Jump to content

User talk:Mdaniels5757/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Mdaniels5757

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdaniels5757 (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 3 August 2020 (→Some stroopwafels for you!: archived using OneClickArchiver)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

8'46"

Hi there. Can you elaborate more on your close rationale for Talk:Eight_minutes_46_seconds#Requested_move_10_June_2020? Paintspot initially raised concerns at a subsequent RM for that page (since withdrawn), but I also have similar questions. To me, it seemed that there was no guideline-based support at the subthread Talk:Eight_minutes_46_seconds#Sanity_break to spell out "Eight"; one person initally said it was based on the AP-based MOS, but they withdrew their support. Others !votes for "eight" were not based on a guideline, while I explained that our MOS had no preference for this case, which one other agreed and nobody rebutted. Thanks in advance. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi Bagumba. Thanks for reaching out. In summary, I found (and retrospectively numbered) (1.) a strong consensus to move away from 8'46" to (in regex form) /(8|Eight) minutes( and)? 46 seconds/, and (2.) a somewhat weak consensus that the value represented by the word "eight" should be spelled out in the title. Since I don't think the former is in dispute (although I'd be happy to provide a more detailed explanation of that if you wish), a more detailed explanation of only the latter follows.
Background: the guidelines are a mess on this. Going off of any version of MOS:NUM between May 29 and June 15, it's not clear that the relevant portion of MOSNUM applies to titles at all. (The "generally, in article text" part of MOS:SPELL09 applies only to, well, article text. However, the "notes and exceptions" section that could otherwise apply doesn't say so. But it makes no sense to have the scope of the exceptions exceed the scope of the rule! Further complicating matters, one of the exceptions is that "proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered", and the examples are links to and/or titles of Wikipedia articles, so maybe it does apply?) However, even assuming the MOS applies, the MOS doesn't tell us much of use when the integer we need to decide how to represent is expressible by the word "eight", only that "figures or words may be used with unit names ([n] minutes or [number] minutes), within the guidelines above" (but "the guidelines above" say "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words"). Given all of this, I weighted appeals to MOS for this portion of the discussion less than I normally would. For obvious reasons, for question 2, I weighted discussion that took place after "Eight minutes forty-six seconds" was proposed more than discussion that took place before the proposal (although I did take the reasoning of each participant into account in evaluating the question, even if they did not participate in the later discussion).
Turning to the the discussion of question 2 itself: I found that the consensus was clearly for one of what User:EEng numbered B2 and B3 (with, perhaps, an "and" thrown in, but there was minimal discussion on that). Both were well-argued, to the point that my weightings based on the strength of both arguments were equal. However, B2 received the support of 4 in the subthread, and B3 received the support of only two (counting yours as B3). That would be a fairly strong consensus, but given the goings-on outside of the subthread, I think it was weaker (but still there). An aside: WP:NCDURATION wasn't mentioned as far as I noticed, probably because its examples don't really seem to consider shorter periods of time. We should probably work on that if there is a consensus either way.
All of that being said, I think that there is actually a chance that a RM squarely focused on the following two questions would reach a different result, at least on one of them: (a) Should the integer represented by the word "eight" be expressed as "8" or "eight"? and (b) Should the word "and" go between "minutes" and "46"? I wouldn't be too opposed to one being started on that; although I think the differences are minor enough that it might not be worth the effort, others may not agree.
I hope the above is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions, or if you have any interest in working on making this labyrinth of MOS/Naming Conventions a bit less labyrinthian. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this. FWIW, my !vote was for "8 minutes and 46 seconds", which wasn't any of the "A" or "B" options. I read the "sanity break" thread and nothing therein persuaded me to change my !vote (which was based on common name, with examples provided). I count more than half a dozen editors voting the same way I did. I didn't realize that my vote would be weighed less because it came before the sanity break section. Frankly I didn't think I had to comment again because "8 minutes and 46 seconds" had such a large lead in terms of votes over any other option presented. Don't get me wrong, I think your rationale above is well reasoned and extremely thorough. You've clearly put a lot of thought into the close, for which I'm grateful. And I'm a big believer in "not a vote". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I'm sorry for that. I think I did fully consider your non-vote, and I should probably further elaborate on how exactly I did that weighting. There were effectively three questions to answer in the RM yes, I did list only two above.... Abandoning my labelling from above, they were: (a) Should the title have "minutes" and "seconds"? (per MOS:UNITNAMES) (b) Should the first integer be spelled out? and (c) Should the word "and" be between "minutes" and "46"?. The non-votes in before the section break fully considered issue (a), and I fully took those comments into account on that issue. However, the non-votes before the section break (with a couple of exceptions) did not discuss issues (b) and (c), and therefore, I did not take those particular non-votes into account on determining those issues. I did, however, fully take into account your WP:COMMONNAME argument, which, although having merit, was not discussed by others (although it was seconded). Your argument is why I described the consensus on issues (b) and (c) as weak, and why it could change.
Turning to the my closure's result itself: Although I think there was a consensus on (b) and (c) in the direction that I closed it, I think a "no consensus" close would have also been reasonable for those issues (I still don't think there was a positive consensus for your version, given the section break discussion). However, that would raise the question: "What should the article be renamed to, given the consensus on (a) being that there are serious other issues with the title?". Although I'm not convinced I should undo my closure (because there would be a second RM either way), in retrospect, I probably should not have closed the discussion at all. Instead I should have acted as a facilitator, asking others who had not yet discussed (b) and (c) to do so, and trying to further develop discussion on the WP:COMMONNAME argument. That would have probably led to a more robust consensus, one way or another. Thoughts, @Levivich? (also, please let me know if you want me to stop pinging you...) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I think your analysis is solid. I agree it comes down to (b) and (c), or "eight/8" and "and". From a COMMONNAME perspective, the "and" bit could go either way: some sources include "and", others omit it. I view that as a "tie", which can be broken by MOS in preference for omitting the "and", basically per EEng's arguments. The "Eight/8" part is the tougher one for me. It seems to me that "8" is far preferred by sources, especially in titles of works (i.e. headlines). MOS clearly says "eight". Part of me thinks, "Well AT is a policy and MOS is a guideline", but I generally dislike "its only a guideline" arguments. There's something to be said for "we should write it the right way even if no one else does". But that seems to go against COMMONNAME. Do you see it that way on the "eight/8" issue? As COMMONNAME-vs-MOS? In the end, if this were to be pursued further, it seems like a relist (with a helpful relisting statement to guide further discussion, as you suggest) is more efficient than a second RM or an MR. On the other hand, I think this is a purely stylistic and not-at-all-substantive titling dispute (unlike, say, "death of..." v. "murder of..."), so I'm personally rather ambivalent about whether further discussion would be productive, or whether we should just "make a call" (as you have done) and move on. (And no I appreciate the pings, thank you, and WarGames is a classic!) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: Agreed on both counts. If people want that relist, I'll do it, but I agree that it might not be worth it. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
A relist could be an option, but with an WP:IAR of not reverting back to 8'46", for which it's unanimous that it's wrong.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
IMO the article ought to be merged anyhow, and may very well be. BTW turns out it's not 8 minutes and 46 seconds, it's 7 minutes and 46 seconds, and I think that will dampen the lasting significance of this slogan. Or maybe everyone will just update their signs. We'll see. [1] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It's independent of the close, at any rate.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: Throwing a wrench into the AT vs MOS debate, it's never been clear if AT applies to styling of titles. These options are all the same time duration, and moreorless read the same as a title. They are just styled differently. For the names of works e.g. books, films, songs, etc." we typically defer to the styling of the original. But this about Floyd is more of a descriptive idea as opposed to a title of a work. Anyways, this was all not part of the RM discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Bagumba! The reason I opened up that "part 2" Requested move is because a majority of people seemed to prefer the consistent numerals ("8 minutes 46 seconds") over the combined half-and-half version (among the other reasons listed at the withdrawn move request). Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757: I appreciate the response. Yes, my main concern is your point 2 re: "eight" vs. "8". A few responses to some of your comments: ... it's not clear that the relevant portion of MOSNUM applies to titles at all: Perhaps, but I don't think that was a point brought up by the participants. Given all of this, I weighted appeals to MOS for this portion of the discussion less than I normally would.: But I don't believe any participants said "don't follow the MOS because it doesn't make sense." Thus, I don't think it should be a factor in the close. I weighted discussion that took place after "Eight minutes forty-six seconds" was proposed more than discussion that took place before the proposal: I don't see why they would be given additional weight. There wasn't any inherent bad assumption made earlier nor any quideline oversights. This also presupposes that there is WP:SILENT support of later comments, but participants typically dont check back unless they are pinged. However, B2 received the support of 4 in the subthread ...: I see only 2: intially it was EEng, VikingB, and Psiĥedelisto—I consider EEng to have withdrawn that support. Those 2 didn't elaborate on why they liked one over the other. Blaylockjam10 and I provided a rationale for our choice of "8", and mentioned that its allowable per the MOS. Of course, discussions aren't a pure !vote count either. I think that there is actually a chance that a RM squarely focused on the following two questions would reach a different result ... I don't see the arguments supporting "eight" being stronger, and are in the minority of the entire discussion. I think we do go with the majority in that case, but it is fair for mention in the close about no prejudice on a further narrow discussion on "eight" vs "8". Regardless of how you view the weighting now, you do need to expand the close's rationale and mention any acceptable RM options that could be opened and not be considered disruptive. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Thanks for your response. I've added to my closure rationale and expressed approval/non-opposition for a more focused RM here. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand I'm pinged in here somewhere but when I went looking I got disoriented and became dizzy. All I can say is if you guys try to add in the comma or the and I'll sic the MOS mob on you. EEng 21:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, well, dear, worry not, my friend, for I can say, without a doubt, "Bagumba and Mdaniels and Paintspot and I would never do such a thing." Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Well-advised move?

May I assume here that you were not aware that Charles XV is called Charles IV in Norway, and that that one probably should not have been on that list? His grandfather Charles XIV John of Sweden has a similar feature & was not moved. Could you reverse Charles XV and give us a chance to discuss that aspect? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

help

I know my page that I created was declined to publish, what can I do or fix that can be done to correct it, so that it could be published. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ramos r2fx (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Raymond Ramos r2fx: Hi. I have a couple of suggestions, but first, are you Raymond Ramos (the person whose article you created)? (Also, please remember to sign your talk messages with four tildes (~)). Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Conventional PCI

Hi Mdaniels5757,
The Talk doesn't redirects to Talk:Peripheral Component Interconnect, I think needs to be move or merge by an admin. — YoungForever(talk) 00:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #423

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • Ptable displays the periodic table automatically extracted from information provided by Wikidata; it also provides a check that all the elements are there with some basic properties. Additional pages provide charts of the nuclides under different criteria such as half-life. Each element or nuclide is linked to its Wikidata item for more information or to edit if necessary.
  • Development
    • More work on the consistent design system (Phabricator board)
    • More work on decoupling the different Wikibase extensions from each other
    • Polishing the first step of Federation (using Wikidata's Properties in another Wikibase installation) (incl. preventing users from selecting a federated property with a non-supported data type (phab:T252012) and preventing users from accessing Special:NewProperty when federation is enabled (phab:T255576) and viewing a list of all properties when federation is enabled (phab:T246339))
    • Continuing research and interviews around the topic of making it easier to access Wikidata's data for programmers
    • Doing first testing of mockups and prototypes of the first version of the Query Builder - coding can start soon
    • Convert a few properties from string to external identifier: Linguasphere code (P1396), KOATUU identifier (P1077) and ISIN (P946)

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.

You've got mail!

Hello, Mdaniels5757. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Paul again....
Message added 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

——Serial # 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #424

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events
    • Upcoming: Next Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group call: New co-facilitator introductions and tools for editathons, 14 July. Agenda
    • Upcoming video: Wikipedia Weekly Network - LIVE Wikidata editing #12, 18 July Facebook, YouTube
    • Past: Celtic Knot Wikimedia language conference, online, July 9-10. Videos, documentation and slides of sessions are accessible from the program page.
  • Tool of the week
    • DragNDrop.js makes it possible to show a Wikipedia article and drag items to Wikidata.
  • Development
    • Continued building out documentation for Federated Properties (phabricator:T255651) and making interface improvements to the first stage of the feature (incl. phabricator:T246886, changes to special pages that interact with both Items/Properties, and phabricator:T255581, changes to Special:ListDataTypes when federation is enabled)
    • More work on the consistent design system
    • More work on decoupling the different Wikibase extensions from each other to make development easier
    • Finalizing research and interviews to better understand what could be improved in the way developers access Wikidata's data (APIs, SPARQL)
    • Testing the first prototype of the Simple Query Builder with some editors to get final input before coding starts
    • Sorting of language links on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects was broken (presumably by a change in MediaWiki core). A fix is being worked on. (phabricator:T257625)

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.

False lead in sock-puppeting investigations

Hi; I have a block through my phone's IP for sockpuppeting from user Berean Hunter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berean_Hunter). I took a look at their talk page and saw a lot of discussion of an investigation into it mostly in a conversation with you so I figured I'd reach out to you too. I just wanted to point out that that block was misguided. I don't even think I've made more than one edit on my phone ever, so after looking up what sock-puppeting is, I figure my phone was probably one of the IPs being abused by the puppeteer. It's not a huge deal, as I said I rarely edit from my phone anyway and obviously can still edit from my computer. It looked like the investigation had some false leads so I am hoping it's helpful in tracking the issue down to let you know my IP isn't the source of the problem. I'll be emailing Berean Hunter to let them know too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.53.175 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Closed discussion

I noticed that you recently closed the discussion at Talk:2014 ICC Awards, but the 2015 LG ICC Awards redirect still exists. Given the 2015 ceremony wasn't sponsored by LG Electronics, would you also be willing to help me delete it? — 29cwcst (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 16

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (May and June 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 16th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

If anyone else would like to contribute to future issues, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Scripts++. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional trans characters

Hi there, I didn't see that there was a discussion over changing the article title to contain the word "trans", and I was surprised that this was the case. Given that there were two comments in support and two in opposition, I'm reopening the discussion and will be reverting the title to the original, through the appropriate channels. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Your math is off. Three (including the nominator, but not including the nominator's second !vote) people were in favor of "trans" and 2 were opposed. Of course, consensus is not a matter of counting votes, and even if the !votes were 2-2, I would have found that the contention that "List of fictional trans characters" is ambiguous lacks merit, that WP:PRECISION (policy) says that "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that", and weighed !votes accordingly. If you believe that I assessed the consensus there incorrectly, or that there was significant additional information not discussed, you are welcome to explain in more detail here, and, if needed, list my closure for move review. However, simply reopening the discussion would be out of process, and adding a non-vote to a closed discussion fruitless. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
To be clear I am not including the nominator and I am not including myself either. There was clearly no consensus at the time, and more views should have been countenanced. I would agree that "transgender" is more precise than "trans", particularly in this context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: Thanks for your response. First of all, closers should include the nominator in assessing consensus, and I believe I properly did so. I think that there was a consensus at the time, both numerical (unweighted based on strength of arguments) and weighted. Per WP:MRV, if you wish to challenge my closure, please state here, with details, how I "did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI" or "was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion". Best, -Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I have no issue with including the view of the nominator, and I do not think you have failed to follow the spirit or intent of policy. What I am saying is that there was clearly no strong consensus either in support or against, and in regular circumstances more participants should have been included. I'm simply notifying you of this as a courtesy to you. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for closing and moving the RM for Climate Pledge Arena. Someone moved it earlier today before the discussion closed, and I had to move it back. I couldn't close it myself as was involved in the discussion. I was pretty sure it would close as a move (that's what I would have done anyway), but in such cases procedure needs to be followed. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@BilCat: You're welcome! --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RM template

Hi. Re this, sure, a single request works fine, but multiple requests generate a 'wrong page' error. — kwami (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yes. When using {{subst:RMassist}} (for technical requests only), you must use one template per request. Thus, Special:Diff/965888008 was four {{subst:RMassist}} uses. Note, however, that {{subst:Requested move}} (for starting new discussions only), allows multiple pages to be nominated for discussion in one template call. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks. I'll just enter multiple copies of the template next time. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #425

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events
    • Upcoming: The First Wikidata Workshop: Second Call for Papers. Papers due: August 10, 2020 | Workshop date: October 29, 2020
    • Upcoming: next Wikidata office hour, July 21st at 16:00 UTC (18:00 CEST) in the Wikidata Telegram group. Query Service special with guests from WMF Search Team.
    • Upcoming: Wikidata Lab XXIV: Posicionamento digital relativo with Ederporto - July 23 17:00 UTC (14:00 BRT). In this technical training, we'll study the possibilities and functionalities of relative digital positioning in images and do practical activities on this topic using historical photographs of the city of São Paulo. The event will be held in Portuguese. Join us!
    • Upcoming video: July 21 - Wikipedia Weekly Network - Entity Schemas and Shape Expressions (ShEx) Facebook YouTube
    • Upcoming video: July 25 - Wikipedia Weekly Network - LIVE Wikidata editing #13 Facebook YouTube
    • Upcoming: Kidok-Workshop, online workshop about church building data. In German, non-native users welcome. Currently looking for a date in the upcoming week and people to help!
    • Upcoming video: Beyond Wikipedia - Knowledge that even a computer can understand. July 22, 2020 at 17:00 UTC. In this talk, Zbyszko Papierski will present Wikidata Query Service as one way that developers can interact with Wikidata.
  • Development
    • More work on the consistent design system
    • More work on decoupling the different Wikibase extensions from each other to make development easier:
    • Prepare the first development phase for the Simple Query Builder
    • Reference game: run a scraper, work on a dashboard that will gives an overview of the potential references that have already been judged in the game
    • Fix a bug related to maximum limit of search results (phab:T256885)
    • Resolve some configuration issues regarding Entity Sources (phab:T254315)
    • Federated Properties:
      • Changes to special pages that interact with both items/properties when federation is enabled (phab:T246886)
      • Changes to Special:ListDatatypes when federation is enabled (phab:T255581)
    • Add new monolingual language codes: mic (Miꞌkmaq), gil (Kiribati)

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.

A Barnstar for you!

The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
For exemplary service at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) Specifically, thanks for fulfilling RX requests that otherwise would have been closed as stale. Keep up the good work! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ditto!

The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for your sterling work! That was great stuff, much appreciated, and so prompt too. Many thanks indeed! Although I'll be cursing you tomorrow when, yet again, I don't get any work done  ;) All the best! ——Serial # 17:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For fulfilling WP:RX's trickiest requests—thank you! czar 19:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Move of page pantsdrunk

You recently closed my move request of pantsdrunk to kalsarikännit as "do not move". If you read User:Urjanhai's comments, he suggests that kalsarikänni without the "t" is a better move target, as that's what the original Finnish article fi:kalsarikänni uses. So I wish to propose a new move to kalsarikänni. JIP | Talk 12:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@JIP: Feel free to propose such a move if you wish in the future, but I don't think that it's likely to gain consensus based on the recent discussion, which I read as your nomination, 1 !vote being neutral on which language to use but saying that a different Finnish word should be used instead, and 2 !votes opposing a move to a non-English word per WP:USEENGLISH. I suggest waiting a few weeks first, and then arguing that there is WP:DIVIDEDUSE in English-language sources (assuming that this is true) in your nomination. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I can confirm also here, as I said in comment to the request, that I don't have and will not have any opinion concerning the question whether or not the name of the article should be translated or not in en-wikipedia. I only told my opinion about the question, what form of the word should be used if the untranslated name would be chosen to be used in the name of the article. As a non native speaker of english I really do not have any competence to assess this question in this particular case.--Urjanhai (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Asshole

You really make me mad. Just let me edit Barney you old hag. You could probably be my dad tbh. Ireallyreallyreallyloveharryedwardstyles (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A message from Sonther4ever

Help us to fix information. We are in contact with friends from Alberto Carpani and we are already tired to read that wikipedia is spreading wrong information about his death. Unfortunately any tabloid which is not a reliable source, published lies, but not even the source taken for that tells that Alberto had COVID-19, his test was negative, he died due different health problems. Now his fans are confused because the info from wikipedia is very wrong. What can we do in order to solve this problem? Please we will appreciate your help, more than rules, this is a human issue.--Sonther4ever (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi User:Sonther4ever. In order to prevent misinformation, Wikipedia requires that all information be properly sourced. I've changed the wording to "lung infection" in order to accurately reflect the cited source. Additional information should not be added unless cited to a reliable source. Best, --02:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #426

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • We would love suggestions for tools to include in this section of the weekly summary. Please add your suggestions directly under Status updates/Next#Backlog after checking that the tool isn't already listed.
  • Development
    • Changed the size of image previews to 1024 in the gallery view of the query service to avoid some images not loading sometimes (phabricator:T258241)
    • Added an actual space between the entity title and the name of the fallback language (if any), so that the fallback language isn't selected anymore when double-clicking the entity title for copying (phabricator:T256857)
    • Fixed the directionality of text pieces in placeholders that mix LTR and RTL (phabricator:T253812)
    • Continued work on first pieces of design system to make coding new features easier in the future
    • Continued untangling the code of Wikibase Client and Wikibase Repo to make it easier to develop on them
    • Finished first piece of research on how to make it easier to access Wikidata's data for programmers - more work to be done
    • Preparing to start coding on the Query Builder to make it easier to create queries without having to know SPARQL
    • Finished running the scraper that gets potential new references for unreferenced statements and preparing it for publishing

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.

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A message from Dirt07

mate why dont u just leave me alone u absolute yeet bag go play fortnite or something Dirt07 (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

dees are for u u retard Dirt07 (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdaniels5757/Archive_3&oldid=971000197"