This is an archive of past discussions about User:Benison. 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.
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, in the feedback to the above draft, you listed WP:SIGCOV as the reason for the decline despite the use of 16 references. How do I improve the article? Heatrave (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Stop editing my edits on pages. I'm making this more diverse. Seriously getting annoyed. I work in diversity and inclusion for trans folk. 94.173.216.103 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi The Herald – I'm not sure what to do about General Concept Lattice. You published this AFC submission this morning, but it contains 33 Wikilinks to User:Simonlin1/sandbox, referencing various figures and tables. I normally just delete such links as per MOS:DRAFTNOLINK "do not link to pages outside the article namespace", but that would leave the article incomprehensible, with 33 missing figures/tables. Similarly, the deletion or re-use of User:Simonlin1/sandbox would also leave the article meaningless, so they cannot just be left. So, do I move it back to being a draft? or how should this problem be overcome? suggestions please, thanks – Arjayay (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Arjayay, hey. I think we can unlink them and make them italics. Those wikilinks are unnecessary, IMO. It will make the article a little difficult for navigation, but all the tables and figures are pretty accurately placed. So I don't think it will be that incomprehensible. We can then remove backlinks from tbe sandbox thereafter and all is well then. Moving it back to draftspace is not exactly what I'd do if we can fix it in the mainspace itself. Cuz if we do that, then it will have to be resubmitted, followed by another AfC review after weeks, which I think is unnecessary. The article per se looked really well referenced and without any copyvio, hence I accepted that. Thanks and let me know what you think. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey SportingFlyer. As the closing statement said, the GNG was established. There is GNG but it has to be incorporated into the article, but that is outside the scope of AfD. Weak keep !votes are also counted and rough consensus is used for judging and closing the discussion (like this one). I don't think an admin is needed for that closure since it was not unambiguous (per WP:NACPIT). Hence I closed it. I don't believe any of WP:BADNAC also is met here. Is there any reason for reopening it again, other than that? Please let me know. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I believe BADNAC #2 clearly applies: The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. I believe there were several valid outcomes for that discussion, including delete, and saying the GNG was established injects an opinion into the close, not clarification of the discussion. I'd appreciate if you re-opened it. SportingFlyerT·C10:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I still believe my rationale of closing. Hence, I'll just ping Liz and Star Mississippi to have a look at it and to advice if there is something I could have done differently. I'll gladly reopen it if the consensus was not clear. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Personally I'd have relisted. Potentially one of two parks is not a claim to notability and the weak sourcing identified doesn't appear to be enough depth. A water park is a company and while N:CORP might not fully apply, we're nowhere near GNG in my opinion.
Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, The Herald,
I see you are now helping out clerking AFD deletion discussions. However, on this AFD, you propose a Soft Deletion closure. Please review WP:NOQUORUM so you will see why, in this case, a Soft Deletion closure was not possible. If you have questions, let me know. LizRead!Talk!02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey Liz, thanks for the notification. I did read that page, maybe I missed something. I'll go through it again just in case. Will ping you for sure for doubts. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, The Herald,
Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Urban Development Authority, I see that you relisted this discussion a 4th time! We generally don't relist an AFD discussion more than 3 times and there are some editors who argue that an AFD discussion shouldn't be relisted more than twice. So, please just let old discussions stay on the daily log. Luckily, we have some admin closers who focus on closing older AFD discussions so it's fine to leave discussions on the daily log that haven't been closed. Unluckily, I don't know of an easy way to undo a reslisting so we'll just let this one go on and hopefully, the discussion will get closed early. Thanks and have a great weekend. LizRead!Talk!05:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Liz, hey. Thanks for the message. I am aware of the 3 time relisting, but when I checked, it was relisted only twice. Hence I relisted it for final relist. Else, I'd have NAC it as no consensus. Am I missing something out? 05:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You did it again with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Four Anglican Hymns. Maybe you could get in the practice of doing what many editors and admins who clerk AFD discussions do, which is adding "Final relist" on the third relist. When you are conscious of how many relists have already occurred, you are much less likely to relist a fourth time or more. LizRead!Talk!22:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey, yes. I'll look into that. I think it's the first time that happened from my side. I usually put final relist comment while relisting. You can see my contribs. As with the last notification from you above, it was not a 4th relist. But this was, yes. I'll be a little bit more careful about this from now on. Thanks :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi!
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is clearly a problem with the paragraphing and title of the article. Foreign relations and military clearly do not belong to the same category and should be separated into two secondary headings. The previous G8+5 and other organizations no longer exist. India once hosted the G20 summit, which is an important part of India's foreign policy and should be included. The diplomatic relations column of all countries includes the economic organizations in which they participate. There is a paragraph dedicated to economics below and should not be listed separately. It is in line with Wikipedia's standards to classify diplomatic relations as a first-level heading of politics. This is true for the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and other countries, and India should not be an exception to keep the article organized.
User Fowler&fowler used the reason Wikipedia:Ownership of content to revert the normally edited content without any reason, which does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. Apart from splitting diplomacy and military, there have been no large-scale modifications, and there are reliable reference sources for both. Eupakistani (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 24th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 24 December 2021. Uh-huh, we're finally covering the good ones among the rest! Aren't you excited? Remember to include a link in double brackets to the script's .js page when you install the script, so that we can see who uses the script in WhatLinksHere! The ScriptInstaller gadget automatically does this. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Making user scripts load faster by SD0001 is this month's featured script, which caches userscripts every day to eliminate the overhead caused by force-downloading the newest version of scripts every time you open a Wikipedia page. Despite being released in April 2021, our best script scouters have failed to locate it due to its omission from the US of L. For security reasons, the script only supports loading JavaScript pages.
Newly maintained scripts
After earthly attempts at improving the original have failed...
Ahecht has created a fork of SiBr4/TemplateSearch, which adds the "TP:" shortcut for "Template:" in the search box, and updated it to be compatible with Vector 2022.
AquilaFasciata/goToTopFast is a much faster fork of the classic goToTop script that also adds compatibility for Minerva and Vector 2022.
Without caching. Each script takes 400–500ms. A particularly large script takes 1.11 s! Internet download speed is 50 Mbps.With caching enabled. Each script takes just 1-2 ms to load.
Improve a script
Unfortunately, this section has remained nearly identical. Help us out here!
To a lesser extent, the same goes for PrimeHunter/Search sort. I wish someone would integrate the sorts into the sort menu instead of adding 11 portlet links.
Dragoniez/SuppressEnterInForm stops you from accidentally submitting anything due to pressing enter while in the smaller box, and works on almost anything... except the InputBox element itself, used in subscription lists and the Signpost Crossword! Oh, the humanity!
Doǵu/Adiutor(pictured) provides a nice, integrated interface to do some twinkley tasks such as copyvio detection, CSD tagging, and viewing the most recent diff.
Eejit43 has quite the aesthetically pleasing scripts, all made in TypeScript.
/afcrc-helper is a replacement for the unmaintained Enterprisey/AFCRHS and processes Redirects for Creation and Categories for Creation requests.
/ajax-undo stops the "undo" button from taking you to another page while providing a text box to provide a reason for the revert.
/redirect-helper(pictured) adds a much better interface for editing and redirects, including categorization, for which valid categories are dictated by /redirect-helper.json.
/rmtr-helper helps process technical requested moves without being able to actually move them.
Guycn2/UserInfoPopup(pictured) adds a flyout after the watchlist star on userspace pages that displays the common information you might use about a user.
Jeeputer/editCounter, under userspace, adds a portlet link to count your edits by namespace, put them in a table, and put that table in a hardcoded subpage, all in the background.
Hilst/Scripts/sectionLinks converts all section links to use the § sign, which are known to be preferred over the ugly # by 99% of the devils I've met.
PrimeHunter/Category source.js adds portlet links to tell you where a category for an article comes from and supports those from template transclusions.
Sophivorus's MiniEdit adds some nice, li'l buttons next to paragraphs to edit their wikitext with a minimal interface.
Edit-listings
Dragoniez/ToollinkTweaks adds more and customizable links next to users in page history, logs, watchlist, recent changes, etc.
Firefly/more-block-info optimizes the display of rangeblocks in contribution pages. Doesn't work outside the English locale of any wiki, unfortunately.
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader makes paging links (e.g. older 50, 500, newest) load without refreshing and makes you realize how slow your internet actually is.
Appearance-ricing
Ahecht/RedirectID adds the redirect target to all redirects. For all the WP:NAVPOPS haters. (Do these exist?)
Dragoniez/MarkBLockedGlobal: Remember the "strike blocked usernames" gadget? Now you can use a red, dotted line to highlight rangeblocks and global locks!
Jonesey/common(pictured) has some styles to overhaul your Vector 2022 experience. It reduces padding everywhere, and makes the top bar animation faster.
Aaron Liu/V22 is a fork that narrows the sidebars instead of upheaving them, reverts the January 2024 dropdown changes, and restores the old page-link color for links that don't go outside the current wiki.
Nardog: SmartDiff is a spiritual successor to Enterprisey/fancy-diffs. It makes the page title part of links in diffs clickable, along with template and parser function calls. Unnamed parameters can be configured per template to also be linked. All links are styled based on the normal CSS classes of rendered links.
For the paranoid: Rublov/anonymize replaces your username at the top of the screen with the generic "User page" text. Remember, it is your duty to persuade everyone that editing is an honor.
/AjaxBlock provides a dialog box for easy input of reasons while blocking users.
/Selective Rollback(pictured) provides a dialog box to customize rollback edit summaries and does them without reloading the page. Seriously, why doesn't MediaWiki already do this?
/flickrsearch adds a portlet link to search for uploadable flickr images about the subject.
/randomincategory adds a portlet link when on Category pages to go to a random page in the current category.
Vghfr/EasyTemplates adds a portlet link to automatically insert some of the most common inline {{fix}} templates.
Yes, we're just doing 'em as we go now. Thanks for reading through this looong issue, if you did! I'm sure this'll send a record for the longest issue ev-ah. You may need to wait even longer for the last issue, as our reserve of old-y and goodie scripts have ran out... We encourage you to try and do some of the requests or improvement tasks. See you in Summer, hopefully!
Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I am wondering why you did not relist this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kiss (artist) instead of closing it as keep? Several editors expressed that it will take a while to go through all of the excessive refbombing of the article to determine if he is notable. If it had been left to run another week that would provide the time for volunteers to do so, and to allow for a more in-depth discussion. Netherzone (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello which were the sources that were SIGCOV? I had asked to identify the three best sources (among the vast amount of ref-bombing, but the AfD did not run long enough for another editor to answer my question. It would have been a courtesy to wait to close it until I and others who left comments enough time to !vote. It seems like you did not read the comments and the issues and concerns that were brought up in the AfD. It is unclear how you make your decision based on the discussion itself that had not come to a consensus. Netherzone (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
You're going on a WikiBreak? I've come to rely on you helping out at AFD, especially with reslitings. You will be missed! LizRead!Talk!04:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Notification stating that contents are removed. But did not mention which article.
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There was a note that I have received stating that I had added or changed content without proper citation. But unfortunately there is no mention of which article you are talking about. Can you share the details here? rakeshrnath (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for reviewing Draft:Aliasing_(factorial_experiments). I'm having some difficulty responding to your comments, and I hope you can point me in the right direction.
This is the second draft of this article, after a major rewrite that I had hoped (and thought) answered the original critiques of the first draft. I'll go through your comments to explain my concerns.
"Needs cleanup": I don't know what this refers to. An example or two would be helpful.
"... and more inline citations." I have no idea how to satisfy this requirement any further than I have already done. The draft currently has 53 inline citations, much more than the original, and aimed at anchoring the text in published sources.
"Also need a rewriting on section headings and per MOS:ORDER." What kind of rewriting? What is specifically wrong with the section headings? As to order, I looked at MOS:ORDER and could find nothing wrong with my order of section headings.
"Notability is also not clearly established." How exactly should I establish this? The article is on a technical topic that is unlikely to be discussed in the popular media. I have included references to 11 textbooks in statistics, experimental design, and related topics -- what more can I do? Is this topic any less notable than the others listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Statistics? Johsebb (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for creating the draft, but it was rejected because it is not ready for the article mainspace yet. You can go through User:The Herald/AfC Essentialities to get an overview of the prerequisites of AfC draft.
MOS:ORDER is to be followed and you have to differentiate between notes and references. Both are two different things and a section called further reading can also be added in your draft.
Technical or not, WP:NOTABILITY must be established with WP:SIGCOV to prove that the topic warrants a stand alone articles. It will be deleted otherwise.
Furthermore, you can go through the policies and guidelines mentioned in the decline comments to understand more about AfC. You may also ask for help in WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELP DESK too.
I have gone through your comments, and through the various Wikipedia links that you suggest (more than once), and I'm still having trouble figuring out what I need to do. Below, I put your comments in italics.
You need more WP:Inline citations in the lead also for verifiability. I checked WP:Inline citations, and I am having trouble seeing what my draft lacks. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations gives four bullet items. The first I have done (i.e., providing published sources for quotations), while the last three don't apply. Also, many of the statements in the introduction are commonly known and not in dispute. I could easily give citations for these, but it would simply inflate the Notes.
Could you point me to examples of articles that satisfy this criterion, so that I can model mine correctly?
You have to differentiate between notes and references. Both are two different things and a section called further reading can also be added in your draft. My draft clearly differentiates already between notes and references. What exactly is the problem? (Also, I don't at this point have need for a Further reading section.)
Comment [to the original draft]: Needs cleanup and more inline citations. Also need a rewriting on section headings and per MOS:ORDER. Notability is also not clearly established.
Needs cleanup: What exactly?
Need a rewriting on section headings and per MOS:ORDER. What is wrong with my section headings?
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_article_elements says "Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the order of section headings within the body of an article. The usual practice is to order body sections based on the precedent of similar articles." What is wrong with my order? Seems to follow precedent of similar articles.
Notability: Could you provide me with one or two examples that establish notability of the subject matter in the appropriate way? Again, this would give me examples to model. Johsebb (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I have fixed the section headings for you and did a slight cleanup. Now, you have to provide more references to establish notability. With the inline citations, every paragraph, if not sentence, must have a citation. You may repeat the citations, but it must be present throughout. Even the lede got whole paragraphs that are not backed by any references. Kindly fix those. You may also ask for help in WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELP DESK too. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
My sincere thanks for your very quick response, and for the cleanup. These changes alert me to things I would need to pay attention to in the future.
I'll make every effort to deal with references for notability. Thanks for your guidance here.
I do have a concern about the headings you used at the end, particularly what you have relabeled References and Further reading. My original headings are more in line with usage in my field, and I also find support in Wikipedia, e.g., Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Notes_and_references and Wikipedia:Further_reading. There are many variations -- see, for example, Mozart or Lie groups -- but their usage is similar to what I originally wrote. May I restore what I had?
Hey, you may have a look at MOS:FNNR and other scientific articles in Wikipedia to get an idea of the differences between Notes (explanatory footnotes), References (offline and online citations) and Further reading (references such as books that are not used in the articles, but can be used for better understanding of the subject). If you revert, then another reviewer will have the exact same comments and when the draft is approved, it will be put back into the one right now. MOS demands consistency throughout the encyclopedia and hence it has to be followed. Just in case, always drop by Teahouse or help desk for further doubts. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for your quick reply. I've looked at the articles you mention (and others) as well as a number of scientific articles, and I feel I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions. I'll try to explain.
It seems to me that my list of references is not what Wikipedia defines as Further reading. Rather, it is a list of the sources actually cited in the article, and would typically be labeled "References" (as I did) or "Sources", but not "Further reading".
I am hesitant to revert to my original headings without having your approval. Please let me know if you would accept those headings, or those suggested in these articles.
Your comments incidentally lead to questions of a more fundamental nature: Will there be "another reviewer"? How many reviews should I expect? Who would have the final say on whether to accept this article? I would greatly appreciate clarification on this point. Johsebb (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The notice "Language links are at the top of the page" that appears in the Vector 2022 skin main menu has been removed now that users have learned the new location of the Language switcher. [1]
IP info feature displays data from Spur, an IP addresses database. Previously, the only data source for this feature was MaxMind. Now, IP info is more useful for patrollers. [2]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. [3][4][5]
RevisionSlider is an interface to interactively browse a page's history. Users in right-to-left languages reported RevisionSlider reacting wrong to mouse clicks. This should be fixed now. [7]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 March. It will be on all wikis from 21 March (calendar). [8][9]
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. [10][11]
Both are declined. So, it is upto the nominator to continue with whichever one they want, after picking the best. They can then fix the issues raised and then proceed to submit the draft for review. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi The Herald. Thanks for your efforts to review the draft. I've noticed it some time ago and I spent some time on it. As a person closely familiar with Slovak culture I know very well that this is acually a missing topic on Wikipedia (I try to not waste my time over unimportant things). Nižnánsky is one of the most important Slovak writers of the 20th century. I've expanded the article with claims of notability and I added some of the sources, independent, reliable and substantial. Your reasoning says: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Can you read Slovak? I can provide analysis of the sources. One of them is Slovak Literary Centre, a website by created a supported by the Slovak Ministry of Culture, others are various newspaper articles, usually considered reliable here on Wikipedia. I've got some experience with sourcing articles and I consider the sources acceptable here on Wikipedia, even if they are not in English. Could you tell me specifically what is inadequate in this short article? Thank you. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for submitting the draft for review. Have a look at User:The Herald/AfC Essentialities, the link given in the edit notice above. Furthermore, you need more references in the article, especially a biography, for verifiability and notability. Kindly go through the links provided in the decline comments. Three references won't work for establishing notability for a biography. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
On another look, I can see you have been around. SIGCOV and GNG is not met for the biography. More references are needed for that. Slovak or not, we need more citations, especially inlines. Please add then and then you can move it to mainspace yourself once it is done. Also, you need cites for the publications too. They are uncited now.The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
So WP:STUB doesn't work anymore? What 's wrong with Jozef Nižnánsky, better known as Jožo Nižnánsky (30 August 1903, Brestovany, Kingdom of Hungary – 7 March 1976, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) was a Slovak writer and journalist,[1] author of historical novels. His novel Čachtická paní, published in 1933, was the most successful Slovak novel of that year and remains the biggest Slovak bestseller to this day (as of 2021).[2] Andrew Valuchek of the Columbia University stated in his 1937 review for the Books Abroad: The novel is intended as ultra'popular fiction, and has enjoyed a large sale.[3] ??? Wikipedia is better with this information than without it IMO. It is informative, correct, every sentence is referenced. This is how our article on Banana started. Would it be better to wait for a sophisticated expert analysis on Banana? This is Wikipedia, there's always a room for improvement. I really don't understand. Also, my first impression was that your first response is a bot generated template. Happy editing. :D Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Haha, not bot generated. It's just a template message I use for the declines (before I went through your contribs). Yeah, STUB is applicable, but again, the publications and bibliography section is still unsourced. And the stubs I accept usually are pretty well cited. I'm glad to accept this as a stub if a little more SIGCOV is present, with that section backed by cites. Since the draft is going through AfC and subsequent NPR, it's better to have all the sides covered throughly. It is not a sandbox draft, which is moved to article mainspace, where it can be improved further, like banana. That is all. Since you have AP, you can move it to mainspace and tag it yourself, if you feel it covers SIGCOV and GNG, with NBIO is satisfied, cuz I don't want to see my accepted draft in AfD next month, lol. Thanks and happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Page Review
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Kindly submit it for the review and wait. The current AfC backlog is 8 weeks and it won't be fair if I go out of the way and review your draft. Someone will review it or if it comes in my random entry, I will review it too. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing, continuing to add unsourced content, unexplained removal of maintenance tags, repeated addition of unsourced content
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi The Herald, Found that there were 2 IP address ranges 2001:1388:A44:0:0:0:0:0
and 2001:1388:A45:0:0:0:0:0 All edits from the IP address found to be the same person. Harassing and deleting content in other articles which had administrators warn and rollback more than 20 disruptive edits Found the latest edit, redo it. 2001:1388:A44:EDDB:98F3:C8BE:82C6:175Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:EDDB:98F3:C8BE:82C6:175D
Repeatedly adding unsourced content and deleting maintenance tags by correcting them and not explained in the article Nine (singer) in terms of being a fan club Due to adding content to live broadcast activities to sell products Duplicate content is added which is not important. As with most of the content in this article
Edit history Nine (singer) has only one person, IP addresses starting with 2001:1388:A45 and 2001:1388:A44 all are the same person The edits will be made in the same way, namely adding information to the article without the source in Nine (singer) and deleting and disturbing other articles. which always has admin rollback This person made repeated changes with new IP addresses like this.
The entire article was edited by the same person, unexplained removal of maintenance tags, and recently used a new IP address to add a lot of unsourced content.
Administrators address disruptive IP address user behavior issues. Continuously adding unsourced content to Nine (singer) A single person from Lima, Peru, used the IP address to reverse an update notification. Unexplained deletion of maintenance tags Modifications were not performed according to the maintenance tag instructions. Please disturb other articles as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:7B00:358F:FBE6:A148:46A0
repeated addition of unsourced content
I think examining a person is difficult. This person from Lima, Peru uses a different IP address every time they resolve. Every time delete and add information to another article. will be reversed Then edit again with the new IP address.
This person created information in the Nine (singer) article and also caused mischief in other articles. Add information without references Administrators always roll back edits that this person deleted on other articles. Editing that disturbs another article and edited and added information only to the article Nine (singer) The person using all IP addresses in this Nine (singer) article is the same person who removed the maintenance tag without editing it.
The person using all the IP addresses I attached is the same person. I'm only giving examples because there are many. The entire article Nine (singer) has an IP address from the same person from Lima, Peru, but the IP address in the update is different every time the information is added. This person deleted the maintenance tag notice. Delete without correcting Most articles lack references. As I looked at the article's history, Nine (singer) has been doing this for a long time, but no user has come to check on this person.
Hey MeetHoneyBee, thanks for the message. I'm on a WikiBreak and will be travelling this week. I'll be back by Easter weekend only. Till then, if they persist disruption, you can address it to WP:AIV for evident vandalism, or WP:ANI for long term abuse, depending on the type of vandalism. You may ask for page protection at WP:RPP if they are IP hopping a lot. I'll be back in a while and will do a cleanup, and see what I can do. Thanks and happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I think you posted this here because I relisted the AfD, but on a surface level scrutiny, it looks like a WP:PRIMARY source, which we don't accept. If it's not, you can van use it to expand the article. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-13
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
An update was made on March 18th 2024 to how various projects load site, user JavaScript and CSS in Vector 2022 skin. A checklist is provided for site admins to follow.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 March. It will be on all wikis from 28 March (calendar). [12][13]
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please don't report names that haven't edited. We don't do anything with them unless they are really really terrible. I've rejected all the ones you reported as they were just normal corporate names. Also to be promotional they need to have promoted something, as they haven't done anything at all they are not. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In 2015, you edited the Wikipedia article for the Black Stone to include the line 'Islamic tradition holds that the Black Stone fell from Heaven to show Adam and Eve where to build an altar, which became the first temple on Earth.' The page previously read 'According to belief, an angel spoke to the prophet Abraham, and told him to institute the rite of the stone in the hajj at Mecca.' However, you kept the previous reference, pointing to Martin Lings' biography of Mohammed, in which the claim about Abraham appears but the line about Adam and Eve does not. Where did you get your information about the altar? 2A02:6B6B:9A2:0:6C18:90C:B0BB:1B2F (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the message. I'm not exactly sure or even remember the thing, as it's about 10 years ago, but I'll give it a re eval soon. If you still find it's unreferenced, you can go ahead and remove it boldly. I think the page is protected, so you have to go through the edit request process in the talk page. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey. I just checked the article history. The statement about altar was added way before my edits. Around 2010. Apparently it's been mentioned in the reference added in the lede. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
i'm a discord moderator for bella poarch, her birthdate has been wrong which is annoying because google displays a wrong birthdate. her birthday is February 9th, and she herself has stated this on social media. a popbuzz article is not a reliable source either. 2601:247:C580:1AB0:4197:4507:6D32:72A4 (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
a twitter link to a tweet from herself on her birthday .. LMAO if only wikipedia didn't blacklist certain legitimate sources, aren't ya'll the ones supposed to have information right? wikipedia is such a joke lmao 2601:247:C580:1AB0:4197:4507:6D32:72A4 (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your message, Happy Easter for you too. I really love being here on Wikipedia and I have learned so much which has benefited my academic work. I hope you are doing well! JohnDVandevert (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Everything. Every sentence you add needs a reference from a reliable source for verifiability. Check the links in the message I have posted in your talk page. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Deletion
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Would you mind un-doing this close? I'm not going to fight it too hard, but I'm not happy it was closed by a non-administrator. SportingFlyerT·C22:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
While in this discussion there was a majority of editors arguing to Keep this article, it was a complicated and lengthy discussion and not an ideal discussion for an NAC closure. And also, regarding another closure you made, according to guidelines provided, even a "No consensus" could be considered controversial if it could be seen as a close call.
Your help is greatly appreciated at AFDLand but it's best to stick with discussions with closures that are appropriate and won't be challenged. No one enjoys being taken to Deletion review, believe me! It's also good for NAC closers to oblige requests to revert closures should they be requested. Thanks again for your help. LizRead!Talk!01:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey. Sure, I'll revert. It was such a clear consensus, and hence I went BOLD and closed it. I usually steer clear of complicated closes since I don't have the mop, but this one seemed to be pretty straightforward. I even left a decent note too. But yea, it's still a NAC and I understand lacking a mop kinda puts you a little low on the hierarchy, apparently (lol).
PS: Stop thanking me Liz, please. I love doing this, which is why I'm still sticking around after med school and seeing patients. Thanks and happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-14
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Users of the reading accessibility beta feature will notice that the default line height for the standard and large text options has changed. [14]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 April. It will be on all wikis from 4 April (calendar). [15][16]
Future changes
The Wikimedia Foundation has an annual plan. The annual plan decides what the Wikimedia Foundation will work on. You can now read the draft key results for the Product and Technology department. They are suggestions for what results the Foundation wants from big technical changes from July 2024 to June 2025. You can comment on the talk page.
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Benison,
New Page Review queue January to March 2024
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Could you please investigate this person's long-standing serious Vandalism? Can Wikipedia block this person permanently?
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi The Herald, Continuous harassment of number 2 IP address ranges 2001:1388:A44:0:0:0:0:0
and 2001:1388:A45:0:0:0:0:0 All edits from the IP address found to be the same person. Harassing and deleting content in other articles which had administrators warn and rollback more than 70 disruptive edits Found the latest edit, redo it. 2001:1388:A44:B9C4:F8CE:15AE:A854:113Ehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:B9C4:F8CE:15AE:A854:113E
Repeatedly adding unsourced content and deleting maintenance tags by correcting them and not explained in the article Nine (singer) in terms of being a fan club Due to adding content to live broadcast activities to sell products Duplicate content is added which is not important. As with most of the content in this article
Can you help check? Restore last edit And can I permanently block this person? Is it possible to disturb me for a long time? Add a lot of non-creative content with no source of reference? Advertising? Delete content in other articles.
This person from Peru is using the same IP address range to harass many other articles, using the same IP address range, but the address Unique IP to avoid blocking
Modifying content from this person's IP address range, for example:
Long term IP vandal, relapsing immediately after last block's expiration
Continuing to add unsourced content
Unexplained removal of maintenance tags - unsourced additions
Repeated addition of unsourced content
Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes
This person is constantly adding a lot of unsourced content. Deleting maintenance tags without correcting them Repeatedly adding unsourced content to Nine (singer)'s articles after being warned and the administrators reverting the edits. He has been doing the same behavior for a long time. The latest modification behavior I consider serious because it has been doing it for a long time is being warned with different IP addresses. Therefore, no one can block IP actions.
Edit history Nine (singer) has only one person, IP addresses starting with 2001:1388:A45 and 2001:1388:A44 all are the same person The edits will be made in the same way, namely adding information to the article without the source in Nine (singer) and deleting and disturbing other articles. which always has admin rollback This person made repeated changes with new IP addresses like this. MeetHoneyBee (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, thanks for cleaning Draft:Nissan TD engine up - I wasn't sure where to put my responses. As far as I can tell, the points raised by the other editor (with whom I have had previous disagreements, nothing ugly) mostly fall outside of the scope of the AFC review - is there a way to request other editors to weigh in on an AFC? Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Kindly submit the draft again for review and wait. The AfC backlog is a few weeks and it won't be fair if I go out of the way and review it. Someone will review it or if it comes in my random entry, I will review it too. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello dear "The Herald", negative nuances in the article have been corrected and encyclopedic indicators have been added.
I also share the person's OpenSanctions ID with you for reliability.
Please share your opinion with us so that the article can be improved and approved.
Thanks in advance.
Kindly submit the draft again for review and wait. The AfC backlog is a few weeks and it won't be fair if I go out of the way and review it. Someone will review it or if it comes in my random entry, I will review it too. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Done I have left a note on the author's talk also to have a look at it again, in case anything is missed. Thanks and happy editing:) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Newly maintained scripts
.png)
.png)
Improve a script
Requested scripts
New scripts
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
IP info feature displays data from Spur, an IP addresses database. Previously, the only data source for this feature was MaxMind. Now, IP info is more useful for patrollers. [2]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 March. It will be on all wikis from 21 March (calendar). [8][9]
Administrator changes
Arbitration
