User talk:The Anome/Archive 12

Latest comment: 3 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 28 February 2021
Archive 5Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Bot often missed the target object

I have found numerous instances where the coordinates provided by the bot miss the intended target. Many of these are years old, so I am not too worried, but I am wondering if any steps have been taken recently to improve the bot's performance? Abductive (reasoning) 23:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: Unfortunately, automated processes like this will always have errors: my goal is to keep the error rate as low as possible. Ultimately, I'm limited by two things: the accuracy of the NGA GNS dataset, and my analysis code's ability to correctly match Wikipedia articles to GNS locations. When I do find errors, I generally review the edits and try to find and remove any similar errors, then go back over the code and data and add heuristics to try to stop similar errors from happening again. If I find the error rate is unacceptably high for any given type of feature, I'll stop coding that feature class. Can you give me some examples of errors? -- The Anome (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
GEOnet Names Server is notoriously inaccurate. WP:WikiProject_Geographical coordinates#Which coordinates to use says it is unreliable. Maybe check against Wikimapia and OSM? As an example, the coordinates for Labirut missed the village by 4.3 km. Even if one claims that GNS rounded to D°M′, the real coordinates at 40°04′37″N 64°34′12″E should have rounded to 40°05′N 64°34′E. Abductive (reasoning) 08:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I know it's unreliable. But it's (crucially) in the public domain, and mostly accurate, and sufficiently so that it's much better than nothing, particularly for adding entries to a wiki encyclopedia based on the process of continuous improvement. For instance, being 4.3km off for a village is not great, but at least is close enough that a reader can find the village on a map. Fortunately, the bot's other activity, of adding {{coord missing}} tags, now results in about 90% of all new coordinates being added by humans, instead of from the GNS, and as the geocoding rate of eligible articles also (coincidentally) approaches 90%, this has become a virtuous circle, with more and more articles being accurately geocoded by hand from the start. Because of both of these, there are fewer and fewer GNS matches being made by the bot, and thus even fewer GNS errors being added to Wikipedia.

In the spirit of kaizen, I agree with your suggestion that we should consider checking against other sources, probably on the basis of large-scale cross-correlation of sources. OSM is the obvious one, as it's both public and accurate, but there are several concerns with this, including license incompatibility, the problem of matching OSM entries to Wikipedia articles, and the instability of OSM identifiers. Given the license incompatibility, I think the best thing that could be done would be to use an automated process to flag some subset of Wikipedia {{coord}} tags as possibly incorrect, and then let the wiki process take over from there. There is an ongoing effort to add Wikidata identifiers to OSM, and that's probably the most promising avenue to explore for future work. -- The Anome (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

So, what about the over-rounding? GNS says Labirut is at 40°02'37"N, 64°31'54"E. Why round? It can only make the coordinates worse on average. Abductive (reasoning) 08:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The rounding is to prevent the impression of over-precision. But the example you give is interesting: that might actually be a bug. I'll investigate. -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it seems to be correct: from my log:
reading Labirut... removing {{coord missing}} tag... writing... {{coord|40|03|N|64|32|E|display=title|region:UZ_type:city_source:GNS-enwiki}} written
, which is the correct rounding for the value you give above. -- The Anome (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Rounding will nearly always increase the error. At 45° N (or S) latitude, one arc-minute is approximately 1314 meters. The desired (true) coordinates of the target, supposing the database is correct to the arc-second, fall in an approximately 22 m circle. If rounded, the coordinates will fall on average about 646 m away from the target in the east-west direction, and 646 m away in the north-south direction, which works out to an average of 913 meters away from the target. Abductive (reasoning) 10:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I know this. The aim of these bot-generated coordinates is to convey a rough location so that the reader can find the object in question on a map, not to pinpoint the object. Given the general rattiness of the GNS data, I've deliberately rounded the coordinates so as not to give an impression of over-precision.

I have a longer-term strategy to make everything nicer again, as follows: we cannot use the data from OSM directly, because of the OSM license, but we can use it as a source of facts to cross-check the GNS data. What we could do would be to cross-correlate the Wikipedia and matching GNS data with the OSM data (using a combination of name, feature type and proximity to establish unambiguous correspondence), and if OSM confirms that the GNS data is sufficiently accurate, use the full-resolution GNS data instead of the rounded data. I could then run a big batch job using my bot to replace the lower-resolution coordinates with the better ones. (Also, if the OSM data shows the current coordinates are really badly off, the coordinates on Wikipedia could also be flagged as questionable, to help other editors improve them.)

Addendum: my reasoning behind my approach on this follows G. K. Chesterton's maxim "Anything [sufficiently] worth doing is worth doing [even somewhat] badly". That is to say, even poor-but-reasonable quality data is better than no data, provided that it does not give the impression of being anything else. It can then be used to a base on which to build improvements, which is very much the Wikipedia way. This contrasts with the OSM approach of "only the best is good enough", which is the other reasonable approach. Both are useful, and while mutually incompatible within a single project, they are both ways to advance the larger goal of growing and improving the overall information commons. -- The Anome (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

These DM with no S coordinates are convincing dimbulbs that DM is acceptable--and some of the dimmest bulbs, that DMS is unacceptable--in articles. Given that you are labeling the coords with source=GNS, people will be able to gauge the reliablity of the coords without the additional code of being in DM. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: Don't worry, I'm on it. I'm just taking a long view on this: I've been running the bot since 2006, at a time when Wikipedia had almost no coordinates on it, and we've now reached the point where, almost a million bot edits later, and in a collaborative process across the entire editing community, we've now reached roughly 90% coverage of all potentially-geocodeable articles. Of those bot-added coordinates, about 14,000 were sourced from GNIS (which is good quality public domain dd/mm/ss data), about 90,000 from GNS, and 100,000 from interwiki links within Wikipedia, with most of the other bot edits being the addition of {{coord missing}}. At the same time, we have over a million geocoded pages, the majority of which were not geocoded by my bot, but by the community.

Quality improvement is just one part of that process, and one I take an incremental, collaborative view on. If there is poor-resolution data, or people are getting things wrong, we can help them get things right. What might help is a tracking category to let people find GNS-sourced coordinates for future improvement. Another possibility might be a more generic system to flag geodata for smaller features (villages, buildings, monuments etc.) that have only DDMM data: I'll look into it. -- The Anome (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know how it is progressing. Abductive (reasoning) 19:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Will do. Please note that this may take several months for me to even start addressing; I've got quite a long to-do list in this area (see User:The_Anome#Geodata_to-do), and a life outside Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

16:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #3

 
On 16 March 2020, the 50 millionth edit was made using the visual editor on desktop.

Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:

  • The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
  • More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
  • Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
  • The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
  • Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
  • On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
  • In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This page

Hello, I need some advice here. This page had undergone an Afd whereby the result was Delete. I think the subject of the article is still not notable for an article. Should I tag it for CSD or put it up again at Afd. Thanks Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi,

I came across your proactive contribution to Internalized sexism. I have recently started a new article @ Draft:Sexual politics and I am looking for some proactive support in updating and expansion of the article. Please do help in update and expansion if topic Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.


Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Dont blind revert without justification

Im undoing ur vandalism reverts to my editrs to Exclusive economic zone of India. Remember you must justify reverts, cite the policy violation to support your justification, prove intention to collaborate iteratively by offering sugegstion. blind reverts without justification and without informing the other editor is pure vandalism. You could be banned. Refain from such outright vandalism. Respect all editors, including IPs. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm a bit unsure what you find problematic about this. Here are the diffs for the edits in question. As you can see, my revert reverted an edit by my own bot (in effect, a self-revert) and I think the edit record makes it clear what happened, without needing an extra edit comment. The combination of my bot edit and my revert, taken together, left the article exactly as it was before. -- The Anome (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. In hind sight, I think your bot had also reverted my "see also". I had reinserted those yesterday and all is gine now. Please take a look at bot codes to ensure it reverts only the offending edit and not all the contiguous edits by the same editor. Apologies if I came across harsh, I do not want to make you feel discouraged specially when you are doing a great selfless work. Thanks for your contribution and hardwork. Keep it up. Big salute with a warm hug. Cheers buddy. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello again! If you take a closer look at the diffs, here and here, you can see that the only text added, and then removed in the next edit, was the tag {{coord missing|India}}. It's possible that you had an edit conflict with one or the other edits, but neither added or removed anything but the tag. -- The Anome (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

query

Hi, You recently blocked User talk:AnmunBot, because username contains the suffix "-bot". However this is actually a bot account created for bnwiki (please see bn:ব্যবহারকারী:AnmunBot). The bot owner recently made a usurpation request for this bot account on bnwiki & per Instructions here, bot owner user his bot account to leave a message on the talk page of the target account (user should have been used his main account rather that bot account for this). Because of this block on enwiki, usurpation request was denied on bnwiki. As far i know this bot won't edit on enwiki. Could you please unblock this bot, so that usurpation request can go ahead or should a formal request needed from bot's account/from bot owner? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: I've unblocked the account. Good luck with your efforts. -- The Anome (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. However i'm still seeing it is blocked. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Joker filming locations has been nominated for deletion

 

Category:Joker filming locations has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

16:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

19:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Russia

I've relaunched The Russia report off your redirect. Great work on the ISC article. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Districts of Bas-Uele Province

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_4#Former_subdivisions_in_D._R._Congo. – Fayenatic London 10:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, The Anome. When you changed Computed tomography from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Computed tomography" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted the disambiguation, per WP:TWODABS, and for lack of a discussion of whether the longstanding redirect target is the primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 00:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Illusory pattern perception

Say, I'm think that we should merge your article "Illusory pattern perception" into the Apophenia article, and make Illusory pattern perception a redirect. Sound reasonable? Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA)

Hello, The Anome, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Atsme, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA).

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Atsme}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Atsme Talk 📧 21:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA)

Hello, The Anome, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Atsme, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA).

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Atsme}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Atsme Talk 📧 21:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

20:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

just to inform you

vandalize a content page for rickr0ll = bad

make an discussion on a joke talk page and rickr0ll someone = not bad.

Arandomitalo-japaneseamerican (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"Cultural references in Pokemon" listed at Redirects for discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cultural references in Pokemon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 27#Cultural references in Pokemon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #4

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

 
The number of comments posted with the Reply Tool from March through June 2020. People used the Reply Tool to post over 7,400 comments with the tool.

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

  • More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
  • Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
  • Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[37]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

New requirements for user signatures

  • The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
  • Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.

Next: New discussion tool

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
 
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Coord missing test

 Template:Coord missing test has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

21:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Amenorrhea

Amenorrhea is absence of menses during the reproductive year's Can you please tell me what's wrong in this statement? I will appreciate your answer 🤓 AEMA2050 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@AEMA2050: Amenorrhea is the absence of a menstrual period in a woman of reproductive age: Indeed it is. But since the article already says, in its first sentence: "Amenorrhea is the absence of a menstrual period in a woman of reproductive age", it doesn't need to be said a second time, in a slightly different way, immediately after. -- The Anome (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:COVID-19 denialism has been nominated for discussion

 

Category:COVID-19 denialism has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~EdGl talk 21:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply

Okay thank you, I'll continue to do further research. Thanks for your interest in the article topic, and my attempts to expand and improve the page, most appreciated, Right cite (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a quandary of an issue, she's clearly also separately notable for her award-winning work on the film, Diminuendo, and could even warrant a separate article under her other work with the other name. I've reached out to her to see what her wishes would be. Hopefully I'll hear back. Right cite (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hey Anome, no issue with your editing and obviously thanks for taking to the talk page but I left an alert on the other two user's talk pages, so in the interests of equity. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, not sure if you noticed but this edit was through the page protection. Given that you're involved in the dispute as an editor it would be best if reverted yourself and instead filed an edit request. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

16:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Pakistani-held Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pakistani-held Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Pakistani-held Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Barry, MO

The lat/lon of Barry, Missouri town center is 39°14'47.9"N 94°36'07.9"W. I don't know how to add those to the article. 15:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.165.112 (talk)

Thanks for letting me know. I've added them to the article in this edit. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:London bus and coach stations

 Template:London bus and coach stations has been nominated for merging with Template:London bus, BRT and coach stations. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Hi, I noted recently that Template:London bus and coach stations which you created is almost identical to the newer Template:London bus, BRT and coach stations. As they are so similar, following advise at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport I have suggested that they be merged into a single template. Dunarc (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

“West Bank Bantustans” title

Hi The Anome, regarding your edit at “West Bank Bantustans”, there is currently an active RFC on the talk page specifically requesting comments about the title. Your edit was reverted for that reason, but please feel free to contribute at the RFC on the talk page. Drsmoo (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bot broke my citation!

Hallo, your Anomebot2 is mildly malfunctioning: in this edit it added {{Coord missing}}, appropriately, but in an inappropriate place: in the middle of the {{Cite web}} being used as an External link. A human editor checking their work would have noticed the red error message " line feed character in |journal= at position 170" it produced, but a bot is a bot and left to run unchecked, I suppose - thus all the more important to make sure that it behaves itself correctly. I've moved the Coords template to the right place, and refined the geog parameter (though as Kent wasn't mentioned in the categories I don't blame the bot for not using it!). Happy Editing. PamD 19:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting that! It looks like some old, old code triggered that error -- the bot's parser mistook your the wikilink beginning "Wye:" as an interlanguage link. I'll remove the support for the now-obsolete interlanguage link format, and it shouldn't happen again. Thanks again, The Anome (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Vybe Together for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

ViperSnake151  Talk  03:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Modibo Nama Traoré

 

The article Modibo Nama Traoré has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not seeing significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Rank of major is not sufficient to satisfy WP:SOLDIER

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dumelow (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Something I forgot to write in my latest UAA report.

Hi. I get that the username name was based on a surname, but their sole edit summary seemed promotional. I forgot to write that. Does that change anything? Sorry, I am a bit new to UAA. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wesley Stinky

I don't understand this block at all. This is a username violation how? --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's deliberately obnoxious. Words like "stinky", "poopy" etc. are juvenile insults that tend to create a hostile evironment for other editors. -- The Anome (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not possible that it was just meant to be self-deprecating? --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Since you seem disinterested in discussing this further, I have requested comments at WP:AN. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Not disinterested, but just distracted elsewhere. I've replied there. -- The Anome (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting your inputs plus some help in article expansions

Greetings,

Since I stumbled upon related sources I initiated an article draft Draft:Irrational beliefs. It seems you have earlier worked on article Irrationality. I would like to request your inputs plus some help in article expansion. Please do visit the draft, and help expand if feel interested in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: Your draft looks interesting, but it's quite closely related to the topics covered in the irrationality article. In what way do you distinguish the two topics? -- The Anome (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome:, I was expecting this question, which is as much in my own mind, and that is one of the reason to approached you to know your point of views. In fact approaching few other users has opened discussion @ Draft talk:Irrational beliefs#Related Articles.

Let me share my perception (/my original research); IMO Irrationality is a broader topic, Where in 'irrational thinking' is part of it; Irrational belief is 'self accepted or trusted thought with no or dubious rational' (here along with contesting of rational, emphasis is on 'self acknowledgement of some level of acceptance and or trust in given thought/thinking by some/one).

Cognitive distortion and Fallacy study irrationality in systematic manner.

Irrational beliefs when followed by more than one person over a period of time like a tradition need be called Superstition.

Now all of my own rambling above amounts to original research, If any one get to WP:link term 'Irrational beliefs' to any of articles like Cognitive distortion,Fallacy, Irrationality or Superstition all 'believing' Wikipedians will be asking vociferously for Reliable sources approachable to Wikipedia rules.

Until we work on Irrational beliefs, Which and how many Wikipedia acceptable reliable sources and scholars link Irrational beliefs to which concepts directly will remain unclear. So that is why my own take while starting the draft has been to do encyclopedic research and write let the draft wherever it goes and let Wikipedia community decide what to do with it in due course whether to maintain it independent or merge some where; in any case related Wikipedia article topics will improve is important for us.

I can not be sure on my own that, my above opinions are in right direction and hence would like to know your point of view and how we can improve coverage of the topic at hand.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

16:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

 
Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

  • The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
  • It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

  • As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
  • There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[105]
  • The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[106] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
  •   A large A/B test will start soon.[107] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

 
Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[108] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

 

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Draped garment

Hello you created the subject article 18 years ago. I genuinely appreciate it. I am always interested in topics related to textile history. It is one of the gems. I have made few edits on the same; kindly see and advise. RV (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar Bingo!

  The Admin's Barnstar
You are nice OmegySock (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  All-Around Amazing Barnstar
You are nice OmegySock (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  The Barnstar of Diligence
You are nice OmegySock (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You are nice OmegySock (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  The Original Barnstar
You are nice OmegySock (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


The Anome

Trempealeau, Wisconsin

I noticed that you moved the village page and created a disambiguation page. You have opened a can of worms as this move was controversial. It goes against a state naming convention of about 15 years. The political subdivisions of Wisconsin are unusual. There are hundreds of villages and cities in Wisconsin. The rural area outside of these municipalities are called towns. MANY towns have the same name as the municipalities but are 100% politically independent. Towns are 6 mile by 6 mile land masses but exclude area in municipalities. The consensus in the naming convention is to give the municipality the primary topic with a hatnote to the unrelated town. In some instances, there are towns with the same name in multiple counties too! Then a disambiguation page was created. The issue that you inadvertently stepped into comes up several times every year by unsuspecting edits [125]. Royalbroil 15:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I didn't realise that. I will have a go at putting everything back in place tomorrow, with appropriate comments in the hatnotes to try to make sure other editors don't fall down the same hole again. -- The Anome (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. Thank you for all that you do!! I have seen your name many times on Wikipedia over the years. Royalbroil 01:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Something for Everybody (Devo album)

Can something please be done about the vandals on Something for Everybody (Devo album) ASAP? CLCStudent (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it for 3 days. If you get any more problems, please let me know. -- The Anome (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

Can *Between gum and tooth be blocked as soon as possible? The account is evading the block of globally locked user Reaper EternaI [129]. Please check their contribs. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. They are abusing their talk page [130]. Ashleyyoursmile! 09:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I've just blocked their talk page access as well. Please let me know if you get any more problems. -- The Anome (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.   Ashleyyoursmile! 09:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

00:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Archeological sites on NRHP in South Dakota

Hi, I happen to be building a table at Paleontology in South Dakota#Protected areas and creating a lot of redirects from NRHP list-articles over to rows in the table, e.g. Archeological Site 39FA86 for one in Fall River County, South Dakota, in the Black Hills. I notice in "what links here" for several of these your userpage User:The Anome/NHRP detaggables, indicating you have some interest? I think I am doing okay developing a little bit from one big South Dakota state report, but comments/suggestions/participation in development would be welcomed by me!--Doncram (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram: Thanks for letting me know. I will try to take a look in the next few days. -- The Anome (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021