the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour
articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
Music is for the soul!
This is list of song recommendations from Wikipedians over the years. Feel free to add your own here!
(please try to keep alphabetical order)
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, FormalDude. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cyril deGrasse Tyson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I absolutely do not expect you to feel obligated in any way to review this page, as I understand the logs are heavily backed up and you are likely very busy. But on the off chance you have a moment to spare, the page Brad Heckman has been ready for reviewing for a bit. I will typically wait about 4 months for a page review before wondering if there’s anything I could do to bring it to someone’s attention — however another article that I authored and moved to the mainspace about 3 days ago got reviewed within 4 hours of being published haha. I am admittedly a bit confused about the process and just don’t want this article to get lost in the mix. If you could even give some feedback on how exactly to request a review, it would be much appreciated! :) thank you for all you do. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi@4theloveofallthings. I looked over the article and it does appear to be one of the more difficult kind of articles to review, so you may be waiting a while (current backlog is at five months). Unfortunately there's nowhere really to request a review... a review is requested simply by the fact that it is currently unreviewed, so it just has to wait out the queue. Nothing much else you can do besides asking someone like me (curious how you found me BTW). I haven't had a ton of time to edit recently, but I can try to review this for you. One problem I'm having is I cannot access this WSJ article. Would you be able to email me a copy or something? ––FormalDude(talk)06:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@9t5: After a review of the article's references, I unfortunately do not see any sources that meet the notability criteria. The majority of sources are not independent of the subject, and some do not contain significant coverage. Several parts of the article read in a promotional tone.
I am inclined to nominate the article for deletion, but I'd like to give you a chance to respond first. From what I'm seeing, I don't think this issue can be remedied without the addition of new sources that meet notability criteria. I couldn't find any in a cursory search, but maybe you will have better luck. ––FormalDude(talk)06:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@FormalDude Hmm okay, and I absolutely respect your opinion. Would it be possible to give me a little bit of time to try and gather some more sources and see what I can do to strengthen it before nominating it? 9t5 (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@FormalDude And sorry about the username switch so suddenly haha. My original one was terrible I finally couldn’t stand to look at it any longer. 9t5 (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I research the subject and try to find some new sources, I have initiated an RfC discussion on the talk page of the article, asking other editors for their opinions on the notability of the subject. I just wanted to inform you of this in case you saw it and thought it was in some way undermining your review of the article. I am just trying to be as productive with my time as possible and allow others to give their feedback in the meantime, hopefully without the immediate need for a nomination. Thank you! 9t5 (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@9t5: Yes, take your time, and no worries about the username. I see Aoidh explained the issue with that RfC and gave you some good advice. (Also, it's not really possible for you to "undermine" my review, I don't have any extra authority as a reviewer, and my review is just my own. There's absolutely nothing wrong with seeking feedback from other editors. That said, I appreciate you telling me anyways.)
I did reply to you at the talk page, but I want to expand a little more about my review. I realize it may seem like I haven't given you much constructive advice on how to improve the article, but that is because if the topic of the article doesn't first meet notability guidelines, nothing else matters. So the only advice I can give is to find sources that pass WP:GNGorWP:BASICorWP:PROF. If you need any help understanding what that means exactly, or how to evaluate sources, let me know – I am happy to clarify.
I know how disappointing it can be to have an article you worked hard on deleted (not that AfD means it will be), but in the long run, it's a learning experience that you grow from. I used to dread an AfD on one of my articles, but now I love them, because usually it results in one of two things: it's kept, which is like a stamp of approval from the community, or, it's deleted, in which case it probably actually deserved to be deleted, and I learn from it and become better at article creation. ––FormalDude(talk)06:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I see that you have created a new category:Wikipedians who have been selected as Editor of the Week. A great idea but I noticed that many recipients (over half) are not listed. Over the years, there have been about 530 editors that have received the Award. What I noticed was that some editors, like DanCherek (for instance) have 2 or 3 pages listed. Same with Luk3 and many others. There should be only one for each recipient. So the 257 editors listed is way under the actual number of editors that should be included in the category. I'm not sure how you load the category. I love the idea but we need to fix it. Let's chat! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey @Buster7, thanks for reaching out. If I remember correctly, the category is loaded with pages that contain this userbox. I see the issue, but I'm no expert in categories and I'd appreciate any help fixing it! Also, I apologize for my delayed responses, I haven't had a lot of time to edit lately. If I don't get back to you in a timely manner, you are more than welcome to take action into your own hands. ––FormalDude(talk)05:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)