User talk:Abductive
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article requests in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand this edit; it seems to be de-italicizing a binomial name for some species, and leaving others italicized. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be the bot not knowing what to do with the rarely used "at" parameter. I'll mention it on the bot's talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 02:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
WikiCup 2024 August newsletter
[edit]The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:
Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.
Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.
If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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) 03:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Please revert this move and reopen the discussion. You closed it only 9 hours after it started, and move discussions should generally run for a week. There was an objection to the change from "battle" to "attack" in the comment just preceding the move discussion, less than a day ago, so this was not an uncontroversial move. Thanks, Dekimasuよ! 08:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Naw, it's on the Front Page and was an embarrassment. There was a clear trend on talk. Abductive (reasoning) 08:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- There were three comments, and the close was performed incorrectly. It is still showing as a broken move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Malformed requests. I have no opinion on this move, but I don't see why an out-of-process move should be performed over objections in service of something cosmetic. For that matter the close would have made more sense if there was a summary or link to the discussion of the nomination at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, which also didn't use the "attack" title. At the least please clean up the close and then maybe no one else will object. Dekimasuよ! 09:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It got turned from an embarrassment for all of Wikipedia to an embarrassment for me, I guess. This was no battle, as it is quite likely that any soldiers involved were not there to protect the victims, and the statement the "Burkinabe soldiers, auxiliaries, and air support responded to the attack, reportedly killing several militants and diverting a deadlier attack" is a lie. Abductive (reasoning) 09:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- The template is still broken and the reasoning behind the early close is still not explained. That can be fixed on the talk page regardless of content issues. Best, Dekimasuよ! 09:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't know how. Having it broken on talk is a consequence of a title so embarrassing that an editor such as myself is motivated to move it even though that is not something they usually do. It would be best in the future to avoid such eventualities by titling articles better. Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that titles should be chosen better; that's why I work on move requests and why there are procedures for performing them. In this case I have never edited that article or its talk page, and have never been involved in its titling. My pared-down request is simply for you to write a sentence after "page moved" to explain why the page was moved (there isn't anything to learn—it's just writing the reason—mention WP:RMEC and WP:SNOW if that's your reasoning) and then to remove Template:Requested move/dated, as it says to do in the text of the template when you now visit the page. Dekimasuよ! 09:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, this is an embarrassment for me. I'm sorry I can't be of any more help. Abductive (reasoning) 09:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that titles should be chosen better; that's why I work on move requests and why there are procedures for performing them. In this case I have never edited that article or its talk page, and have never been involved in its titling. My pared-down request is simply for you to write a sentence after "page moved" to explain why the page was moved (there isn't anything to learn—it's just writing the reason—mention WP:RMEC and WP:SNOW if that's your reasoning) and then to remove Template:Requested move/dated, as it says to do in the text of the template when you now visit the page. Dekimasuよ! 09:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't know how. Having it broken on talk is a consequence of a title so embarrassing that an editor such as myself is motivated to move it even though that is not something they usually do. It would be best in the future to avoid such eventualities by titling articles better. Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- The template is still broken and the reasoning behind the early close is still not explained. That can be fixed on the talk page regardless of content issues. Best, Dekimasuよ! 09:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It got turned from an embarrassment for all of Wikipedia to an embarrassment for me, I guess. This was no battle, as it is quite likely that any soldiers involved were not there to protect the victims, and the statement the "Burkinabe soldiers, auxiliaries, and air support responded to the attack, reportedly killing several militants and diverting a deadlier attack" is a lie. Abductive (reasoning) 09:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- There were three comments, and the close was performed incorrectly. It is still showing as a broken move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Malformed requests. I have no opinion on this move, but I don't see why an out-of-process move should be performed over objections in service of something cosmetic. For that matter the close would have made more sense if there was a summary or link to the discussion of the nomination at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, which also didn't use the "attack" title. At the least please clean up the close and then maybe no one else will object. Dekimasuよ! 09:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)