Jump to content

User talk:Clovermoss/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year Clovermoss!

Happy New Year!

Clovermoss,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Hopefully 2025 is a good year for Wikipedia, Canada, and the world. Cremastra (u — c) 02:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cremastra: Thank you! I'm hoping that this year will be a good one. While you're here, maybe you'll be inspired by my New Year's resolutions. They can be found at User:Clovermoss/Reach for the stars. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Goodness. Sounds like you'll be busy. Cremastra (u — c) 02:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Cremastra: Especially when the intended subject for the one FA is Jehovah's Witnesses! That said, I think I'll be able to do it all. I thought about how to make my goals a mixture of both realistic and challenging for a good while earlier this fall. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone want to write me a recommendation letter?

There's a conference for youth in the Wikimedian movement in Prague this year. One of the requirements is a recommendation from a chapter, hub, user group, or thematic organization. The last option is a Wikimedian that's representative of my community. I'm not a part of any of that affiliate stuff, so I'd need to go with that last option. A bit surprising this is a requirement considering it's not one for wikimania or WCNA. There's more information about this conference here. I'm fairly certain you'd only be required to say your username and claim I'm awesome or something. It didn't say it has a word minimum. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think you have to be anyone in any particularly impressive role, like an arb or admin. I think "representative" would simply mean any experienced editor in good standing. But if no one's interested, that's okay. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Happy to help. Risker (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Ditto; happy to help. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
... and done. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
... but not done correctly. Now, "you've got mail". --Rosiestep (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I suppose I'm somewhat dazzled by the idea of a rather "ordinary" editor being the one, because of what it would mean to me on a personal level. I'm a sucker for ideals. Despite my stubbornness (because I really can be stubborn sometimes), I'm likely to accept. It's very kind of you both to offer and I hope that expressing what I just did doesn't offend you. It's just that you are both practically stars, even if you don't feel like it. I don't feel like one either, even if I suppose people see me that way now. It's an odd feeling and I struggle with it. Like one day people will realize I'm not everything I'm cracked up to be and those expectations of greatness were undeserved. I felt that even before RfA and my sudden fame has contributed a bit to that inner turmoil.
Anyways, it's hard to change people's minds if I'm not in the room to do it. Maybe I can get the people in charge of registration to think about how they do things. I asked a bunch of young editors about this on Discord, and the response was almost unanimously negative. It's a huge ask, even for people super involved with their communities. It's very bureaucratic, for one thing, but it's also hard for many to feel comfortable asking for a recommendation letter in the first place. And that's according to the editors on Discord, where the most extroverted of us tend to congregate!
This whole experience has kind of prompted me to think about a possible session for wikimania. The way this was phrased on the form reminded me of how lost I felt at wikimania sometimes with all the focus on affiliates and whatnot. It can feel like the regular volunteers, who also dedicate so much of their time and even their soul, can get left behind, even if that isn't necessarily the intention. A lot of us just do the work and are left mystified at the maze of affiliates and chapters and hubs or whatever else. Given one of the themes will be inclusivity, I'm sure I could come up with something wonderful. This form wasn't the worst example of that by any means, it just got me thinking of similar situations, you know? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
It's structural and built-in to WMF that the affiliates have more influence than people who do the actual work on the projects online every day. I was discussing that with Kevin from arbcom at the 2023 North America conference where I met you. (t · c) buidhe 14:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Things don't have to be that way, though. I spent a good amount of time talking to people at wikimania to try and understand the purpose of affilates and while I'm still very confused, it does sound like the people I talked to do very worthwhile work. I don't want it to be an us vs them thing, just for regular volunteers to be more included in these decision making processes because it's not a fringe position by any means for us to feel left out and that shouldn't be the case. I'm probably not the best person to know the nuances and the history behind everything there, but I hope to be able to be there someday. If I was to propose a submission on that, I'd want it to be well-researched, so it might have to wait awhile. There's a lot of other stuff I have on my plate like starting an analysis of editor reflections (which would be a good submission on its own). @Buidhe: it sounds like you know a lot more about the affiliate stuff than me. I'd be honoured to hear you present on the topic at the next WCNA if you're planning on going. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I guess in my opinion the entire purpose of our project is to make quality free content available and actually "build an encyclopedia" or photo directory (in the case of commons) etc. To put it nicely, many people believe that a lot of the things that the WMF spends money on don't effectively contribute to that goal. I do believe that we have a responsibility to our donors to spend their money on stuff that's going to improve the projects, rather than other things that might be nice but are more removed from our core mission. I also don't think it's a helpful organizational approach to have siloed geographical areas, when our entire advantage is that we are global and draw on contributors from all over the world.
I went to the NA hub discussion meeting at the conference and frankly most of the functions that were being discussed for the hub did not seem like they were a responsible use of donor money. (t · c) buidhe 02:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not saying I disagree with you, it's just that the affiliates I talked to at wikimania did genuinely seem to be fulfilling the make quality free content available and actually "build an encyclopedia or photo directory (in the case of commons" goal. While I still have no idea what a hub is, I think the general idea of having some sort of geographically based connection is so you can sponsor local editathons, get people interested in improving content about their communities (I know that's something I focus on a lot here), and use resources that may not be available everywhere. For example, Brock University probably has good sources if I ever wanted to improve the article about Isaac Brock. I think initiatives like 1Lib1Ref are overall good things. Another example is that the WCNA where we met kind of led to the resurrection of Wikipedia:WikiClub Toronto. We've been teaching some new editors how to edit in real time and it's an interesting experience. I'm not affiliated with Wikimedia Canada, but they do happen to pay for the room. I don't think that's a waste of money.
Obviously there's a lot that goes on, I didn't talk to every affiliate that ever exists, and people were probably trying to impress me. I also happened to meet a few people who seemed to have unusual ideas about what conferences should be, or what the foundation should spend its money on. I've seen enough essays where people much smarter than me analyze the financial situation and I agree that the average donor would probably look at that and feel disappointed, or maybe even betrayed in regards to certain aspects. I fought as hard as I could against this. My efforts weren't for nothing because the foundation didn't go through with the idea. I can understand why people become jaded over time when they try and things don't change, but I suppose I'm more optimistic because sometimes they do. It's very common for people to think it's going to contributors directly or to simply "keeping the servers running". I've always thought it would be good if we implemented some sort of dropdown menu so donors can choose where their donations are used. I've seen it happen with other non-profits. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure that affiliates do many worthwhile things, but how much is truly necessary and benefitting the encyclopedia? For example having a dedicated space is nice, but our wikigroup meets at a coffee shop and it works for us. Do we need affiliates to run something like 1lib1ref or is that better to run as a worldwide campaign (which I thought it was)? It's fair to say I could be too jaded and cynical. But at the conference I met too many people who seemed to enjoy making committees and talking about doing stuff, instead of actually doing stuff. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Well we weren't doing anything too fancy either, we were renting a room at a community centre. Trying to have a group of 20+ people meet at a coffee shop who may or may not be paying for items there in a busy city like Toronto is a bit of a tough ask, especially if it's for several hours at a time. As for "I met too many people who seemed to enjoy making committees and talking about doing stuff, instead of actually doing stuff", yeah I get that impression sometimes too. It's a mixed bag but I don't think people don't care. I'd rather try to make things better than just stop caring, you know? But I totally understand why people can be jaded and cynical. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) I'm also under the impression that 1Lif1Ref is global (it's GLAM stuff), but that many localized affiliates support it. They tend to have connections with local partners like universities and whatnot. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I'll just take a moment here to agree that the issue of needing the support of an organized group can be pretty problematic, and definitely has a negative impact on the ability of a large number of editors, particularly those on smaller projects, who don't have the opportunity or means to have that kind of connection with the broader global community. I have steadfastly remained unaffiliated for my entire Wiki-career, but whatever influence I have came from the seeds this project planted when it elected me to Arbcom, way back in 2008. Large projects like English, French, Spanish have the ability to develop leaders internally and bring them to the attention of the broader global community; small projects don't have enough of a profile to do that. Many of us, in this thread, and throughout English Wikipedia, have the opportunity to support developing leaders in smaller projects, because so many of us work on those smaller projects. I'm very happy to write a letter of reference for Clovermoss because I've seen her work and know her personally. But there are a few people on other, smaller projects for whom I'd also be comfortable writing a similar letter. It's critically important that we find ways to help potential leaders grow and develop everywhere on all of our projects, large and small, so that we reach our shared goals of freely available knowledge for people around the world. One way we can support this on English Wikipedia is to actively start working with editors on this project who come from less-supported parts of the world. As an example, I worry that the only way for people from sub-Saharan Africa to have a voice is through affiliates; we can do something about that right here, on this project, where many of those affiliates support editorial development. A while back, I made a list of affiliates that support work on this project. Risker (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 Update from Women in Green

Hello Clovermoss:

2024 has wrapped up, and what a full year it was for WikiProject Women in Green! Over the past year, we hosted two edit-a-thons, one themed around women's history and another on women around the world. We also managed to achieve most of our 2024 annual goals, nominating 75 articles for GA, reviewing 64 GA nominations, nominating 8 articles for FAC, peer reviewing 3 articles and reviewing 10 FAC nominations. Excellent work, and thank you to everyone involved!

For 2025 we have a new set of goals for nominations and reviews. In particular, we would like to see more articles on our Hot 100 list being improved and nominated for GA this year. If you take a look at the list and see an article you are interested in contributing to, feel free to add it and yourself to our Hot 100 project discussion. You might even find someone interested in collaborating with you!

This year, as with every year, we hope you will join us in helping improve our coverage of women and women's works on this encyclopedia. Every contribution helps. We'll see you around!

Grnrchst (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Arriestudios on User:Arriestudios (11:31, 3 January 2025)

Hi. How do i rename the page --Arriestudios (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Arriestudios: There is a guide for moving a page here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Editor Interview

I have around 10 years experience with wiki and around 60,000 edits making me a third level Master Editor. Whoopie. I was a technical writer for 30 years prior to that experience. Can you give me an idea what kind of interviews you'd be conducting? Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 9:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dcw2003: It's just answering the questions listed at User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections if you're interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I completed the questions today. Cheers!! Dcw2003 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Your hard work is appreciated! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from HsojSedroc (18:28, 4 January 2025)

Is this an AI? --HsojSedroc (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@HsojSedroc: No, I'm a real person. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This is the first time I've created a wikipedia account, and when I saw "Ask a mentor" I had to see what it was. Very cool, live resource. I doubt I'll be doing much editing but, hey you never know. I originally just made this account to hopefully save the darkmode. Thank you HsojSedroc (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@HsojSedroc: Well enjoy the dark mode and let me know if you ever have questions about editing. I'm not always online but I check Wikipedia at least once a day. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

welcome to cetaceans!

the project seems to be a little quiet these days but there is still some life! -- xarzin (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Xarzin: Glad to hear it! I was just talking with another editor I know on the off chance she might be interested in joining as well. Kiska is the only cetacean related article I've created but I've also edited a few others. My bar to deciding to join a wikiproject is pretty low but the more the merrier, right? A little bit here and there is leagues better than nothing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Ketchup chip

On 5 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ketchup chip, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ketchup chips were introduced in the 1970s along with other flavours such as grape and orange? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ketchup chip. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ketchup chip), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Requesting review for Gaali Bandh Ghar

Hello Hannah, Greetings of the Day!

I hope you are doing great. recently i noticed you reviewed an article I created, Period Chart Campaign.

I would like to ask your assistance if you can also review a similar article I created Gaali Bandh Ghar. This has gone unnoticed for a while.

Thank you in Advance!

Zuck28 (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zuck28: Thanks for thinking of me, but I'll think I'll pass. The article I reviewed had enough English sources (which are definitely not required) that I can understand. The article you're still waiting on mostly uses sources written in another language so I usually leave articles like that for other editors who do understand the sources. There's a backlog drive going on with WP:NPP right now to look at the 14,000+ articles waiting to be reviewed so hopefully someone will get around to that in the near future. Alternatively, you could ask another experienced editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject India what they think? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Clovermoss, Thank you for your detailed response!
I understand the importance of English sources as reference to verify the information.
As you mentioned it’s not necessary but still, I have added some additional citations in English language from some reliable sources.
Can you please check if you can review it this time?
Thank you in advance!
Zuck28 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Zuck28: I see that you described English sources as "important" here and I really wanted to reiterate that they're not required. No language is better than another, what matters is that the sources cited are reliable. It's really just about me on a personal level only being able to understand English and French. That said, I can now say for certain that this campaign has significant coverage in reliable sources. Thank you for writing the article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance and guidance.
Zuck28 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2024

The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award

This award is given in recognition to Clovermoss for conducting 425 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect Ninja Award
This award is given in recognition to Clovermoss for conducting 4,184 redirect reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work, keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Sandrauchime (10:05, 10 January 2025)

Hey Hannah. My name is Sandra. I need to know how to create a wikipedia page. How do I go about that --Sandrauchime (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sandrauchime: Well, Wikipedia has notability standards, so some subjects are more viable than others. This guide explains things in more detail, but the gist is that you want to provide three reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. There's additional criteria if you're writing about a business or organization. I'll leave some helpful links on your talk page and feel free to ask me any questions if you have them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Soap

It’s one thing to assume good faith but I don’t think it’s helpful to go beyond that and ‘imbue’ good faith instead. The source in question isn’t just ‘mainly’ about the abuse scandal, it is wholly about it. The source doesn’t discuss other matters unrelated to abuse, and it isn’t a source that would just pop up as the first source when searching for ‘governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses’. I appreciate that you’re being conciliatory and also that I should have been less ‘bitey’. However, it can also be ultimately unhelpful to appear naive, and concluding that there was no intent of directing attention to the controversy seems in error.—Jeffro77 Talk 01:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: With all due respect, I don't think my comment at Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Source material was naive. I prefer to take people, especially new editors, at their word until I have reason to believe otherwise. The initial response could have just been about why this wasn't the best reference to use in this situation without questioning their motives for adding it. In my opinion, to do otherwise just unnecessarily escalates things. Maybe they were reading that article, decided to look up what the Governing Body was, came across the article (saw the tag) and thought oh I could cite what I was just reading? No one's a mind reader so I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt unless they're acting egregiously bad. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I chose my words quite deliberately when I said “appear naive”. Adding one secondary source to a statement already supported by a secondary source and no primary source wasn't really addressing the tag about primary sources, was it.—Jeffro77 Talk 02:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but someone with about 100 edits to the site doesn't necessarily know how to fix a tag in one edit. I prefer to give constructive, encouraging advice to newcomers. I simply don't understand why you reacted this way to someone adding a reference (not even changing the content) to the article. Also, both the sources cited in that sentence are primary (as they're both JW publications). I genuinely think this edit was made in good faith. I'm fairly confident that other editors would say the same. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
While I was editing on mobile, I construed the earlier Penton source as the other source and did not notice the intervening statement in body text that was separately cited with a primary source🤦‍♂️, so I do apologise for that. However, I maintain that the chosen source is pointedly soapy.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jeffro77: You've struck the comment, which makes me think better of you, but I must concur that it is quite rude to accuse someone of picking a source for a citation with the intent to make an edgy political statement. You are correct that using that source might make such a statement regardless, but there is not any decent reason to assume that someone is doing it on purpose, especially if they are a noob with 120 edits. They are going around doing normal new-editor gnome stuff. Why would you not assume good faith? jp×g🗯️ 13:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The content of the source contrasted with the actual point cited quite obviously suggests a motivation to give attention to the abuse scandal. It doesn’t mean it’s the editor’s sole motivation or they’re evil incarnate, and the editor may even believe that highlighting the scandal is in good faith, but the intention of the edit itself is fairly clear.—Jeffro77 Talk 21:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jeffro77: As someone who frequents Clover's talk page, I'm quite disappointed to see the repeated assumptions of bad faith and the extremely disappointing behaviour you displayed towards a newer editor who appeared to be acting in good faith. I'm also disappointed in how you're behaving towards Clovermoss, an experienced editor who when you spend a lick of time paying attention to how they conduct themselves, is clearly one of our best editors in terms of acting in good faith and helping with editor retention.
What is your expectation? A source that only casually mentions the abuse scandal? OF COURSE sources that discuss the abuse scandal at an appropriate level of depth would be seeking to give attention to said scandal. That's how every news story in the world, and how news itself, works. If anybody writes something they hope that it gets read, and I find your concern about this, and using it as a disqualifying factor to be strange. If an editor sees a gap in an area they're interested in and attempts to fill it, that should be commended, they should be coached, they shouldn't be treated with any type of faith assumptions or aspersions.
Frankly, in watching this from a distance, I'm concerned about your ability to be impartial towards Jehovah's Witnesses as a subject matter and how you evaluate sources. I think you owe both Clover and AzanathInthevoid an apology, as they're both very clearly working to improve content that you're interested in. However, I'm feeling a tinge of ownership regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
No, you have misrepresented the issue. The source would be totally appropriate in an article about the scandal. The source about the scandal was added where neither the cited fact nor the article was directly related to the scandal, nor does the source discuss the cited fact. I have also explicitly stated that a person highlighting a scandal may be acting in good faith, particularly if they are not aware of Wikipedia’s policies. I have now directly apologised to the editor in question.—Jeffro77 Talk 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
That sounds like a pretty genuine and honest mistake. I myself put a reference in the wrong spot just yesterday. I'm glad to hear you apologized to the editor, and I'm grateful you did so. With that said, I don't see a scenario in which someone adding a reference should be accused of soap soaping and that not being an assumption of bad faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The source was not merely ‘in the wrong spot’. Irrelevantly directing attention to a scandal is pretty much the definition of soapboxing (I’ve not seen it called “soap soaping” before). Also, a person might personally believe that highlighting a scandal is always morally justified, so your assessment that it is necessarily an assumption of bad faith is also incorrect.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jeffro77: I think you're misunderstanding what soap boxing is, so you should rethink your usage of the term. Sorry that my comment had a typpo, but that doesn't invalidate the ownership and clear assumptions of bad faith you've been displaying and getting pushback on. Again, grateful you apologized to the editor, but it doesn't make it right how you went at them in the first place. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I have already acknowledged that my initial response did not take into account the newness of the editor and made possibly incorrect assumptions about their understanding of the rules. I have already apologised for that. I am quite aware what soapboxing is, I am aware that there can be different degrees of soapboxing, and that it includes giving undue weight to a controversy. I am also aware that a person who draws attention to a scandal is not necessarily doing so in bad faith even where it is against the platform’s rules.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Editor reflections question

Hi, Clovermoss … just curious whether you plan to eventually summarize the main themes you see in all this fascinating information you've gathered. I found myself glued to the current batch of surveys as I read through them. Not sure I'll tackle the earlier 200 responses, though it would be tempting. It was such a hoot to find that two of your respondents confessed to joining Wikipedia as vandals but then to "finding religion" and now contributing in more constructive ways! Augnablik (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I did some analysis in my mobile editing session at WikiConference North America. There hasn't been an uploading of the recording (I wish there was) but my slides are here. I'm planning on a more detailed analysis once there's 300 reflections. It'll be at User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections/Analysis if you want to have it watchlisted for when its created. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll save the slides for my next coffee break, and definitely watchlist the analysis.
Even though newbies need to focus on learning the ropes around Wikidom, I think it would be great along about their second or third month of active contributions to find out about this project so they can read a few of the responses (perhaps cherry-picked to represent different facets of Wiki experience) … and see how those further along the road dealt with similar challenges. Newbies and even still-newish editors can begin to feel so overwhelmed as they come to realize the vast amount of Wiki policy and guidelines, and the ease with which they could get into trouble. So when we see how even some of those we look up to as The Seniors went through similar stuff, especially if they weave a bit of humor into their stories, it can humanize everything and give hope. Augnablik (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

non-urgent requests for admin attention

Re: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Clarification_on_what_soapboxing_is_or_isn't: Generally a good choice is WP:AN, the kinder gentler and lower-drama place to ask for more eyes from other admins. Valereee (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't necessarily need an adminstrative opinion, though. Going to AN may be less high drama than ANI, but it's still relatively high drama, isn't it? Village Pump Miscellaneous seems like the catch all place you go when nothing else fits, which is why I went there. I'm not opposed to considering another venue, but it seemed like a decent place to get other experienced editors perspectives on what counts as soapboxing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't meant to imply I thought VPM was a bad place. Just that AN is an option, and there are plenty of experienced non-admins there. Just fewer people shouting 'boomerang' and such. I've found it a good place to take anything non-urgent that needs more eyes, but of course YMMV. Valereee (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate that. I think I'll wait and see what happens and then go from there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Conservative Judaism

I've answered your question at a bit more length on my talk page, but the short answer is that the difference between "conservative" as an ordinary adjective and the upper-case form used for Conservative Judaism is like the difference between "democratic" (referring to democracy) and "Democratic" (referring to a US political party): "the Canadian parliament is a democratic institution" vs. "the New York State legislature has a Democratic majority." UrielAcosta (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Chaput v. Romain

Hi @Clovermoss, I just noticed that you had started a draft early last year. I had not seen your draft and made one using the name Chaput v. Romain (the period after the v is the norm for Canadian Supreme Court Cases).

What do you recommend we do? I suggest keeping Chaput v. Romain, it is the right name and has already been submitted to AfC.

Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon: I was under the impression that the norm for Canadian legal cases was the other way around, to not include the period, at least on Wikipedia. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz would probably know for sure. Usually what happens in these situations is thar the newer content is merged into the older one. However, your draft is a bit more fleshed out than my draft so maybe this should be the other way around for convenience's sake? I'll ask for a second opinion on that but in the meantime I'd suggest looking at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you're interested in Canadian legal cases, there's a few more mentioned at Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada and the redlinks there do not currently have drafts as far as I know. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@CF-501 Falcon: I'd also like to know what source supports the sentence The case is the first of three of significant Supreme Court Cases related to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claims against Quebec authorities because as far as I can tell, the one cited in the next sentence does not verify this text. There were other Canadian Supreme Court cases around this time, such as Lamb v Benoit. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@CF-501 Falcon: Okay, I asked for a second opinion on discord and they said that in this circumstance it was likely best to follow the norm, which is to merge into the older draft. I have now done so and moved the draft to mainspace at Chaput v Romain. I'll wait to see what the expected Wikipedia:Naming convention is, but if you're correct on that, then I'll move it (and some other pages) to include the period in the title. I've temporarily created a redirect to prevent an AfC reviewer from accidently accepting a duplicate draft. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Clovermoss, I saw your comment in the edit history. I believe I meant to say the appeal was sustained. This might explain [1] . Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@CF-501 Falcon: Feel free to reinstate it then. It'd help to clarify the meaning. The goal is to write things in a way that the average person can understand and sometimes that means linking technical terms. You seem to be more familiar with legal terminology than I am, so I encourage you to be bold and make the change. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Got it. I just have a tendency to read a lot of legal things. Question, Should I add the Infobox SSC? Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@CF-501 Falcon: I don't mind if you want to add the infobox. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't remember where I got that from. It may have been from the one in the next sentence. If it isn't verifiable feel free to remove it. No hard feelings. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I may be completely wrong as I am fairly new. Thank you for checking! Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@CF-501 Falcon: and you may be right, who knows. I think you're off to a really good start for a newbie. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, @Clovermoss. I haven't really interacted with many senior editors other than from the Teahouse, but you are really friendly. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

SCOTUS case categories

Hey Clovermoss,

I think the "United States Supreme Court cases in YEAR" categories are a good idea. However, Category:United States Supreme Court cases is a non-diffusing subcategory, so it should appear on all case articles. In the future, please only replace "YEAR in United States case law" with "United States Supreme Court cases in YEAR" without removing the parent category. Thanks. lethargilistic (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic: Why is it non-diffusing? The reason I started this task was because the category had more than 4,000 pages in it and it seems impossible to navigate a category that that's big. I was under the impression that use cases for non-diffusing categories are quite limited? Like women scientists and scientists. I asked another editor before I started doing this, HouseBlaster, so I hope to hear them chip in here as well. Maybe they'll be able to explain it to me in a way that makes better sense. Anyways, I'll pause for now. I wasn't planning on doing this all at once to begin with because I can't stand doing the same repetitive task for so long without breaks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
At least from my perspective, this topic seems like it should absolutely be diffused. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah. I missed that it was a non-diffusing category, which is my fault. My sincere apologies. Clovermoss, the category is marked as {{all included}}, which means we should use both the in [year] and the generic category. I'm guessing that it aids navigation if you know the case name but not the year a case was argued/decided and need to find it via the category. The {{Large category TOC}} helps you sort for specific articles, so it's not as bad as it seems. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@HouseBlaster: What I don't get is how people decide what categories to diffuse or not. The gender and sexuality exceptions make sense, but I don't understand why you wouldn't diffuse a category with 4,000 articles in it but would for Category:Rivers of Europe. This seems like the very definition of overcrowded. As for navigation, if you know the case name, why wouldn't you just look up the article instead of digging through categorization? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable making a definitive statement about why that was decided because I was not there. However, I would suggest that the current categorization scheme for a generic SCOTUS case represents the main two ways people actually discuss SCOTUS cases: as SCOTUS cases and as SCOTUS cases of a particular Chief Justice's tenure. There are also subcategories for special cases like overruled ones or per curium ones; those kinds of unrelated subclassifications also make it a candidate for a non-diffusing parent category, IMO. I see your suggested change more as a subcategory of "YEAR in United States case law" than as a subcategory of "United States supreme court cases". In any event, a change like this that would affect every case article should be discussed with WP:SCOTUS first because it would definitely affect our maintenance reports. (Also, I would suggest that, if it is decided to go through with this change, it could be done via a bot.) lethargilistic (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Lethargilistic: The reason I care is because categorization should make sense to the average editor and I don't like it when there's weird exceptions to rules. I don't know enough about categorization to say definitively when or why certain reasons apply, but I just care from the standpoint of this shouldn't be rocket science for experienced editors to even figure out, you know? I'm not opposed to you notifying WP:SCOTUS but there's always the danger of specific wikiprojects going against the wider norms of the project (WP:LOCALCON). I'll think I'll probably leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and go from there? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
With respect, I just described the general practice of how most people discuss SCOTUS cases, so I don't think it's fair to characterize that as "rocket science" or inherently unfamiliar to the average editor. In contrast, people do not generally differentiate the cases by year, which is why I think it makes sense to subcategorize "YEAR in US case law" this way but not "SCOTUS cases". I think the category should follow what people actually do and expect. If you want to expand this conversation to the larger community, I guess you can do so. lethargilistic (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
So in general bot/technical maintenance is a valid reason to avoid diffusion. See, for instance, Category:Living people, which contains all BLPs to trigger the boilerplate BLP editnotice. Not sure what maintenance reports are being used, but that is a valid reason to avoid diffusion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Lethargilistic: It's not how you're describing it, or even this specific situation, it's just how I feel about the categorization system in general. Every once and awhile I try to understand how categorization works and it feels like this immense maze that's impossible to understand. It's a very frustrating experience and I feel like I can't be the only one who feels that way. New editors often have a hard time understanding various aspects of Wikipedia and I feel like if I, an experienced editor, feel this way about categories... other people must feel that way too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, categorization is a fraught social topic to begin with. While I appreciate the desire to have simple rules (and I think the current practice here follows the rules), it is impossible to design a perfect categorization system that satisfies all people in all cases, so consistency with a grand plan cannot be the only metric by which we judge them. This is, appropriately enough, one of the most important tensions in the law, and legal inflexibility has caused a lot of injustice in the world. (but, blahblahblah, my hobbyhorse.) lethargilistic (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic: I think there's a difference between being inflexible and guidance pages being inadequate. Inconsistency bothers me on some innate level and if there's rules, I want them to be able to easily follow them and to understand why they exist. Our guidance pages don't need to be perfect, but they need to be good enough. I don't think they're good enough. I make that clear in my comment at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#When to diffuse large categories?. I see stuff like Category:1991 births and it makes me think oh, when you have a large category, you can diffuse it by year. I see people in my watchlist diffusing categories all the time and come to the conclusion that oh, this is what people do when you have overcrowded categories. I can understand technical considerations applying, but I want guidance pages to say that. I want them to explain why Category:Rivers of Europe would be overcrowded if it wasn't a diffused category and why much larger non-diffusing categories are allowed to exist. It's not fair to expect people to just know this stuff. I'm not saying that you expect this (you were honestly very kind in coming here and saying that you think these subcategories have use). But that's genuinely what my experience in trying to understand categories feels like. There's not enough framework to know if you're making the right decision. To continue your metaphor, law works to some extent based on precedent. If you're trying to make a decision without knowing what those precedents even are, you're going to have a hard time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

For example, before you mentioned the maintenance reports, I had no idea why partially diffusing Category:2009 in United States case law (a much smaller category) into Category:United States Supreme Court cases in 2009 was an acceptable outcome while diffusing from the much larger Category:United States Supreme Court cases wasn't. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Subcategorizing "YEAR in US case law" would actually have material benefits. The most obvious one to me is that precedent in the US system is hierarchical, so case law established in one court cannot necessarily be used as precedential in another court. Case law from a technically irrelevant jurisdiction might be used persuasively, but that's not what people usually mean when they talk about "what the case law says." There are also courts that do not issue precedential rulings at all. Failing to differentiate by court hides this and probably makes them all appear universal to the average reader. lethargilistic (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Lethargilistic: I've gone back to the pages I edited yesterday to re-add the non-diffusing category because any sort of consensus on that is probably going to take a long time and I try to be responsible and clean up messes when I make them. I might continue diffusing the American case law categories by year since this does not seem as controversial. I tend to bounce between topic areas and tasks depending on whatever I'm interested in, so that may also take awhile. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. That makes sense to me. lethargilistic (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Toronto Wikipedia Day 2025 Reminder

Sun Jan 19: Toronto Wikipedia Day 2025 Reminder

Hello! Thanks for signing up for Toronto Wikipedia Day 2025. This is a gentle reminder that the meetup is scheduled for this Sunday. Full details are on the sign-up page if you wish to refer to it again.

The meetup will be casual, drop-in format and you are welcome to come & leave at any time to suit your schedule. We have planned different activities and discussion topics for the event. You are encouraged to bring a laptop or tablet if you wish to participate in editing activities or follow along. Please note that the room capacity is 50 individuals and we may arrange other alternative activities for individuals who are unable to enter the room while the room is full.

If you can no longer attend this meeting, please locate your username and remove it from the list so that the organizers can better estimate Sunday's turnout.

Thanks and I hope to see you on Sunday!

OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: I definitely plan to be there. I'm surprised at the sheer scale of newbies we have signing up this time, even if we've always had a higher newbie to experienced editor ratio. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I know! I'm definitely feeling the "Ralph Wiggum's chuckle I am in danger meme" at the moment. We need to think about alternative activities for those who aren't able to get into the door. It's too bad that it's going to be snowing and raining tomorrow so we can't do outdoor photowalks. Any suggestions? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: Maybe just an extended edit-a-thon? We might want to do something like help each new editor learn how to cite an unsourced statement. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It is difficult to show how it's done if they are outside the room and there's no projector. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I was thinking that if room capacity is reached, one of us experienced editors could hang out with the remaining newbies in the spacious lobby. I was thinking of it as a one-on-one thing, you don't nessecarily need a projector to do that. If it ends up coming to that, I volunteer as tribute. I suck at using projectors but I think I could guide people through editing on their devices. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

oof

placeholder for something useful Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pyropylon98: Well let me know if you think of anything. I'm assuming I've met you at the meetup. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
yeah we were chatting, you showed me some articles — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
nice meeting you, had to run to catch my bus so i didn't say bye, get home safe — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I did! Thanks for caring. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Self-care

Self awareness and determination Lawrynorb (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lawrynorb, please only use the mentorship feature when you have questions about editing Wikipedia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Mohammad Mehrvar (10:54, 21 January 2025)

Hi, I wanna Know how can I translate a page to my language (farsi) on wikipedia. Thank You --Mohammad Mehrvar (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mohammad Mehrvar: The English Wikipedia and the Farsi Wikipedia are technically separate projects so I only know what someone is supposed to do if they're translating into English and not the other way around (see Wikipedia:Translation). The Farsi Wikipedia may have slightly different requirements, so I'd suggest asking your question there just to make sure. If you have a hard time doing that, I can ask around to see if maybe I can find another editor that's active on both projects. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi, @Mohammad Mehrvar! I don't speak Farsi, but I had a look around and there's some instructions over at the Farsi Wikipedia that should be what you're looking for: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:خودآموز (ترجمه). They also have a help page: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست راهنمایی. It seems a bit quiet, but it's better than nothing. Good luck on your journey as a Wikipedian, no matter which project you choose to edit on! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Noindex on AfDs

Hi @Clovermoss -- so here's what I found out regarding the discussion at Village Pump. Unfortunately, this still looks a bit mysterious from our end.

We would have expected this page to have always have been excluded due to it being there in robots.txt for a very long time, judging by the comment in robots.txt saying the following: 

# Folks get annoyed when VfD discussions end up the number 1 google hit for
# their name.
See T6776 Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/

Do you see this for other AfD pages? One thing to keep in mind is if noindex was added recently or if the robots.txt entry was added recently, it sometimes takes up to several weeks for a recrawl. It should be faster for domains that see a lot of activity, such as enwiki, but it will still sometimes take weeks for a noindex to reflect. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@MMiller (WMF): I'll try to look into this to see if I can find other examples. Given that there keeps being multiple phab tickets each time this is "resolved", I have a hunch that it's never really been fixed? It helps when there's statistics to back that assumption, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Noorulhaqbrothers (07:34, 23 January 2025)

Hi, sir I want to add some information of our organization, basically we are a 60 year old construction company, could you guide me how can I do --Noorulhaqbrothers (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Noorulhaqbrothers, sorry for the wait. The first thing you'd want to do is read our guide for contributing with a conflict of interest, and you must disclose if you are being paid to edit. The second would be to check if your employer meets what Wikipedia considers to be a notable company. You want to cite and summarize reliable sources and do so in a neutral way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Samkamels (22:44, 24 January 2025)

Edited:

So, I was trying the Talk function. Is this the right way to do it? Or do I need to include more information or screenshots?

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFlairTech#Company_Name

Thank you for your support. --Samkamels (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Samkamels: I'm a bit confused about what you mean by "trying topics". I might be a bit more help if you give me more information about what you're trying to accomplish. As for the latter, Wikipedia has naming conventions that don't always align with what a company calls itself, like with Twitter. Situations like that are about common names that reliable sources use to describe the subject. That's what you'd want to rely on, instead of a company's own website or screenshots of it. Let me know if you have any further questions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
That answers my question. Thank you. Samkamels (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2025

Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331


Online events:

Announcements from other communities:

  • Wiki Loves Ramadan begins on 25 February - a great opportunity to focus on women from Islamic history

Tip of the month:

Suggestion:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Dakota Puppy (02:56, 27 January 2025)

Hello. Just received an invitation to edit a document. How do I select one to get started? Thank you for your help --Dakota Puppy (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dakota Puppy: My advice depends a bit on what you mean by being invited to edit a document. Did someone ask you to edit a specific article? Or are you just talking about being encouraged to edit more generally? Anyways, I've left some links on your talk page that should be helpful. Feel free to reach out to me whenever you have questions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
No one asked me to edit a specific document. I found one for an ancestor that had several errors in it. I took the plunge and corrected the errors. I have since found more documents that could use a little revising re grammar and punctuation. Is it okay if I go ahead and do this. Dakota Puppy (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Go ahead! Generally people will let you know if you're doing something wrong and if that happens, the matter can be discussed. The main thing to keep in mind is that it's important to cite reliable sources when you're adding content. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. My edits will be mainly technical not content but if I cross a line I will be happy to be told I have. Thank you. Dakota Puppy (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@Dakota Puppy: You're very welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi Clovermoss. I saw you on the recent admins list. Could you revdel this edit for violating BLP and being general vandalism (RD2)? I reverted it but it is pretty blatant. cyberdog958Talk 03:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberdog958: I don't do revdel requests very often, nor do I speak spanish, so I'm asking for a second admin opinion on this one. Something to keep in mind for the future is that revdel requests should generally not be posted in public places like noticeboards or talk pages. Before I became an admin myself, I would email admins on the rare circumstances I came across something revdel worthy. My understanding is that is considered to be the best practice. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok no problem. I've never requested a revdel before so I was unsure of the best process and I just found you at the top of the recently active admins list. Thanks for looking at the edit and I will make sure to use email in the future. cyberdog958Talk 03:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@Cyberdog958: Just to add a bit more color on this, I'd also probably just revert that edit rather than doing revision deletion since it's so clearly vandalism and not exactly an attempt to introduce a BLP violation. Maybe it could be removed under RD3, but I think it's a bit below the bar for that. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel Quinlan: Got it. I really just requested it because it seemed to me to meet RD2 criteria and I've seen similar type edits (in English) to be revdeled. But I do recognize that the edit is pretty insignificant and for most cases it is better to just revert and WP:DENY. cyberdog958Talk 04:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

"Novice Central"?

Hi, Clovermoss ... I knew you had a nice collection of links to Wiki tutorials and study material, so I came here looking for something to get me through understanding how to use the reflist template. Ideally it would include examples, practice, and automatically scored tests. I'd be happy to learn other more novice-level things too, after this.

I'm desperate, after trying to wade through other reflist documentation. I wish I could just switch to the Visual editor, which I find so much more straightforward; but an article I'm working on uses sfn and reflist, and I know it's not a good idea idea to use different citation formatting in an existing article. Plus I'm not even sure if I did switch to Visual editor to add new references to a reference list created with reflist that it would even work. Augnablik (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I'm sorry you're having a difficult time with this. You should be able to switch between visual editor and source editor, but I've never really used the former so I can't say with certainty if maybe it screws things up. I know Joe Roe uses visual editor a lot so he may have some advice. It sounds like User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners might help you. There's also a video in there that guides you through it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! Augnablik (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 1

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue in December 2024. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

Ideas for Wikipedia @ 25 needed
  • Conversation with the trustees: Speak directly with the Wikimedia Foundation trustees about their work at the next Conversation with the Trustees on January 30 at 14:30 UTC.
  • Community Resilience and Sustainability: Join the conversation hour which will discuss Trust and Safety, the Universal Code of Conduct, Committee Support, and Human Rights on January 30 at 20:00 UTC.
  • Annual Planning: Shaping Wikimedia Foundation’s 2025–2026 annual goals: Key questions for the Wikimedia movement.
  • Central Asia Wikicon: Submission for sessions is open until March 22.
  • Wikipedia is turning 25: We just celebrated Wikipedia's 24th birthday, and are already planning for next year's big milestone! Share your thoughts on what you have in mind to mark the silver jubilee of Wikipedia.


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org


Annual Goals Progress on Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

  • Global Advocacy: Wikimedians will promote cultural preservation and knowledge diversity at RightsCon 2025. Tune in!
  • Mis- and disinformation: Training on misinformation and disinformation prevention for communities in Indonesia: A recap.
  • December's Global Advocacy Newsletter: For quarterly insights into the internet governance and policy work the Foundation is doing, subscribe to our Global Advocacy Newsletter. You can see our latest December edition here.


Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · other newsletters:

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Sabu Sahabuddin (05:31, 28 January 2025)

Why don’t' wiki accept video or MP4? --Sabu Sahabuddin (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sabu Sahabuddin: Videos can actually be cited in an article. What matters is that it has to be a reliable source. So you can't cite some random YouTuber but you can cite the YouTube channel for CBC News. I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any further questions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from QueenBee101cece (20:40, 28 January 2025)

Hello, I am QueenBee101cece, I would like to ask a question. How do I start the editing process? --QueenBee101cece (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@QueenBee101cece: You can just pick almost any article and start editing (some pages that get a lot of vandalism are locked to new editors, but the vast majority aren't). I'll leave some helpful links on your talk page as well. Let me know if you have any further questions! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Aziansinou prosper on Granville Sharp (16:55, 30 January 2025)

Who defended james same set in court --Aziansinou prosper (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aziansinou prosper: I'm unsure what you're asking about but it sounds like a general reference based question. You might have better luck at the Wikipedia:Reference desk but you'd likely need to provide more information. The mentorship program is meant for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Virginia Christian

Yo Clovermoss! In 1912 some 16 year old intellectually disabled girl was accused of killing someone who abused and mistreated her. Can you help make the article less bad? I had to make edits like [2] and [3]. This is one area Wikipedia really sucks at. If you don't have time, do you happen to know anyone who could be willing to help? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: I'll try to take a look sometime in the future but no guarantees. I work on depressing stuff all the time but even I have limits. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I think edits like this are important. Do you know other people who are able to deal with some of the more difficult (not necessarily depressing, but complicated) stuff? I sometimes come across problems that I know I can't fix alone. And I can't keep spamming WhatamIdoing's talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Polygnotus: I will say your instinct to come to me was a decent guess. I've worked on some complicated subject matter like Jehovah's Witnesses and Euthanasia in Canada before. No one else immediately comes to mind to recommend for something like this, probably because most people intentionally avoid such topics, get burned out, or get sanctioned. There's a reason I alternate between more light hearted stuff and take breaks when I need them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. If you get tired of the light, fun and fluffy stuff you know where to find me! Polygnotus (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

In appreciation

The Winnowing Fan Barnstar
For some very self-aware winnowing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamzin Hadasa Kelly for deletion

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

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

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

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't usually leave comments like this but I thought I should this time. I think it was a tad bit uncalled for to suggest that you or anyone else at that discussion aren't competent enough to edit BLPs. You were 100% neutral and collegial every step of the way, in my opinion. There's literally nothing much else you could have done differently... The article is obviously going to be deleted. Tamzin could have just requested BLPREQUESTDELETE; the extra snark was not necessary. Notability is just a guideline but civility is a policy even though a lot of editors on here seem to forget that sometimes. This whole discussion is academic at this point so I'm not going to go leave this comment elsewhere and risk getting into arguments with people (I don't come here for drama, I like everyone on here). I just felt like leaving this comment here for your benefit in case you were feeling discouraged by this whole affair (saw you disabled your email; you're probably not discouraged but you seem to be taking the brunt of this for some reason) Now as far as I'm concerned this "drama" is behind all of us. I'm moving back to my regularly scheduled editing activities. Good luck with your future editing. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
At least you see things that way. I'm not going to lie, I'm feeling incredibly discouraged by everything. It's difficult to not take this personally when the entire situation feels so unfair. I think it's only human to get upset after seeing this, this, and this. All of this seems to stem from me saying "Trump-related administrative actions" instead of directly quoting the source saying something similar immediately. [4] I spent the whole day trying to keep up with everything going on. Address any and all feedback as quickly as I can but also not bludgeon the hell out of things or edit war. It's an impossible task. When you're put on the spot like that, it really makes it hard to even think. Everything just becomes a blur of emotions.
I'm sure Tamzin is still upset about that sentence but I don't have the heart to change it anymore. I've spent most of the past few hours too upset to do anything on Wikipedia, let alone go to the source of what caused it. If I don't make any edits in the near future, that will be why. I'm going to try and deal with this offline. My Wikipedia streak might end, which would be sad, but I need to take care of myself. I also need to stop caring so much about what other people think because that's always been a weakness of mine. The problem is that I can't stop caring. I'd appreciate it if no one contacts T&S this time simply because I experience negative emotions. I was fine then and I'll be fine now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
At end of the day, all you can really do is control your own actions. It's not your fault how others choose to respond. Sometimes bad stuff just happens... I was falsely blocked as a sockpuppet of someone else ten years ago. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
I too have a sockpuppet accusation story (with a different editor) and it's not a fun stroll down memory lane. As I said, my problem is that I care too much. I tried way too long trying to convince them that I wasn't a sockpuppet and then when my identity became public, why such accusations are hurtful. I know that I can only control my own actions. That doesn't mean I don't try to be an optimist that convinces other people to do better. It ends up burning me a lot of the time. I'm saying I'll be fine because I've been through way worse. I know from experience that time helps with processing things and with making emotions less intense. I know I can cope with this even if this situation just really sucks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I also want to clarify what I mean by the offhanded Trust and Safety comment because that was meant in a very specific way and I don't want it to be misconstrued. I don't know specifics of the WP:FRAM situation but I do know that Trust and Safety got involved at some point. Given who I am and my connections, I want to make it clear that I was not implying anything like that. This wasn't a me contacting T&S but them contacting me situation. The gist is that I express some frustrations to another editor about the state of assisted suicide in Canada. At the time, I was set to qualify for it within a few months (this was before the mental illness expansion got delayed). I had even been told that I would be a "good candidate" for assisted death by someone I was seeing for mental healthcare when I brought up my struggles with suicide ideation. They said it would be a less painful way to go.

But from my friend's perspective, I'm sure it just looks like I started ranting out of nowhere about assisted suicide. I thought I was clear that it was the prospect of death that scared me, not that I was actually going to try doing anything in the future. But shortly afterwards, I get an email from Trust and Safety saying that other editors expressed concerns about me, encouraging me to seek out local mental health resources. I respond that I've already done that, explain the whole assisted death concept again, and then state that "my distress was because I want to live". I don't hear back afterwards because really, what can you say to that? That offhanded comment was intended to express that no one needs to contact Trust and Safety just because I'm upset again. I was worried that if I actually took time for myself, or was open about the intensity of what I am feeling, people might see that as concerning. Hence my reassurance above that I'll be fine. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It's possible I'm overthinking that, though. I wanted to clear, just in case. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clovermoss/Archive_14&oldid=1273551008"