 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
| This is DannyS712's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 6asUser talk:DannyS712/Archive 5 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
For this userscript, it writes an edit summary for you (that is almost always unhelpful imo but whatevs) when you tag a redirect. However, if you make a redirect out of a page that was previously a redlink, you get to check the source code once before you make the edit. Could you please edit the above script to make this the case for all redirects you edit with? It's just for my own person use. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Gunilla Persson in 2013 The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Biodegradable plastic • Dairy product Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply] |
|---|
Hi @DannyS712, I just saw your message about the speedy deletion tag on the article I created about Thomas R. Russell. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and this is the first time I've received the notice before, having created 11 pages. Apologies for the possible infringement, as that was never my intention! Would it possible to be more specific as to which section or element of the article the software flagged, so I could do a better job editing the information from the secondary source to ensure it has no copyright issues but is still a verifiable statement? Sorry again for the trouble!
Thank you so much
EMT STL (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC) @EMT_STL[reply]
Thank you for linking it, it appears as though the majority of the issues come from listing names of people/programs he created or led during his career, not that full statements or sentences were copied over directly. Is there anything you recommended doing - like linking to other verifiable references, or taking out mention of those things entirely? Not really sure what to do in this situation, as that article was a hive of information! - thank you again for the help :) EMT STL (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC) @EMT_STL[reply]
On 29 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Richard Lugar, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Stephen 01:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know very well that are reliable sources, but is hard to find sources on English. -- Bojan Talk 01:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first article on whole wikipedia. There aren't (m)any English sources on Google books. There are Hungarian soruces, but Hungarian is not my native langue. I have a book in Serbian that from time to time mentions actions of this organisation in occupied Bačka. These is quote from 1939 book/survey/article: Even the chauvinist Turáni Vadászok (Turanian hunters) were suppressed, since they had been staunchly anti-German as well as anti-everything else. The Gestapo arrested all those well known for their dislike of Hungary's association with ...[1]. I cant get broader context (who, what, when, where, why), but i hope this satisfies laymen that this confirms that the organisation existed? -- Bojan Talk 01:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it participated in Šajkaška and Novi Sad raid, it persecuted Serbs, Jews and Romani people, killed, looted, their property. Membership in the organisation was enough for partisans (and probably Soviets) to execute them without any/much trial. Is it now notable? But I did't write in article yet, because I know it will be challenged. I just wrote basic facts, that anybody with elementary knowledge won't challenge. -- Bojan Talk 02:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not your fault. Tt wasn't big and notorious as SS, but existed. I will add reference on my native language. Bojan Talk 02:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK now? I can't do better. -- Bojan Talk 02:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lea Lacroix (WMDE) 15:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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
Problems
Changes later this week
local storage instead of session storage. This means you do not lose them even if you close your web browser. Structured Discussions used to be called Flow. [6]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 May. It will be on all wikis from 2 May (calendar).Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 1 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.Future changes
The Wikidata wb_terms table will be dropped. This will affect some Wikidata tools. They need to be updated. The table has become too big which is causing problems. This will happen on 29 May. You can read more. You can ask for help if you need it. Wikimedia wikis will soon use a token when you log out. This changes how the API works. Some tools might need to be updated. [8]Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
22:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (April 2019). Hello everyone and welcome to the 5th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
|
|
|
Until next month, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:English grammar. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
 Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point. Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around. Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs. What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A small point, but in your script at User:DannyS712/common.js you use the word "develope"; I think you mean "develop"? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.js'); //. See wot i mean? Or maybe it doesn't affect the running of the script; I've always added one, so wouldn't know the consequence of not doing so. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 10:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Danny, funny that I should find you on the bureaucrats' noticeboard like that. I was just talking to DrMel; She and I have set up a proposed WikiBlind user-group for teaching blind people how to edit Wikipedia, and we were talking about creating a userbox for it. I told her that you were the only very active Wikipedian I knew of on the list of users who make userboxes upon request. I'll let DrMel let you know what she had in mind when she can, but that coincidence was too good not to mention! Graham87 11:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:
Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.
Other notable performances were put in by 
Barkeep49 with six GAs, 
Ceranthor, 
Lee Vilenski, and 
Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 
MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nancy Pelosi 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 StudiesWorld -- StudiesWorld (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Danny! Graham87 encouraged me to get in touch to get your help with the userboxes we want our new wikiblind volunteers to be able to include on their user pages. I did a mock-up on my art program here and just uploaded it to commons. Here’s the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Proposed_layout_for_1st_wikiBlind_user_group_userbox.jpg
Can you tell me how easy it would be to create the userbox? We want to welcome our newbies with this on their user page as soon as we get them setup and ready to participate for the first time. We are very excited to see so much enthusiasm so quickly! We would love to include everyone in the fun, too - experienced wikipedians are a huge part of what happens next! Come join us? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiBlind_Wikimedians_User_Group
Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.
Some of the reasons for the purge are:
Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.
In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.
Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:
These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.
However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.
See you at WT:POG.
A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.
There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.
See you at WT:POG.
An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.
And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.
The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?
And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...
An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.
Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.
What kind of features could this be done with?
The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.
Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).
The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.
Being curated. At least for the time being.
New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.
But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.
The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.
And who knows what else?
No worries.
Until next issue... — The Transhumanist 00:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The move request for Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) was relisted by Paine Ellsworth a few hours back, and therefore the discussion is no longer ready to be closed. Do you know if/how the corresponding close-request should be handled for such cases? Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it missing a small tag, but it's also missing a timestamp, which (a) is just really bad for timekeeping purposes and (b) means that lowercase sigmabot III will never archive the message. Is there any chance you could add the timestamps semi-automagically, as well? I've done it on my end. Thanks! Graham87 01:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<small> tag that was unclosed, but I've already gone and fixed that. Do you want the timestamp to be now (~~~~~) or when it was sent? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
