from Jones and the right-wing. In spite of the misunderstanding, the cover still makes a powerful point about children being the victims of Trump's xenophobia. Stephen Miller was the architect of this horribly inhumane idea. I hope they are reunited with their parents or guardians soon. A sad situation. These children will be scarred for life and America's reputation is further damaged. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Miller is still there, unfortunately. Kim should've been a red flag (no pun intended) not a friend. wumbolo ^^^ 14:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: this is not an example of how ETPTR works. It's an example of the literal poster-child for separation-by-America NOT being separated by America. Rather the exact opposite, as the father says he did not consent to be separated from his daughter, and wants Yanla back with her 3 siblings in Honduras where he is a successful boating captain. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I was thinking of merging this into the main article for Crowder. I do think that this is a bit premature to have as its own article, but I think that it would definitely do well as a subsection about Crowder's YT presence as a whole. What do you think? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): you can vote "merge to Steven Crowder" in the AFD discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 14:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I try not to vote in class related AfDs, but I did make a post about my recommendation on the AfD page. It may be a little silly since I do try to do some cleanup on student articles, but I feel that the AfDs should be truly decided by someone uninvolved in scenarios like this, since I oversaw the students as part of my job. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any success in renaming, there appears to be a group dedicated to brigading any vote to do so. I'm thinking a better approach may be simply, rather than moving to those names, to expand those redirects into distinct articles about the actual policy (neutrally worded, properly sourced) and then excise appropriate content from the so-called "separation policy" article to there. The distinct article about the actual policy will make it clearer why a future move about policy>effect is needed. So long as discussion of the zero-tolerance policy litters the discussion of migrant family separations it disguises the reasons why we should not title it policy. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: things are constantly changing so I think we should wait until we know exactly when some specific policy started and when it ended. That way we can ensure that we don't have too many articles on short-term policies. wumbolo ^^^ 17:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If we could find the technical name of whatever order was given (zero tolerance sounds like slang) and the date it was given, that could be a good basis for an article, agreed. Do you recall when reports started? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: Zero tolerance is not slang, and it is the WP:COMMONNAME for the policy. wumbolo ^^^ 11:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If ZT is not slang then we can find an official document with the words in it. It might be part of a longer official phrase. Whether it is an appreviation or a paraphrase, "zero tolerance policy" alone would be too vague for an official document, is my point. While I agree it is the common name for the policy, common names can definitely be slang shortenings of longer phrases. I'd like to know the earliest we can find this term used in association with these events and if it was part of a larger name. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

We now have 97 participants.

Be sure to welcome our newest members, BrantleyIzMe, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Nolan Perry, with warm regards.

Work is proceeding apace. We have 2 major thrusts right now: converting the intro sections of portals, and building the components of the one-page automated model...

Converting the intro sections

We need everybody, except those building software components, to work on converting intros. If you have AWB, definitely use that. If not, then work on them manually. Even one a day, or as often as you can muster, will help a lot. There are only about 1,000 of them left to go, so if everyone chips in, it will go pretty quickly. Remember, there are 97 of us!

The intros for most of the portals starting with A through F have already been converted to use the {{Transclude lead excerpt}} template.

The standard wikicode for the automated intro that we want to put into place looks like this:

{{/box-header|Introduction|noedit=yes|}}{{Transclude lead excerpt | {{PAGENAME}} | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1}}{{Box-footer|[[{{PAGENAME}}|Read more...]]}}

That works for most portals, but not all. For some portals it requires some tweaking, and for others, we may have to use a different or more customized approach. Remember to visually inspect each portal you work on and make sure that it works before moving on to the next one.

Be sure to skip user-maintained portals. They are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals#Specific_portal_maintainers.

AWB tips

I've started an AWB tips page, for those of you feeling a bit overwhelmed by that power user tool. Feel free to add to it and/or improve it.

Portal automation

We have some very talented Lua programmers, who are pushing the limits of what we can do in gathering data from Wikipedia's various namespaces and presenting it in portals. Due to their efforts, Lua is powering the selective transclusion core of our emerging automated portal design, in the form of selected article sections that rotate content, and slideshows.

To go beyond Lua's limits, to take full advantage of Mediawiki's API, we are in the midst of adding another programming language to the resources we shall be making use of: JavaScript. The ways that JavaScript can help us edit portals to boost the power of our Lua solutions, are being explored, which will likely make the two languages synergistic if not symbiotic. Research is under way on how we can use JavaScript to make some of the portal semi-automated features fully automatically self-updating, in ways that Lua cannot. Like gathering random members from a category and inserting them into a portal's templates as parameters. Once the parameters are in place, Lua does the rest.

If you would like to get involved with design efforts, or just keep up on them, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design.

When should we start building new portals?

Well, not at the present time, because building portals is quite time consuming. The good news is that we are working on a design that will be fully automated, or as close to that as we can get. And the new design is being implemented in the portal department's main portal creation template. This means, that not only will portals update themselves, their creation will be highly automated as well. That's the nature of templates. You put them in place, and they just... work.

What I'm getting at here, is that it would be better to wait to build lots of new portals until after the new design is completed. Because with it, instead of taking hours to create a new portal, it will likely take minutes.

That does not mean we should be idle in the meantime. The main reason most of us are here is because it became apparent that portals were largely unmaintained and had grown out-of-date. This had become so apparent that a proposal was made to delete all the portals and the portal namespace to boot. That makes our main objective in the short term to improve all the existing portals so that the community will want to keep them—forever.

Building lots of new portals comes later. Let's fix up the ones we have first. ;)

And on that note, I bid you adieu. Until next newsletter, see ya 'round the WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   12:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: why don't we wait with transcluding element-by-element until the portals are fully automated so they can be updated in one edit? wumbolo ^^^ 14:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Good question. For a number of reasons: 1) The community needs to see progress on the portals themselves on an ongoing basis, lest we have another RfC. 2) It benefits the readers now, instead of later. 3) It provides a testing ground for the new features, with the current set of portals as the test subjects. When the automated components are done, and well tested, there will likely be an explosion of new portals. They may grow to as many as 10,000 in the year following the completion of the new model. The more testing before the free-for-all begins, the better. 4) Each section upgrade is rather complex in its own right. I did the Associated Wikimedia sections, and that was a bitch, requiring many adjustments and several passes with AWB. Doing all the sections at once would be even more complex and prone to error. 5) It could be months before the full automated design is completed. I hope I've answered your question to your satisfaction.    — The Transhumanist   00:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Kona Film Corporation, Wumbolo.

Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

sorry but the sources are not strong enough to show this company meets WP:NCORP notably WP:CORPDEPTH

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Dom from Paris (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The article SethBling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SethBling for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)