Jump to content

User talk:Modussiccandi/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 23:59:17, 12 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Submarine00


Hello @Modussiccandi:, Thanks for reviewing my first draft. It is not clear to me yet how to reference an article on Wikipedia therefore I would like to ask if you would be so kind to explain further what you mean by improperly sourced by adding a short comment. Meanwhile I have added few more secondary sources to improve my submission. Could you please take a look if it is better now so that I can eventually resubmit it? Many thanks --Submarine00 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Submarine00 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Submarine00: Have you been here: Help:Referencing for beginners. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@FlightTime:Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I have read the guidelines but the topic of reliable sources is quite complicated for me to undestand. Do you think that the material provided in the draft needs additional citations ? - Submarine00 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Submarine00: a reliable source is one that has been published professionally and has been subject to a thorough process of fact checking. So, in a nutshell, newspapers, books from established presses, and reports from high-quality news outlets etc. are seen as reliable while blogs, social media, lower-level news publications etc. are not. Regarding the draft: yes, it needs more sourcing. The first paragraph of the 'Early life' section does not have a single one, for example. As a reader, my question would be: 'where is this information from? Have you made it up yourself?'. This is precisely why you need to add sources to material that's currently unreferenced. Keep in mind that your subject is a biography of a living person, which need to adhere to more stringent criteria when it comes to verifiability. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Modussiccandi: thanks for synthesizing the topic about verifiability for a BLP and to clarify guidelines for reliable sources. I have improved referencing, supporting my first draft with more sourcing, especially on paragraph Early life. Could you please take a look in the next few days to see if the issues are fixed or if it needs additional improvement before resubmitting to reconsider it? Thank you and best regards, --Submarine00 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@Submarine00: I've taken a look at the new version of the article. The 'Early life' section has definitely improved its sourcing and I think it would be appropriate to resubmit the draft now. A different reviewer will vet the article in time. (I tend not to review for a second time after helping submitters improve their drafts.) Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@Modussiccandi: I am pleased with your prompt positive response. I have resubmitted the draft. Let's hope it will soon get reviewed. Thanks for your feedback. Best,--Submarine00 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Modussiccandi: Hope all is well with you. I would like to ask you if comments under the review template on drafts can be posted only by reviewers or also by others. The reason why I am asking is because I have added a message on the talk page of the article draft to reviewers. Would it be ok if I leave a note on the draft? Thanks and Best,--Submarine00 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@Submarine00:I wouldn't say that there is a prejudice against comments by draft submitters, so feel free to put one under the template. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@Modussiccandi: I have a question about sources on the resubmitted article. I have noticed that some reviewers decline articles if there are too many sources, commenting that a submission should only be referenced with the most relevant ones(3 or 4) covering the subject in depth. Since I don't know who will review the article for the second time do you think I should remove some references or as a BLP is it ok to keep the multiple sources that I have provided? Thanks--Submarine00 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Submarine00: what they mean by that is that submitters should not engage in refbombing, by which we mean the unnecessary use of two or more sources for a single fact (more at WP:REFBOMB). Given that you haven't engaged in excessive refbombing, I wouldn't worry about this too much. For a BLP in particular, it's important to have a source for every main claim, so I wouldn't remove any sources that would make your draft vulnerable to being accused of negligence in that department. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok@Modussiccandi: Thank you. What I could do to improve my submission is to reduce some multiple sources covering for instance the involvement of the subject in Climate Change Theatre Action. Would that be a good edit? Submarine00 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Submarine00: yes, this would be possible, but be sure to leave no important fact unreferenced (that would be counterproductive). Since you've already pointed reviewers to what you consider the best available sources, I don't think it would make a huge difference if you reduce the number of references in the draft. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC) By the way, you do not need to ping me when you reply to my messages on this talk page. The talk page owner gets notified whenever someone writes to them.
Ok. Good to know. Best and thanks for clarifying Submarine00 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Question about a draft

Dear Modussiccandi, I have read your review about my draft, thanks for that, I think first of all, you have not got the deep meaning of my text which is about experimental electronics and sound poetry. They are not so widespread as disciplines, nevertheless practised and followed by institutions and museum. Now, coming to the point you are complaining about (lack of links to be verified) it seems you have not got through the text as I have put many external link and all the official references in order to be checked. It seems to me there is a sort of prejudice towards these kinds of researches, treated as a secondary line. I would like to receive more detailed items about your critic on my draft. Thanks for answering, with my best Polip Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polip team (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Polip team: thank you for reaching out. You seem to have a misconception about how to construct an article on Wikipedia: external links have no place whatsoever in the body of a draft. What we need is secondary sources talking about your subject and his activities. Providing a link to the British Library, to use one example from the article, does not help us verify the content of the article. What I would recommend is for you to read our tutorial on proper referencing and to supply the draft with good references to secondary sources. Only then will it be worthwhile to reconsider it. Also, please make sure that the body of the draft is free from external links. If you are interested to know when external links can be used, please have a read through Wikipedia:External links. Thank you and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Modussicandi ( what a nice latin noun for me Italian it sounds sweet ) for all your suggestions but I think we are still misunderstanding, of course you are in a position where you can judge what is right or not, and focusing the problem, the point is what is reliable, I have listed for all the items publisher, official number of issue and website when necessary or quotations, to me this is reliable, as you can't think that all that has been invented, moreover, this draft has been written following step by step other profiles already accepted into Wikipedia. What is a paradox, is that you (generally speaking) are applying some cold rules without checking really the quality of the draft. I would appreciate a clear example of what you think is unreliable in the draft, with my best to you, Polip team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polip team (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Polip team: look, your problem is actually fairly easy to explain: let's take the paragraph that starts with [i]n 2009 the Lincoln Center in New York opened an exhibition.... The paragraph does not have a single footnote or, as we call them, inline citation. Without inline citations to reliable sources that reflect the content, nothing in the paragraph can actually be verified. Interestingly, the draft already has some inline citations, which shows that you know in principle how to use them. So I suggest that you carefully apply this method to everything that isn't referenced in the draft. Ultimately, it does not matter whether anything you write is truthful or not if there is no reliable source to prove it. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thanks Modussiccandi for your good suggestions, I have been working in the direction you pointed at just including a lot of inline quotations, I hope now all that is fine, thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polip team (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 07:31:27, 16 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Enigmatic Naboo


An article I submitted was rejected on the grounds that the provided references weren't sufficient - "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

I would like help on sourcing the appropriate references, because I had thought the ones I used WERE notable - long-running outlets that are highly respected in their communities of Buddhism and art/Poetry or in newsprint.


Enigmatic Naboo (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Enigmatic Naboo: thank you for reaching out about this. Your instinct is right; we want to use established outlets with a reputation for fact-checking. However, there are still two other criteria that need to be fulfilled: a) that the coverage is independent of the subject and b) that the coverage is in-depth. If we now look at the sources in your draft, you'll see that many of them don't fulfil these criteria. The Northwest Darma Association website, for example, does not treat Shaw in depth since there is only one superficial paragraph. The piece in the Port Townsend Leader has more detail, but it quotes at length from an interview with Shaw and is therefore not independent. After having read through all sources in this way, I determined that the subject was not yet notable by the standard outlines at WP:GNG. (I encourage you to read the page linked to get a better feel for what is required.) So, in a nutshell, we'd like to see references to where a reliable source without a connection to the subject has covered his biography in depth. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael Schemann

Dear Modussiccandi, Thank you very much for reviewing our first draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Schemann

We have added some more evidence and it would be great to hear, if this is sufficient to publish the contribution about Prof. Michael Schemann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bienchen-2002 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bienchen-2002: thank your for your effort in improving the draft. I'm afraid the new version is not yet ready to be published. We need the precise source of the content to be given in a footnote in the appropriate place. At the moment, the 'Career' and 'Education' sections do not have a single footnote. If you do not know how to create footnotes (or inline citations, as we call them), have a read through the primer at WP:REFBEGIN. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
This is to show our appreciation for contributing to LGBTQ community articles. Many thanks, Electronicality (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Electronicality: thank you very much. I appreciate your recognition. I saw that you joined our project recently and I hope you'll stay around for a long time. Happy editing, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Request Your Help in Improving Draft:Qentelli

Hello Modussiccandi. Request your help in improving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qentelli. MaruthiSharma1234 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@MaruthiSharma1234: having taken a cursory look at your draft, I would say that the best thing you could do to ensure that it gets accepted is to add good, in-depth sources that are independent. They are what reviewers will look for. It's important that both of these aspects are satisfied. For example, the source from the Times of India (No. 5) seems to be independent, but is not of sufficient depth. If your draft has two or more of these sources, it will have good chances of acceptance. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the help ModussiccandiMaruthiSharma1234 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Your implementation of AFD closure for 172 High Street, Elstow

Hi, you recently closed the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination) with a decision to redirect the article. I supported redirection in the discussion, but I am concerned about your statement of, and implementation of, the decision. I am not mad, I want to be friendly, but I think there may be a little bit which can be learned here, and I hope you are willing to discuss this.

Specifically I disagree with your decision to redirect 172 High Street, Elstow to the article Listed buildings in Elstow, rather than to redirect it to a more specific target that I suggested in the discussion. Also I disagree with your decision not to add the category Category:Thatched buildings in England to the redirect, which I also suggested in the discussion.

I wonder, did you disagree with these specific suggestions, or think they were not adequately supported in the discussion? I did suggest them relatively late in the discussion, on 21 February while the AFD opened on 11 February. But I think they were reasonable suggestions/requests and no one disagreed with them, nor should anyone disagree with them, IMHO. Or did you simply not see them? In which case I would be concerned and I would tend to think you should not be closing AFDs. Or did you not understand them? Not everyone knows that you can target a redirect specifically to a certain table row in a table within an article. Also not everyone understands the usefulness of attaching categories to redirects. But if you did not understand these ideas, I think you should have inquired about them or left the AFD alone without closing it yourself.

A couple days have gone by now, but I hope you can remember your reasoning from the time and comment about it now. And if you do simply agree the suggestions should have been implemented, could you please implement them now.

sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI there was another AFD recently closed (by User:MBisanz) in which I suggested the article should be merged to a specific point within the target article (although I stated an anchor for "JN Fries Magnet School" needed to be set up in order to implement it), and that was explicitly supported by another AFD editor, and then the AFD closure explicitly ratified that. And since then editor User:Heartmusic678 implemented the merger, and more or less did what was decided: In this edit with summary "Merged content to Cabarrus_County_Schools#J.N._Fries_Middle_School. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JN Fries Magnet School.", they redirected JN Fries Magnet School to Cabarrus_County_Schools#J.N._Fries_Middle_School which works, because "J.N. Fries Middle School" is currently a section title within the article. It is a fairly minor point, but I would prefer setting a hidden anchor for "JN Fries Middle School" at that section, and redirecting to that, so that if the section title were ever changed, the redirect would still work. It is unlikely that an editor would ever accidentally delete what should have been put in as an anchor IMHO, {{anchor|JN Fries Middle School}}. Or it would be okay to name the anchor to be the same as the current section title (so {{anchor|J.N. Fries Middle School}}. Again if punctuation or anything else were changed in the section title, a redirect to that specific anchor name would still work. So in a while I will plan to set an explicit anchor and refine the redirect along those lines. Thank you to both MBisanz and Heartmusic678 for your attention in that example. --Doncram (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doncram: thank you for reaching out about this. Yours is a fair point. The reason I did not implement your suggestions was that, when I evaluated the consensus of the discussion, I felt that editors broadly agreed to redirect to Listed buildings in Elstow because several of them mentioned this target in their !votes. Since nobody took up your suggestion to redirect to the anchor, I did not think it represented the consensus better than the page at large. With that said, I would not have objected if you had implemented your two suggestions right after my close. I see why one wouldn't want to add the anchor without taking it up with the closer, but adding a category doesn't strike me as violating the details of the close at all. In a nutshell: I thought consensus was best represented without your suggestions, but I do not object to either of them and will implement them now. I hope this helps to explain some of my reasoning. Happy to discuss this further, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Quite apart from this, I do see that evidently good ideas can be taken up in a close regardless of whether the other participants endorse them.
I have now implemented your suggestions. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I did expect that I could make those refinements after the close without anyone objecting, but I was/am concerned about precedent or process or whatever, that AFD participants shouldn't have to keep coming back to check and ensure stuff is done, possibly with conflict, as if the AFD has to go on and on if not everything is handled in closings. Thank you for your thoughtful response. --Doncram (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for speedy deletion of Las Cruces Academy

Hello @Modussiccandi, just wanted to let you know that the Las Cruces Academy page is still under construction... it is not meant to be a promotional page but an informational one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorPublicGood999 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@WikiEditorPublicGood999: I realise that you don't consider your edits promotional. However, a page that contains language like "top-notch classes" can hardly be considered neutral. If you insist on portraying the academy in a non-neutral way, you contributions will probably be undone again. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello again Modussiccandi, wanted to let you know the page has been restored without the phrase "top-notch". And this time that page is here to stay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorPublicGood999 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  • Christmas Island AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  • Philadelphia GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  • SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  • United Nations Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  • Christmas Island AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  • Philadelphia GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  • SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  • United Nations Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Prayer for Ukraine

I took this pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with this song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations to new FA Eduard Fraenkel! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thank you! I really appreciated your review as well: Fraenkel had an interesting, but also very challenging life which I consider exactly the right topic for an FA. Thank you for your help in making it happen. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Modussiccandi! I've nominated you to receive a gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb: this is really kind of you! I hadn't actually heard of this before, so I'm excited to be nominated. Thanks a lot. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Hi Modussiccandi, I'm having a dispute with Serial Number 54129 that I am asking you to mediate, if you agree. I'm reaching out to you because I you're an admin whose judgment I trust and because you seem to be on friendly terms with Serial as well. The dispute relates to this exchange [1], now removed [2] (see also [3]). The gist of it is that I was under the impression that Serial had made a mistake here [4], when he characterized the opinion of Ritchie333 (courtesy ping) as requiring GAs for adminship. However, Serial seems to have misunderstood the meaning or intention behind this note, and our exchange has just ended with them banning me from their talk page and suggesting that I go to WP:ANI.

I wrote my first message on Serial's talk page in a hurry so it may not have been as clear and as courteous as I would've liked in retrospect. My sass here [5] was also unneeded. However, I truly did not mean anything by my comments other that was I set forth above, i.e. letting them know that Ritchie333's criteria did not require GAs to be considered for adminship.

I do not wish to be in dispute with a long term, regularly barnstared editor based on what I think is a simple misunderstanding. Of course, I'm open to the idea I'm wrong, and that maybe there's something about my messages that rightfully angered Serial, and I would be grateful to know if this is the case.

Thank you very much for your time, and please feel free to let me know if you would prefer that I reach out to another admin. JBchrch talk 02:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@JBchrch: it's true that I'm on equally good terms with both parties, so I would be willing to try and help restore good relations between the two of you. However, before I do anything else, I need to ask Serial Number 54129 if they agree to participate in this mediation. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Modussiccandi. JBchrch talk 21:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Stumbled on this, considering the fact that I have utmost respect for Serial Number 54129 and also for the fact that they are one of the 4 editors that created me & a mentor of mine also, and on the other hand JBchrch also being one of the very few people I trust It is my thinking that I can share my thoughts on this issue without bias, JB, My thinking is Serial did not “blunder” in the sense that they shared their perspective or interpretation on what Ritchie333's RFA criteria is, thus a “Perspective” invariably cannot be a (blunder). You both are very knowledgeable editors thus I know in due time you both would resolve this. Conflicts happen, it is no anomaly and I do believe the proverbial phrase that “time heals all wounds” does really apply here. JB my thinking is you requesting mediation is indicative that your “heart is in right place” and also a correct move, I however do believe that this can be reviewed and resolved at a (later time) when every party involved has “calmed down” Serial's heart is in the right place, yours is, you are both great editors but as aforementioned, I believe it best if this be reviewed at a time when equilibrium has been achieved. Modussiccandi thanks for offering to mediate. Celestina007 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In response to Serial Number 54129's statement on their talk page: I apologize for stating that your comment needed to be corrected and for accusing you of a blunder. English is not my mother tongue so I misjudged how these two words could be understood or perceived in this context. I did not intend to be aggressive or patronizing, and I did not wish for my words to have this effect. Finally, I shouldn't have been insistent and confrontational with my subsequent comments. I accept that you may take me to ANI for harassment as a result of this comment: I intend to accept the outcome thereof without making any additional comment. JBchrch talk 03:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Celestina007, I don't have much to add to your comment at this stage. I agree, JBchrch, that you've shown goodwill by asking me for mediation. Serial Number has expressed to me that they won't enter into dialogue with you just yet and that they don't wish to be contacted by you. We should respect this. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for dialogue in the future. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Modus and Celestina007 for their mediation efforts 🥮🍰🧁 cakes for everyone! SN54129 13:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Jonas Grethlein

On 14 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonas Grethlein, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jonas Grethlein turned down chaired professorships at the universities of St Andrews and Cambridge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Grethlein. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jonas Grethlein), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sanford and Lyons

Thanks for the review of the Jeannie Bradbury entry. Much appreciated. Would you take a look at the entry for an act her father was a part of? draft:sanford and lyons Previous submission seems to have been declined, but I have added primary sources, further career information, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriana2022 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Victoriana2022: thanks for reaching out. I'm sorry to say that I've already marked the article as unreviewed again. The problem is that you've not provided detailed sources about her life, which are what we need to determine notability. I've left the decision for someone else now and I believe there is a chance that the subject is non-notable. Regarding sanford and lyons: the problem is that we are looking for detailed, punished secondary sources about our subjects. The lack thereof is why the submission was rejected. I hope this helps you understand what we look for in terms of sourcing. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I added secondary sources, didn't add more primary — made a mistake writing that! Victoriana2022 (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Eduard Fraenkel

Congratulations, Modussiccandi! The article you nominated, Eduard Fraenkel, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful

A Wikimedia t-shirt!
A Wikimedia t-shirt!

Hey Modussiccandi,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandise@wikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft article of James Owen Stedman

You wrote, " I consider this one borderline. We want to see detailed biographical coverage. Of the many sources used in this submission, not one struck me as fulfilling this standard. Reference number 6 comes closest, I think."

I'm at a loss to know what you are asking me to do. I've done some additional editing and added more sources, but I frankly don't understand what you are asking for. I'd appreciate your clarification. ISTM you're asking for a biography, but I haven't found an actual biography of him. The sources that I link to document the statements in the article, and AFAIK they are all reliable, primary sources. What must I do to improve the article so that it will be accepted? Txantimedia (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Txantimedia: thank you for reaching out. I apologise for not being clearer. Wikipedia cannot have articles on any old topic; to determine what subjects can be converted on Wikipedia we have the concept of notability. We consider a topic notable when it has been covered in depth by two or more reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. All three elements have to be met ('in depth', 'reliable secondary sources', 'independent of the subject'). My worry with your subject is that the 'in depth' part is not met. We need evidence of coverage that I substantial in length and in depth; short newspaper mentions fall under that threshold. If you want to know more about this, have a read through this. I could imagine, however that this kind of coverage could exist for your subject. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Modussiccandi: Thanks for the clarification. I gather from this that I need to find biographical material about the subject that discusses his career in depth. I'm not sure that exists, but I will keep looking. Txantimedia (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, just FYI -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Sameer Kulavoor

Hi!

Thanks for your review of the captioned draft. Was super helpful. I think I have made all edits suggested by you. Please do have a look! Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sameer_Kulavoor

Editing53 Editing53 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Editing53: thank you for taking to heart my suggestions. I will have a look and hopefully promote the draft. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! Please look at my draft. Basically, the sources about this person are in Russian, but to make it easier to understand, I found a source in Forbes in English, where this person is described very extensively, including sanctions against him.31.40.143.16 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. I'm not sure I'm the right person for this review: I have little knowledge of Russian-language sources and business is not one of the areas where I have lots of editing experience. I'd suggest waiting for someone else to pick up the review (it'll happen in due course). Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Eduard Fraenkel scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 19 May 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 19, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ciceruacchio

On 16 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ciceruacchio, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ciceruacchio, a cart driver, was described as "Rome's first citizen"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ciceruacchio. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ciceruacchio), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for contesting the speedy deletion attempt at Nathalie Tocci. I've found, after writing a lot of BLPs, that people have some amazing ideas about what's promotional ... Looking over it now I literally cannot find a single positive adjective on that page! Sometimes I think there are CSD taggers who believe that neutrally worded, cited, and clearly verifiable statements of someone doing something impressive are automatically promotional, because they document something that a reader might be impressed by. Anyhow, thanks for upholding CSD rules. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: thank you for your kind message. I agree, the tagging struck me as rather unwarranted. Thank you for your contributions and I hope you weren't too bothered by the CSD tag. Best and happy editing, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you :) I would say I was mildly perturbed, but nothing more. And it was outweighed by the reassurance that there are people with good knowledge of policy actively watching CSDs. Thanks again! - Astrophobe (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

John A. Knudsen Page

Thank you very much for your insightful comments. I will continue working on my Wikipedia page and make corrections as best I can. Your comments will help me improve the information about this artist. Best wishes, Artexposure Artexposure (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dream Games

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dream Games. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe consider reverting this edit? The user hasn't edited since I posted my warning less than an hour before you, and it's very unlikely they saw it. agtx 13:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: thank you for the heads up. I have reverted the warning. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy WikiBirthday!

Hey, Modussiccandi. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Modussiccandi/Archive_6&oldid=1085750870"