Augnablik

June 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Language demographics of Quebec have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Language demographics of Quebec was changed by Augnablik (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.918174 on 2022-06-15T12:26:52+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Augnablik! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! TJRC (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

About having to type four tildes to automatically insert my username and the date: I see that the automatic insertion is happening even without my typing the tildes. So why would we want to bother typing them? Augnablik (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to remove an extra line of space, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What happens if two editors keep trying to make their edits "stick" and delete the other's edits?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, US or British formatting?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Possible to add to the title of a previously published article?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Getting citation numbers to update, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Red highlighting, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Self-paced online tutorials?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Changing my previously published edits to Watch This Page status, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to cite a quotation from a dedication or foreword page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Connecting with other editors on their Talk Page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Mysterious error message, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Augnablik! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, User Contributions page mystery, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Augnablik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 08:34, Wednesday, April 26, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Augnablik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 08:35, Wednesday, April 26, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Augnablik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 09:02, Wednesday, April 26, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Augnablik. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

I wish I had seen this question so I could add this information, but once it is archived, it's not really supposed to be edited. I do it to change links to information that no longer work, which is probably all right.

I've heard of WP:TNT and that's similar to what you were looking for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"them" vs "him or her"

Hi Augnabilk. Thank you for your copy editing work. Please don't continue to change "them" to "him or her", or make related pronoun changes, in our policy and guideline pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

So, then, does Wikipedia require "them" to be used now with third-person singular pronouns? Although I know many people do it these days, it's so confusing and we already had a perfectly good way to differentiate third-person singular and plural. Augnablik (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Generally speaking, if a page uses singular they, there should be a presumption (in the vein of a guideline on English varieties, MOS:RETAIN) that there is consensus for it, and that changing that requires a demonstration of consensus against singular they. This applies doubly for our policy and guideline pages, which reflect site-wide consensus. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Augnablik! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Theooolone (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If I made such an edit, could you point it out to me? I certainly didn't mean to do that. Augnablik (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Theooolone, are you going to leave me in permanent suspense about what this edit of mine was that you're describing as a misidentified minor edit? Augnablik (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), or rather passerby. Augnablik, if you ping User:Theooolone by for instance linking their username, they'll be alerted that you have a question for them. There, I've done it now. Bishonen | tålk 18:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC).

Hi! Sorry for not replying to you, I hadn't subscribed to this thread. I was most likely talking about this edit, which adds a new sentence.

Also, this edit to Camp Fire (organization) would not be considered minor as it rearranges much of the page content, and removes around half a paragraph in the 'Camp and environmental education' section. Theooolone ─ ( Talk ) 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Algonquin Hotel, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Greatpopcorn (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you be specific here? If I had the example you're alluding to, it would help, as I am not aware of ever changing a US or British usage. If you perhaps mean single and double quotation marks, all my changes were for the sake of consistency — the author switched around between the two formats considerably. Augnablik (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The specific issue is that you, indeed, did change the US spelling of "story" to the British spelling "storey" in the Algonquin Hotel article, which is about a hotel in the US. The latter is generally considered incorrect (or at least uncommon) in American English. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, for instance, uses the word "story" to refer to floor levels. In the future, please do not change spellings from one variety of English to another if there is already an established variant of English already used on an article, or if the subject has ties to a nation where a particular variant of English is used per MOS:TIES. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am humbled as well as astounded to discover that STOREY is, in fact, considered a British rather than American spelling. That (STOREY) is what I learned as an American child in an American school many long years ago!

With that in mind, I went to the Oxford online dictionary when I saw your reply to me about this issue to point out triumphantly what I expected to find. To my horror, the entry said it's British. A rush over to the Collins dictionary met the same fate.

Having recovered from my shock, all I can say is, "At least the edits were not intended to de-Britishize the formatting of the original article."

That's my storey … oops, story. Augnablik (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I understand why you made these edits now. To be honest, I would have been really surprised if Americans used "storey" as a spelling, as I was taught (in an American school) that it was spelled "story" and that there was no such word as "storey". When I found out that "storey" was an actual British word, I was as surprised as you just were. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

😂 Augnablik (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Help me!

My questions are in connection with an existing article about my undergraduate school, Trinity Washington University: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Washington_University#History

I did a number of minor edits, but realized — as other editors have also observed with requests for better documentation iin the article — that quite a bit more substantive work needs to be done, updating of information and verification stated facts with citations. I don't have access to this sort of information, but as an alumna of the school, I knew I could get it.

Then I realized that perhaps just by being an alumna, this puts me in COI status, even though I've simply done minor proofreading and editing so far. I was about to write the president of the school, who I know, and ask if she could put me in touch with someone on the staff who could provide me the information. Would my alumna status be problematic?

Another related question: how does Wikipedia's preference for third-party references hold up when the article is about an organization and third parties simply wouldn't have desired facts and figures, like for instance enrollment as of 2024 and changes from earlier enrollment figures? Surely it would be okay to consult the organization directly for that sort of information, wouldn't it? Augnablik (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik. Simply put, no, it wouldn't. On Wikipedia, any information that you add must be verifiable from published, secondary and reliable sources. Word of mouth/email from the company would fail all of these criteria. We also have a policy about original research (which basically says that you should not add information that you know, even if it is true). Hope this helps! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, now I'm curious. How would articles about organizations like schools, companies, and countries ever get ahold of certain basic facts like enrollment figures if they can't contact knowledgeable staff? Where else can Wiki editors go to get it?

I fully understand the need to avoid conflicts of interest and bias in writing articles, having long done academic and journalistic writing. But I must say, I'm beginning to see some "Catch 22" situations in writing and editing Wiki articles.

Rest assured, though, that I won't take my work on the Trinity Washington University article further, in light of our conversation. And thank you, @Cocobb8, for your quick feedback. Augnablik (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik, see Jim's comment below for COI, and for places to find sources :). Let us know if you have additional questions. Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed it. And what I was about to write him was this, which I'll run by you now because you got back to me with an invitation to ask additional questions:

@Jmcgnh, your comment, "Non-controversial facts can be cited to primary sources, such as the school's own website or regulatory filings," even if we can't contact the school for details directly, seems to counter to what @Cocobb8 replied to me above. Can you help put it all together here? Augnablik (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik You should probably limit it to minimal information, such as the current principal. A controversial statement for which a primary source might not be used would be something like "this team won this award against this other team and beat that record of some sort". Do you see the distinction I'm making between a controversial vs not controversial statement?

Also, the problem with just using an email as a source is that it is not a published source. However, using the faculty's official website for non-controversial statements would be fine (as long as it remains limited and that there are more secondary sources than there are primary ones). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see the distinction — that's all I had in mind doing. There are a number of previous references in the article that need backing up, or updating figures like enrollment beyond the ones last provided.

Glad to see that you and Jim are on the same page after all, or so it seems. Augnablik (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

We're both referring to Wikipedia's policies :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Opinions vary about whether being a student or alum of a school is considered a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed. Err on the safe side?

If you are contacting the school for the information you wish to add, then that certainly puts you in COI territory. If you were disinterestedly adding information from third party reliable and published sources, most people would give you a pass on COI.

Non-controversial facts can be cited to primary sources, such as the school's own website or regulatory filings.

Wikipedia's preference for third-party sources is especially important for notability. It's also a consideration for whether a particular statement or fact is noteworthy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Jmcgnh ... please see my second reply to @Cocobb8 above, because I folded in your earlier reply in my new question. Augnablik (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond down here to try to make a more linear thread.

Yes, there's a distinction between what Cocobb8 said and what I said: published, but primary, sources are allowed, just not preferred. It is not always necessary to cite a third-party, secondary source when the facts are not likely to be contested. You still need to cite a published source, though, so 'private communication' citations and similar non-published sources - which are allowed in some academic circumstances - are not allowed for Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Understood. That was never part of my confusion.

Really glad to see a way around what seemed an impasse for getting usable information for articles about orgsnizations! Augnablik (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Late to the party, but you can also read WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows certain kinds of uncontentious, basic facts about themselves to be sourced to a non-independent, WP:PRIMARY source, such as where they are located, and so on. As a more minor matter: it's helpful to title a section according to the topic you are discussing; for example, in this case, you could have called it, for example, == Is writing about my alma mater considered COI? == which has multiple advantages, two of which are distinguishing what they are about when you seem them in your Table of Contents, when there are more than one of them with {{Help me}} templates, and secondly, assisting editors who possibly wish to respond to Help-me requests to understand what the request is about. If you are used to writing informative e-mail subject lines, it is pretty much the same idea. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Search-and-replace

Following your Teahouse post. I only learned of search-and-replace recently, despite editing here since 2011, so don't think you need to be embarrassed about not knowing about it! I find it easiest to use and explain in the source editor but it's available in the visual editor too (but not in the reply tool). So 1) Go to the article and open "Edit source" 2) Click on the "Advanced" option in the middle of the toolbar: that opens another row of icons and will stay that way until you toggle it off 3) At the far right of this toolbar there is a small magnifying glass "search" icon: click on that 4) A box of prompts opens to allow entry of the search string and the replacement string, with various options much like in a standard word-processor 5) Do the search-and-replace and carefully preview the result before publish/save.

There are some really neat further things that can be done using the "Treat search string as a regular expression" option but that tickbox is not used for standard search/replace. If you are interested, comment back in this thread, where I'll keep a lookout for more discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Your information was a godsend, Mike. I had not been looking forward to doing a search-and-replace by eyeballing. This feature is just what I'd hoped was available.

I wish there were a way to look up available tools in Wiki editing — actually two ways — one being by official name of the feature (e.g., search and replace) and the other probably AI-assisted where we could write a question in the search field (e.g., "How can I look for all occurrences of Sarah and replace with Sarasara?"

Do please share the "really neat further things" you mention. I have no idea what "Treat search string as a regular expression" means, but if it's really neat, I'm all ears. Augnablik (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, here goes with the real example where this was used recently. There was a list article which looked like this. Note the 70 citations in the reflist but another 205 (take my word for it!) external links in the body text, in contravention of WP:ELLIST. By doing a regex search-and-replace followed by a use of the refill tool and a bit of hand-tidying, I got this to the version now live. The details of the regex used and how to do the steps are now described on my Userpage, where I put them for my future reference. Regular expressions have an article but it is a bit (!) technical. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I found the Regular expressions Wiki article helpful … that is, once I understood it was simply discussing something I'd occasionally run into before while doing searches (with or without replacement) in word processing.

But I'd never heard the term REGULAR EXPRESSIONS before. What a misleading term! Surely whoever invented it could have come up with something much more descriptive.

This discussion has been helpful in more ways than just helping me grasp regexing. When you said you'd put the steps for doing it at your User page, you gave me an idea of doing something similar, not just for this. It's probably a more streamlined way of creating a stash of Wiki how-to's than what I've been doing: copying Wiki guidance into word processing files.

Augnablik (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad I've triggered something useful! You can also do regex searches over the whole of Wikipedia articles at Special:Search, as explained at Help:Searching/Regex. I have an example of one Wikignoming thing I regularly do on my userpage which relies on regex. That's to find examples where IMDb has been linked wrongly, which uses the regex search insource:"imdbtitle" insource:/\[imdbtitle:/. If you have lots of how-to's to remember, you could create a sub-page in your user area to avoid cluttering your userpage: I don't need subpages, except my sandbox, as I don't have very much I want to save. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have anything like an ongoing discussion thread to which editors post their Great Discoveries … like in you case, how you've used regex to take care of issues or needs you had to do things as a Wiki editor? I'd love to pore through such a thread.

All the more if we could quickly get a question answered … sort of like the Teahouse but in a more collegial way rather than as supplicants.

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying this one-on-one conversation with you, Mike. A rare experience. I can see the advantages over Teahouse inquiries for in-depth conversations about topics that might not be of general interest. I look forward to one day doing the same for other fledgling editors. Augnablik (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any general forum like you describe. The nearest I personally participate in is the Help Desk, which regularly covers interesting problems, plus WT:CHEM and WT:CHEMICALS, which are Project-oriented: chemistry in this case. I'm sure that many other Projects have similar things. The WMF growth team mentorship program was supposed to foster newcomer retention by encouraging one-on-one discussions between newcomers and more experienced editors. I have been a mentor since the scheme started but >90% of the questions I get asked (see my Talk Page and archives) would probably have been better for the newcomer if asked at the Teahouse and they don't often lead anywhere. On the other hand, I would suggest you sign up as a mentor if you are serious about wanting to help others. And, of course, you would be welcome to start another conversation with me when you run into any knotty editing problems. My background means that I like problem-solving! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow, what a wonderful offer, to be welcome to connect with you for knotty editing problems. I haven't felt much connection with the editor I was specifically assigned when I got started with Wiki work, but I HAVE felt very blessed indeed for the recurring guidance and support I've received from maybe about 7 or 8 seniors in the Teahouse. Yes, you included.

But to actually have a direct invitation from an editor for "knotty problems" … that's a true gift. Especially from an editor who says he likes problem-solving! And I definitely do have a knotty problem. It's been plaguing me for a long time as to how to handle it. You'll probably need your best problem-solving wand, as it overlaps several of the trickiest editing situations in Wikidom.

As for me becoming an editor who helps others, like in the Teahouse, that's a long way away. There's so much to learn. Although I'm a well-seasoned editor, I wasn't expecting such a learning curve as Wiki newbies face. Still, as I too enjoy solving problems in both editing and education, I look forward to "paying back" the help I've Augnablik (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's amazing what can be found "by accident". Just now I stumbled upon the Wikipedia:Dashboard which is quite interesting and relevant to your question about ongoing discussion venues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree that it's amazing what can be found "by accident" (a/k/a serendipitously), as you commented in your message to me on the 3rd.

You may be even more amazed when you see how in turn it could contribute in a roundabout way to untying the "knotty problem" I'll describe for you shortly as follow-up to your invitation to send that sort of thing to you to cut through. Augnablik (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, I've finished writing up my knotty problem for you. It's a Word document of 2 1/3 pages that I was hoping to plop into this space, but I don't see a way to do that directly. Looks as if I'll have to just copy/paste. 🙁

Mike,

Here for your consideration is the knotty problem I’ve been facing. It involves the editing of an existing ̵Wikipedia article on noted Indian author Ramendra Kumar, known primarily as a children’s author for his books and stories, although he’s also written quite a bit for adults. There are two knots in my problem.

Knot 1

·         The existing article is quite out of date because Ramendra has written many more books, stories, and articles that are not mentioned. Similarly, he and many of his books have received awards that Wiki readers would never know about from the article.

·         Organizationally the article is in need of major editorial attention.

·         More third-party sources are also needed.

·         There’s also some interesting back story about Ramendra that many readers would likely find of interest but that doesn’t appear in the article, in particular his becoming something of a medical celebrity in India as a “cancer warrior.”

·         The most logical way to update this article would seem to be a complete replacement. But for a still somewhat new Wiki editor (though at the level of  Novice Confirmed Extended) to try doing that, I know the likely result would be outright rejection.

There is a concept explained at WP:TNT, which is self-explanatory. Normally, I'd be reluctant to suggest that but having looked at Ramendra Kumar I really think that's the best solution! The current version is a violation of the policy WP:BLP because it lacks inline citations and is very poorly sourced. Also, it has a large number of external links in the main text, which is against guidance. Actually, you seem to be in luck in one respect. Two editors, Thudinspecies (on article Talk Page) and Weliviewf (in edit history) are clearly interested in a major cleanup. I suggest you 1) create a totally new version of the article in your sandbox or, better, at User:Augnablik/Ramendra Kumar by clicking on that redlink. 2) Invite these two editors (via pings on Talk:Ramendra Kumar) to take a look at your new version BUT NOT EDIT IT (which would complicate the edit histories), instead making suggestions for changes within the Kumar Talk Page, so you are the only editor of the new version. 3) The aim is to gain WP:CONSENSUS that your version is OK, even if you have to remove parts of it to reach consensus. Incidentally, I'd ditch that long list of Kumar's books: they are irrelevant to his notability unless you include some reviewer's comment (cited, of course) or they won some prize, etc. Better for the moment to have "Selected publications" with just the most-commented-on and the ISBN for these. If you look at a featured author's article, like J K Rowling, you'll see that there is an {{Authority control}} template at the foot, which usually links to databases of works 4) Once the other two editors are happy, copy/paste your version into the current article, where editing can continue as usual. 5) Use the template {{db-author}} to get an admin to delete your sub-page where you placed the temporary version. I'll comment on COI later, below. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Knot 2

·       Although I’d never even heard of Ramendra when I came on board as a Wiki editor (June, 2022), or to this day met him in person, we gradually became friends online after I took on editing his Wiki article. And as that friendship developed, so too — I slowly came to realize — did COI.

·       When I came on board with Wikipedia, I was also an online middle school English teacher. A few months later, as I was searching for a children’s story to use in a class project about India’s national independence day,  I found one written by Ramendra that I thought would work well, so I adapted it into a skit for my students to perform for a small online audience.

·       Before the enactment, I got the idea to write Ramendra to thank him for his story, mention that my class would be doing a skit based on it, and — although never expecting him to say yes — invite him to watch the performance as a hidden viewer and be introduced afterward. To my amazement, he did! After that, we kept in touch a little.

·       As I got more involved with Wikipedia, one day it occurred to me that I hadn’t looked to see if Wikipedia had an article about Ramendra and so I decided to check. Finding that there was one, but with quite a few issues, I thought, why don’t I take on editing it — to clean it up and also to give me some in-depth Wiki experience?

·       Although I had a general idea of what COI was and the need for Wiki editors to avoid it, I wasn’t aware at that point that it might extend even to the loose connection Ramendra and I had. If I had been aware, I wouldn’t have taken on the project.

·       When I told him I’d decided to work on the article, he was very happy because he was quite aware it was out of date. That in turn was roubling for him because as a noted author he was often asked to make presentations and his hosts typically turned to Wikipedia — even though he often provided information — to get material for their introductions.  

·       To close the gap in the article about his publications and awards, Ramendra began sending me a lot of material. The more we interacted, I began to realize that we’d developed something of a friendship across the miles. Which meant I was now a Wiki editor with COI ... and a few related decisions to make.

·       Over the year or so since I’d begun Wiki editing, I’d noticed occasional divergences in the official guidance as well as discussions in the Teahouse and elsewhere about (1) exactly what constitutes COI and (2) how editors should deal with it. I delved into everything I could find in all corners of Wikipedia about what to do. Must all the work I’d put in on the article go down the drain? After all:

o   There hadn’t been what seemed real COI in place when I’d begun editing the article. It just came gradually.

o   Although I knew none of us can ever be 100% free of bias, I had much experience in objective writing in both journalism and academia.

o   Lastly was a consideration that wouldn’t be of concern to Wikipedia but that was still one I had to face because I’d told Ramendra that I’d work on the article, and he was anticipating the revision to finally end the use by others of the out-of-date article to get information about him. How fair to him would it be if I had to pull out of the work?

·      With all this in mind, I started a thread about COI at the Village Pump that attracted quite a few senior editors to a lengthy, often heated. discussion. I found it amazing to see such varying opinions about COI among editors at such a high level. I didn’t bring up my own dilemma, but I emerged from that discussion with the confidence that I could legitimately continue working on the article if I transparently laid out the connection I now had with Ramendra.

·      Still later another idea struck me about further editing on the article: that perhaps I could find another editor willing to take on this project. It’s taken a huge amount of time just to get to where it is now and I have other writing and editing projects I should be working on. I’d be delighted to hand it off.

With a glimmer of hope that the Knot 2 issue may not be the obstacle it once seemed, the Knot 1 issue remains: whether my — or anyone else’s — edited version can simply replace the existing article.

This is where perhaps you, as a senior editor with enjoyment of dealing with knotty problems, in addition to your invitation to help, might be the magic key to finally get Ramendra’s article updated. Perhaps you know someone “at the top” who would agree that this is one of those rare articles that would simply warrant outright replacement than submission of edits in drips and drabs.

Incidentally, the work I’ve done on the article is on my computer rather than my Wiki sandbox, as I was more at home in Microsoft Word than in the unfamiliar Wiki ambience. Now I wish I had gone the sandbox route because of the need for citations directly made through Wikipedia rather than on a word processor. But I can send you what I have so you can compare the earlier version of the article with mine that I’d put aside for awhile. Augnablik (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I take a fairly simple view. WP:PAID is a policy and Wikipedia's T&C's mandate a stringent set of rules associated with it, as explained at that link. You are not being paid in respect of Ramendra. WP:COI is guidance and, for me the key parts are Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith and Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. That can be done on the Talk Page of the article: a wikilink to this "Knot 2" text would be more than adequate, as you have explained here the nature of your COI. My suggestion (above) about how to proceed via a new version of the article gets round all the COI in this case, as two other editors (and me, probably!) will have already reached consensus that your re-draft is OK. The key is disclosure. There is a template {{Connected contributor}} that can go on Talk Pages of articles but in the case we are discussing here, I don't think that's necessary (others may disagree with me). In any event, it could be added after you have reached stage #5 of my above suggestions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Mike, I wonder if — in addition to your reply time-stamped 16:52 on the 15th — you sent another that somehow I missed. I ask because in the 16:52 message, you refer to "my suggestion (above) about how to proceed via a new version of the article." And to "stage #5 of my above suggestions."

I just don't see any "above suggestions." 😯 Augnablik (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

They are in my longish post just above your "Knot 2" header. I put that reply there to keep it near to your "Knot 1" issue to which it is my response. You'll see it in the page history as my edit timestamped at 16:30, immediately before the 16:52 one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Found everything and pretty well digested it now. What useful comments! Thank you so much.

I learned quite a few new things in the process of reading everything you sent me, some of which raised questions in turn for me.

— I'd heard about TNT but somehow felt you'd have to be an editor at a high level to try it even if you had good reason to do it. This gave me increased confidence about Wiki editing. I think many of us newbies and semi-newbies get really worried the more we hear about missteps and their consequences, even if we come to Wikipedia with strong editing background. Negative feedback on our questions and comments, as well as on those of others, in the Teahouse can begin to freeze us in the headlights, so to speak.

• WP tries to act as if there was no hierarchy and if you've reached, say, 100 mainspace edits you are already a "high level" contributor! We all learn by making errors and having them corrected by others in a, hopefully, polite manner: the guideline is WP:AGF.

— I had never thought to look at the article's Talk page — even though I was vaguely aware there was such a resource attached to articles — to see if any other editors had raised any concerns about the article that jibed with mine, and if so how what to do with them. It was a great surprise to know there were two such editors, and to get your insights on how to approach what had felt like an impasse in further editing the article. Augnablik (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, Talk Pages are a fundamental interaction venue and sometimes have more content than the articles! When our current discussion gets focused on the Ramendra article, we should go to its Talk Page to continue, as that's better for the other editors who are interested in it and also means any discussion will get archived there rather than here.

Oops, I hadn't finished my reply but it got published and here on the User Talk page, I don't see a way to edit it. So, onward …

• You can/could and this is easiest with the source editor. Follow the talk page guidelines, if you do. You have the greatest liberty on your own Talk Page but bear in mind every past edit is still in its page history.

— You suggested a Selected Publications section, as did another editor earlier when I asked something in the Teahouse about how to handle large bibliographies. (Ramendra has published 49 books and counting … and that's only the books!) Your suggestion gave me confidence in creating such a section even though it would mean omitting many other publications of his. So now a related question to make it possible for a complete list of his publications to be available on demand even though not housed on Wikipedia: could a complete list of his publications appear at his website and the Selected Publications section of his Wiki article link to that?

• Absolutely. Links to subject's website are allowed in both infobox and as external links. There is also a more technical way to do this via the template {{Authority control}} you'll see at the foot of many biographies about authors. It gets a bit complicated as Wikidata maintains these links. Some editors here will be very suspicious of biographies that are mainly list of publications, which they assume verge on WP:SPAM.

— When you say that "two other editors (and me, probably!) will have reached consensus that your re-draft is OK," does this mean that you'd eventually weigh in at the article's Talk page? That would sure be great!

• Sure, I comment all the time on other people's drafts via the Teahouse.

— At the same time, it makes me wonder all the more about something that's been on my mind for some time: is the best way to get things done in Wiki work — or let's put it at a higher level — is it an ethical way to get things done in Wiki work to become friendly with a senior editor and ask him or her to champion your cause?

• Ethics are not relevant, building the encyclopaedia is. Anything that advances that goal is fine and the more you have a history of doing that the more leeway people will allow for a bit of banter. Just remember WP is not a social network and we are not here to advance causes.

— Irrespective of a yes or no to that perhaps controversial question, I'm just so grateful to have you as someone I can turn to as a mentor, even if not officially so designated. My assigned editor has interacted with me just once that I can recall, and he doesn't even seem to be active on Wikipedia.

Augnablik (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've remedied that by "claiming" you as my mentee: your hompage tab should now reflect that. Don't blame your previous mentor for not being proactive. We mentors each have about 600 mentees and would never get anything else done if we interacted with them all. We rely on those who want to do so contacting us via our Talk Pages. Most of my mentees have never done so, thank goodness, and those that have often immediately give up editing thereafter, e.g. when I point out that creating an account here just because you fancy having an autobiography article is a very bad idea. (Other comments interlaced with your questions. I suggest you start a new section for any further discussion so as to keep this one a reasonable size.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  You've adopted me?

  🥲 Time out for a few tears.

  Augnablik (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Article titling when the subject has made a name change, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Time zone stamping, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to suggest an editorial need within an article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Missing Wiki updating of user contributions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to organize posts in descending order, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I really like your positive and uplifting vibe at places like the Help Desk or the Village Pump. It makes my mood better, and I assume it's the same for other editors. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! TheWikiToby (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Omigosh, a barnstar! And my first ever! Thank you so much, TheWikiToby.

By the way, I ended up at your Talk page by mistake while trying to copy your Wiki name from your message above into this one.

Although I didn't succeed, I was intrigued at several things I saw there about yourself because I too am a cat lover and played the clarinet back in my own school days.

Best wishes for all your coming school days.

Augnablik (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement! If you wish, you can put the barnstar up on your user page for people to see. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

After reading at your User page the other day that you have something like 4,700 edits although you're a "school boy," I wonder how you find time for everything, TheWikiToby! I'm sure it depends in large part on your school grade + other responsibilities + activities.

I never thought of it before now but I can imagine Wikipedia's' attraction for "young-uns" with a penchant for writing and editing as I myself had even before my age reached the double digits. Had Wiki existed back then, I know I too would have been drawn to it ☺️.

Augnablik (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheWikiToby, I've just added your barnstar to my User page, along with a little comment about what it's come to mean to me. I thought to share it with you ...User:Augnablik . Augnablik (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Damn, I got an actual grin on my face now reading that. Thank you for editing Wikipedia, it's an honor to give your first barnstar. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Damn in return, I'm happy about that grin. I got one too when I 1st saw the design of that barnstar — a grinning face.

The more we interact, I find it hard to think of you as a "school boy." 😅 Augnablik (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Template usage possible in Visual Editor?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

ACE 2024

Hello, Augnablik,

I saw your question to several candidates in this year's arbitration committee election and I hope if you are still editing at this time next year, that you will get an opportunity to pose your question to all candidates because I think it's a one to ask. Some of us have been around for so many years that we've forgotten how much knowledge is required to participate thoughtfully in some of our inner processes. I think you also had some issues with editing with Visual Basic, if that was the mode you used, and I hope you can find a way to edit on a laptop or desktop. At least, they seem more intuitive to me than other editing systems we have and, believe me, I edit a lot! Any way, I'm sorry that you participated late in the process but I appreciate you posing a question and hope you stay involved in the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz. I really appreciate your taking time to write me, even if I didn't (couldn't quite) send you the question. It's an example of the caring qualities that I picked up as characterising you in your candidate's statement and back-and-forths with other editors involved in this election. Which, along with your vast Wiki experience, was a main reason I voted for you.

I did use my computer to post my question, but the Source Editor HAS to be used — and this particular template is a bear. I have just enough computer background not to be completely intimidated by code, but I work so much more seamlessly in the Visual Editor that it's annoying (and worse!) to have to use the Source Editor.

I hope that all of you involved with the Arb Committee will make a joint request to the Wiki tekkies to make it possible to do ALL work on the Visual Editor. This may not seem an AC issue, but in the long run I think it it is — because anything that streamlines the underlying technical interface everyone uses makes it possible to carry on our work in a much easier and more efficient way. Result: less frustration that can trigger negative comments and uncivil behavior leading to cases the committee has to deal with ! 😅 Augnablik (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that template is rather my fault. I found it hard to read the questions in 2011, eg (here) so I created a template to split things a bit better and help my eyes. This is how it looked then. Now, I did all the template work myself, people would add a question and then I'd template it up and answer, eg here

It clearly gained a bit of love, and became the standard over the following years - but you have to have a bit of wiki-knowhow to edit the text.

But I thought I'd drop by and answer the underlying question. Glad to see Liz has already encouraged you to keep editing, I'm really pleased to see newer editors getting involved in the meta areas, so I will add my voice to that encouragement.

As to how to vote - everyone is different. You can get a basic impression of the candidates by reading their statements - I think that's a great place to start. Their questions, glance over and look for topics you find interesting and read their answers to that. You can get an impression of what some people think of candidates by reading the voter guides too. In the past, I've used a combination of those three factors and name recognition. If I don't recognise the name, I check out their contribution history, if they've participated in the Wikispace and what tone they take.

But however you vote - you're participating, so you're not doing it wrong. :D Worm^TT(talk) 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Worm. 🤗 Appreciation for jumping in even though I gave up on trying to work further with that question template.

Agree about reading the combination of candidates' information you mentioned. It's a heavy dose for those of us trying to get a toehold on so much all at the same time, but because it's a 360-degree look at them — as well as issues involved — I did find making the effort of value.

You got my vote, by the way. Best wishes for the outcome. Augnablik (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Augnablik! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Bookmarking oft-visited WP sites possible?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

I have officially become your talk page stalker >>:)))) I was just going by your talk page and noticed how monstrously long it's starting to get. As articles get longer and the byte amount grows bigger, some users' low-end computers might get laggy trying to load the page, so it's recommended to either archive your talk page threads or simply delete threads as they grow stale (but archiving is much better since you can easily go back to find old info).

You can copy and paste this source code directly to the top of this page:
{{subst:Setup cluebot archiving|archives=yes}}

A bot will come by after a few days to start archiving inactive threads by moving them to a separate subpage that you can search for.

You can read H:ARC if ya wanna know more. Cya! TheWikiToby (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Training and doc topic

Hi Augnablik. Just a brief message to link your recent Help desk topic (archived) where we had a sidebar discussing training materials and documentation. Feel free to contact me anytime about that topic (or any other one). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. By the way, I peeked at your User page and was rather impressed with your assortment of languages. From your Wiki name, I thought you were (and maybe actually are) a math guy or girl making allusions to your many different interests and capabilities in math, picking up on the word root GLOT — so often used in POLYGLOT — to do so.

But you really are an "official" polyglot! Augnablik (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

 Courtesy link: Montrose Park

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, you did my first-ever revert which — after recovering from a bit of shock — I welcome as a learning experience. Especially appreciated because you were so polite about it. Happy to try to be the same in return, as you asked me to be — though as I hope I would have been even without being asked.

But I'm confused about the copyright issue. Could you explain more? Augnablik (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Philbrick's edit summary has the link from the website the copyrighted text is supposedly from. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Tarlby explained, but happy to provide more detail if needed. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sphilbrick (Philbrick?), I read your edit summary the first time around but honestly, I can't imagine what the problem is because I didn't directly copy anything from the Clio website in my editing, and whatever information I referred to, I cited. I would really appreciate understanding this.

As I mentioned, this is my first time being reverted, so I'm not used to reading this sort of information and it looks sort of confusing. May I ask for a little help understanding what I see on the article's History page? Like:

Eventually I figured out that a circle filled in with blue means a revert, and I see two such circles on this article's page, but there's a discrepancy between them. Under the edit with your name on it and the time stamp of 18:38 UTC on Dec. 18, I see three of my edits crossed out and two empty circles rather than just one. I guess all three of those edits are yours, but then, what about the edit of mine at 2:08 that has a blue circle but no crossouts like the first one?

I'm hoping there's a way to look at each of the versions of the article that were reverted, because surely not each and every change I made could be erroneous. I'd hate to lose all that work I did without the chance to ask about it. I spent a really long time on those particular edits.

Is there a tutorial about how to work with the History page, especially reverts? Augnablik (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on what you've described, those filled in circles have no relation to reverts. Those bubbles are used to select edits that you can compare to see how the article has changed over time. The edits that are crossed out have been removed from public view with the use of RevDel (RevisionDeletion) which is available to admins to remove problematic content like copyrighted text. Tarlby^{(t) (c)} 01:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You can look at Help:HISTINTRO. Tarlby^{(t) (c)} 01:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I've spent several hours trying to get up to speed on reverts, and ever so slowly the fog seems to be lifting. But this is one of the most difficult areas in Wikipedia I've yet encountered to get ahold of. I'm still not yet where I need to be to feel confident with reverts,

I finally understand radio buttons now and how they work with the cur | prev options, though that really took awhile — just one of several things that Help:HISTINTRO tutorial could have been much clearer about, or better yet, provided real practice in handling.

I also understand now that it's not possible for me to use the above tools to see the three reverts you made that do have crossed-out wording ... unless, that is, you can do something to let me see them. Those three reverts are critical for me to look at in order for me to address (1) what you consider copyright infringement that I made and (2) what other wording was deleted in the same revert.

In any event, I strongly urge you to re-revert my edit about the address of Montrose Park as being R Street off Avon Place rather than Lovers Lane. The city map clearly shows that Avon Place is the cross street closest to the entrance to the park. Lovers Lane is only a trail and it's inside the park, not outside, thus impossible to be listed as the cross street with R Street. Augnablik (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So in a case of RevDel edits there's no way for one editor designated by the reverter — like the one whose edits were reverted — to ever again take a look at them to compare against the cited material? Augnablik (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher), Augnablik, if you mean, have a look at both, side-by-side, so you can compare, basically you are right, there is no way, because it is contrary to our licensing requirements and cannot be viewed or retrieved by editors, hence, WP:REVDEL. Normally, all past edits are stored, even if they have been revdel'd, but an even stronger form of delete is WP:Oversight, and then the data is completely expunged from our servers and cannot be accessed even by admins. In your case, in theory an admin could point you to where it was copied from and possibly give you a tighter description than a whole web page or book title.

However, I don't think that it is either necessary or worthwhile. The Clio page cites two sources, and if you go to the hmdb.org url, you will find corroboration for your R St/Avon Pl. assertion, so all you need to do is change the article again, and cite that. Even if you quote the website word-for-word, namely "the intersection of R Street Northwest and Avon Place Northwest" that cannot be removed as COPYVIO because there is no creative content involved; it is a street location. Wording that contains no creative content is not under copyright protection, and therefore there is no violation in copying it. Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I'm not sure if I understand the 1st part of your above message. It seems you're confirming that because my reverter used WP:REVDEL on three of my edits, they are indeed stored and thus accessible to him — and, if he agrees, to let me view. Am I correctly understanding what you said?

— If it's true that I incurred copyright violations, I'd sincerely like to know where I went wrong. Although I'm sure my writing could benefit from a tune-up here and there for something like clarity or a stray typo, copyright violations are about the last thing I'd think I'd likely be guilty of.

— And if I was guilty, surely not all the many component parts in each of the reverts could be involved in copyright violation. If I could only view the reverts, I'd save a huge amount of time going back over everything again to try to remember what I'd added to the article since the last version of the article before the reverts.

— As for the creative content/address issue, thank you for what you pointed out. I wasn't aware. It could be useful for the future although my address correction didn't actually involve that issue, as far as I can tell. Augnablik (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The admin could, in theory, find the bit in the article that was copyvio, but unless you become an admin, they can't show it to you (although they could point to the publicly available source where it was copied from; but you wouldn't be able to compare that with what you wrote). No doubt you are right, that not all of it was copyvio, just something in the oldest revdel'd version, but its important to understand the difference between removing content, which takes stuff out of the article (i.e., the copyvio bit), and deleting revisions, which takes nothing out of the article, but does take entries out of the revision history. (Well, it leaves the entry there, but struck out, so that you cannot select a deleted revision and view it.) So let's say on day 1, you inadvertently make a copyvio, discovered on day 10 by some editor, who removes that bit, suspects copyvio and leaves a template or contacts an admin. Meanwhile, you make numerous edits on days 2-9, and so do five other editors, expanding the article. What does the *article* look like on day 11, after the admin has fixed the copyvio? It has everything added by everybody on days 2-10, both you and the other editors, except for the little copyvio bit from day 1. What does the *history* page look like on day 11? It lists all the revisions by you and the other five editors through day 10 all visible but grayed out and struck out. The day 11 edit is the first one not struck out. The revdel affects only your ability to compare revisions in the history page, it does not remove anything from the article. Since the copyvio was reported day 10, it means revs on days 1-10 all had the offending content there, and if they were not struck out and the buttons disabled, you could simply compare a couple of revisions (like, from days 2 and 3, say) and see the copyvio bit, not yet removed. That is why those revisions are blocked from view. Seeing a bunch of your edits grayed out does not mean there were copyvios with all of them, it only means that there was a copyvio in the first one that is grayed out, and it remained there until the most recent grayed out revision, and was removed in the next one. If someone discovered a copyvio two years later, then you would have two years worth of grayed out edits, but that is a history-view issue only, not an article content issue. Does that help?

Back to your question: I think you would have to come up with a compelling reason to get an admin to go track that down for you, but maybe you'll get lucky. The problem is, there is a deficit of admins, and they are running ragged doing more important stuff. We are trying to get more people to apply for and become admins (two just yesterday, I think) but it's a slow process. This would distract them from more important things. You can try asking, but I wouldn't count on it.One of the brand new admins, in fact, was just given the tools yesterday or maybe today, and specializes in copyvio investigations. Maybe you could ask her, if she isn't already loaded down with admin stuff on her first day. Try pinging Sennecaster (talk · contribs)^[no ping]. One last point: to qualify as copyvio, it does not have to be a word-for-word copy; see WP:PARAPHRASE. So maybe that's what it was. (If you do ping an admin, please restate your question briefly for their benefit; don't make them wade through all this to discern the question.) Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, my mentor similarly advised just forgetting about it and forging ahead. And my reverter hasn't replied to a follow-up reply to his last message. Plus it's the new admin's first day OJT. Despite my frustration, it seems not to be in the cards.

Well, it was at least a learning experience about how much to include in an edit before publishing. I got so carried away by the material I was working on that I let the edits get unusually large. At the time, I'd never have worried about copyright violation because I'm very conscious of the need to avoid it. But after this experience, I'll be sure to publish faster ... even though sometimes I've felt guilty for publishing such a small edit as a missing comma, because it would bring me a pretty cheap editing point.

Thanks for the WP:PARAPHRASE information, by the way. You seem to be turning into something of a backup mentor for me. :) Speaking of which, perhaps you'd know the answer to a question connected with this reply of mine to you: I initially forgot to start off the message with @Mathglot (a ping, I believe it's called), and so later I've come back to add it just in case. Would you have received word that I'd sent you the message if I hadn't done that? Augnablik (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Augnablik. To give you some perspective, everyone makes mistakes. Everyone gets reverted every once in a while and it is a completely normal thing. When I first made my account, it took me like a day to get my first reversion on Lethal Company. Because I didn't understand copyright at the time, I uploaded two images directly from the game to Commons which got quickly deleted. From then on, I've now had two warnings on my Commons talk page sitting there because I'm too lazy to get rid of them. I remember I felt pretty bad and guilty when it happened. I thought I would be blocked! But do you wanna know what happened? No one cares, because it's not a big deal! I don't think anyone even remembers that happening except for me.

It's okay to make mistakes. It's normal to get reverted and it doesn't matter in the long run. If you get reverted, reflect on what you could do better, or discuss it if you think it has merit. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tarlby ... apparently you're the former TheWikiToby??? Which I discovered from going to your User page, out of curiosity about your Wiki name. My first "talk page stalker." No wonder you sort of appeared out of nowhere in regard to this revert issue. I was wondering how you fit into the larger picture of all this quite a few messages ago.

Thanks for the rundown on your own experience with reverts, and the empathy. But what I'm having difficulty conveying about my dismay with not being able to see what was reverted is mainly because I lost so many sub-edits within the three edits. It's true that I'd like to check out what my reverter believed was copyright violation, but without being able to see everything, I'm now going to have to spend so much time figuring out what I wanted to add, subtract, reposition, or whatnot, because I spent so much time on those edits. Augnablik (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Try Sennecaster, after their Rfa is complete. Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

About this, @Mathglot, let me ask you first ask you something more basic, which I think I started to do but then decided not to: in these Talk page messages when you reply to someone who sent you a message, does that person know you've replied if you simply press Reply, or do you have to write @editorname for him or her to know? And come to think about this, is it the same with other messages like in the Teahouse?

I'm asking because if it's necessary to type @editorname rather than just press Reply, then it's possible that my reverter doesn't know I ever replied to him in this thread. Augnablik (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Beware of leading blanks on a line

A leading blank at the beginning of a wikicode line turns the entire paragraph in which it appears into tty font (monospace, as used to show computer code). In the previous section, you originally had it right, but then decided to expand upon a previous reply, and in doing so, introduced a line with a leading blank in this edit of 06:12, 23 December 2024, which resulted in the monospace font you see in revision 1264726841 of 00:33, 23 December 2024 (scroll to bottom of page). I have corrected this for you, so this is no longer a problem, but clicking the latter link will show you how it was formatted after your last edit. To avoid this, always start a new line with a non-blank character, unless you wish to display the paragraph in a monospace font. Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't know.

By the way, I just realized that you're a "tpw" on both my own and my mentor's User Talk pages. Something else I didn't know. In retrospect, I guess I once saw something about all pages being publicly accessible, but it didn't register with me that conversations like between mentor and mentee would be. Or for that matter, that there could be "tpws" at all. I think Wiki guidance for new and newish editors should mention that this is so, to avoid possible later regrets among the tp-watched. Augnablik (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Augnablik, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Merry and joyous Christmas to you too, Abishe. Although it's the 26th, it's still within the traditional Twelve Days of Christmas and of course New Year comes then too. Augnablik (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)