User talk:IgnatiusofLondon

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.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
128 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (talk) Add sources
78 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Fatti di Rovereta (talk) Add sources
93 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C San Marino RTV (talk) Add sources
15 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Domagnano (talk) Add sources
270 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA City of San Marino (talk) Add sources
46 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Quadrilatero (talk) Add sources
4,094 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Vince McMahon (talk) Cleanup
7 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Karl Blind (talk) Cleanup
13 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C The Northern School of Art (talk) Cleanup
24,798 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA UEFA Champions League (talk) Expand
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ravenna-Cervia (talk) Expand
2,810 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA American Samoa (talk) Expand
68 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Okinawa soba (talk) Unencyclopaedic
7 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Lo Presti 'ndrina (talk) Unencyclopaedic
206 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Elisha Otis (talk) Unencyclopaedic
33 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Religious calling (talk) Merge
69 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Rigatoni con la pajata (talk) Merge
65 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Christian libertarianism (talk) Merge
21 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA History of the Later Roman Empire (talk) Wikify
410 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C La Spezia (talk) Wikify
29 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Wheelchair lift (talk) Wikify
41 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Ancient scripts of the Indian subcontinent (talk) Orphan
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Carlos Alberto Scolari (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Abdullahi Boos Ahmed (talk) Orphan
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Roberto Manzi (talk) Stub
21 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Gabicce Mare (talk) Stub
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Pennabilli (talk) Stub
12 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub The Barque of Dante (Manet) (talk) Stub
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Maiolo (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Federation of Genealogical Societies (talk) Stub

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) 23:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Well I have also significantly contributed to the Where is Kate? article. I still did not receive a talk page notice from you as you have done with other editors regarding the AfD. Just to let you know that should the article be retained, I would like to discuss a good number of changes related to the citation parameters used in the article's source as well as the article's prose. Looking forward to our future collaborations and a positive response from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't leave a notification on your talkpage because I remembered that you had already contributed to the new AfD, and were therefore aware of its existence. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 12:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IgnatiusofLondon,

I thought you did a great job summarizing the odyssey of this article in your deletion statement. It especially holds weight as you are not only the nominator but the creator of the article.

I'd just like to make one suggestion to you. I see valid arguments on all sides of this discussion (Delete, Keep, Redirect, Merge and even Move) but the only consensus I see right now is that editors are tired of the discussion about this article. I think if just one of our regular closers closed this discussion in a week, no matter what the resulting closure was, it would be going back to another Deletion review. So, just to encourage a thoughtful consideration of editors' opinion and avoid another deletion review, I think it would be a good idea to go to WP:AN and suggest that there be a panel of three admins to handle the closure of this discussion. This is not uncommon with contentious discussions like this one has become. There are a few good reasons for doing this, having a trio of admins make this decision usually results in admins who are not regular closers to participate in the review and I think it would help to get some fresh perspective handling this closure rather than one of the few regular closers we have (which includes me!). Also, a panel decision is more likely to "stick" and not be contested because a group of admins usually presents a very understandable and coherent closure statement. Luckily, you just started this AFD the other day so there is almost a week to find three admins who have been uninvolved with any of the prior discussions. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thank you for your message and kind words. I think this is an inspired suggestion that absolutely should be taken up for the reasons you cite; I will leave a message on the noticeboard now. Fingers-crossed we can find three admins! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024[edit]

Hello IgnatiusofLondon,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Hey IgnatiusofLondon, while we don't see eye-to-eye on the ongoing deletion discussion, I wanted to acknowledge the sheer amount of work and diligence you've put into the thorough nomination and deletion rationale and commend you on your outstanding work in every step along the way. You've made great efforts to ensure your policy-based arguments are factual and grounded and acknowledged the limitations thereof, which always (in my opinion) strengthen the overall quality of the argument. As a diligent writer and editor, Wikipedia is better for having you around. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gather from your recent writings that the whole ordeal has taken a tole on you, so I just wanted to let you know you're supported and, regardless of the outcome, your work is greatly appreciate! Look forward to seeing you around on the project! Cheers, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, MicrobiologyMarcus: my editorial confidence having taken quite a knock in the last few weeks, this really means more to me than you might think, and I am very grateful for your kind and supportive words, as I was also very grateful for your thoughtful and considered contributions to the AfDs and DRV. I look forward to the ordeal being over, one way or another, and being able to display this shiny barnstar on my userpage :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. As reflected in the barnstar I gave them, it’s clear to see Ignatius is an outstanding editor shown by the well written, policy based arguments they consistently put forward, and engagement with other editors. An asset to the whole encyclopedia. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I trust there are no ill feelings toward me. I've made every effort to remain neutral in all my responses to you (and others). I've never intentionally caused harm or hurt anyone's feelings, and I hope you're doing well both mentally and physically. By the way, did you only recently become acquainted with the British royal family? Creating the entire article was quite a substantial task, not to mention the additional time spent on its improvement and the deletion reviews and AfDs. I look forward to our future collaborations. Regards and faithfully yours, MSincccc (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSincccc, no ill feelings at all, and I'm sorry if I've said or done anything to suggest otherwise. Thank you for your kindness and concern. It's a pity my userpage is temporarily usurped by the fiasco, given that it is a helpful introduction to me, but I don't have an editorial interest in the British royal family and do not expect to be editing in this topic area in the future. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 09:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be open to collaborating on another article from the ground up? We could strive to achieve GA and FA status with it. If you're agreeable to the idea, we could start working on it soon. What do you think? But it should be backed up by reliable sources and not be speculative like Where is Kate? Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a kind and thoughtful invitation, but as I say, I don't really have much of an interest in this topic area. Most of my contributions concern other topics, principally relating to Rimini and San Marino. It's fairly rare for me to venture into other pastures, and even then, I tend to stick to less-traversed articles. So Where is Kate? has been an extraordinary venture, in all meanings of that word, of my Wikipedia hobby so far. I've also never been involved in the GA/FA process, and that's partly by choice, knowing that those projects tend to have quite large backlogs, and partly by consequence of the context of my topic areas. So, while the invitation is kind and I hope there will be some intersection of our interests that will lead us to collaborate in the future, let's see how things go. And to be quite honest, once the future of Where is Kate? is certain, I'm very much looking forward to spending a good few days or weeks off-wiki :)) but thank you once again, and I do look forward to collaborating in the future. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 14:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IgnatiusofLondon Are you a Londoner by the way as your username would suggest and is Ignatius your real name?
As far as collaborating is concerned, I am ready to work on any decent, not mature article suitable for a pre-teen as long as I have a good partner to work with. Regards and faithfully yours, MSincccc (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am a Londoner, and no comment on my real name to protect my identity :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 20:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would collaborate on any decent article if you are not averse to the proposal. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference case for Where's Kate discussion[edit]

What I hope to draw your attention to on the Chinese WP involves two public figure pages and one list page: Tong Liya (a famous Chinese actress), Shen Haixiong (the head of the China Media Group, a state-run media company) and controversies around China Central Television. I'll make a hyperlink in my reply in the AfD. (No idea whether Google translate from Chinese to English is accurate enough but anyway...)

  • Summary: Tong divorced in May 2021 and the spread of the news was restricted by Weibo (allegedly because the authorities were promoting a “cooling-off period before divorce” policy at that time). Later in December it was rumored that she remarried Shen (certainly of political scandal nature). The allegation was immediately wiped off from all Chinese social platforms, and soon the Beijing police arrested three suspects for false statements. Tong’s agent declared she was still single.
  • My opinion: On the Chinese WP, info around the controversy was scattered in the three above mentioned pages. It’s a typical case of a conspiracy theory that vanished quickly: it involved only two public figures, and lasted for only a few days (since the authorities immediately cracked down on it), and was only another humble page of censorship history within China. But Kate’s story is obviously far more complicated: it started from her months long of public absence, and the public opinion finally exploded with the Kensington's disastrous photoshoped post, and it lasted for more time (though it admittedly also died within weeks) and made headline story globally (from MP Galloway to Stephen Colbert, from never complain never explain to Russian cyberwarfare) Now it is definitely more than a humble page of "British monarchy's public image history"; if we break all these things into pieces, then search time for a reader interested in the whole Gate will be multiplied. That is what I refer to as "compilation value", i.e. value as a standalone story. That is where I find a distinction between Kate's case and other frenzies.

Jason211pacem (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jason211pacem, thanks for taking the time to compile this interesting and relevant analogy. I think the treatment that this case receives across the three articles is comparable to what I think the long-term encyclopaedic coverage of Where is Kate? should be. A complication here is that most of the information appears to be at Tong Liya's biography, rather than Shen Haixiong's (which on the one hand might make some sense given it was her alleged remarriage that was at the heart of the controversy, but on the other hand, editors reading Shen Haixiong are not readily directed to learn more at Tong Liya's article). Meanwhile, the entry at Controversies related to China Central Television seems strange to me, given that China Central Television doesn't seem to have that much relevance to the controversy except by virtue of Shen Haixiong's position.
Instead, in Where is Kate?'s case, Catherine, Princess of Wales serves as a fairly natural article to host the relevant information about the circumstances which caused the speculation, and a subsection on her health will likely include one or two additional sentences of context that can make Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health a natural Further information or See also target in articles that need to discuss the speculation and controversy.
I don't want to litigate the AfD too much here (though we can and I can move our comments to the AfD if it would be relevant), but regarding the "compilation value", my opinion remains that this story is of interest to multiple topics – republicanism in the United Kingdom, privacy and the British royal family, public image of Catherine, etc. – that, individually, do not require the full set of events to understand what part of the controversy/narrative is relevant to that particular topic, and I am not sure what seeing the full set of events will add to these readers. For example, a discussion on privacy doesn't really need to talk about the Mother's Day photograph, and a discussion on republicanism doesn't really need to talk about the Windsor Farm Shop video or William cancelling his attendance at the memorial service. In the case of the controversy you highlight, this isn't quite the case, because there aren't that many multiple topics interested in the controversy: the biographical articles, yes; China's attitudes on divorce, yes; and censorship, yes; but what else? The controversy is also fairly short to summarise, at least judging by what has been written across the three articles you've linked: it is an event, rather than a set of events in Where is Kate?'s case. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, IgnatiusofLondon. Thank you for your work on Capanno Garibaldi. Rusalkii, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for a through and high quality article! With maybe some slight work it looks ready for a GA nomination.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rusalkii}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Rusalkii (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Missing food and drink"[edit]

I'm ready. Could you create the article? I'll look for the sources. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see Draft:U cumbitu. I've extrapolated what I could from the source I left on your talkpage yesterday. No need to go through the AfC process; we can page-move it onto mainspace once it's ready. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 13:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this source, it isn't the best but it's among the most authoritative I have found: https://digilander.libero.it/galatro.rc/tradizion2/disum_cumbitu_sangiuseppi.htm. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched "pasta fagioli calabria san giuseppe" and am now getting some results for the spelling "u 'mmitu"? My hunch is that we need to try a few different variations! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you have chosen a simpler subject? I'm joking ahahaha. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did say that we would have to scrape sources ;) One concern I have now is whether u cumbitu refers to a pasta and chickpea dish, as the first source suggests, or a banquet/social event, as the source you've provided suggests. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 15:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Italian sources, the second. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've solved the mystery: we're talking about lagane e ceci as the principal dish. I'll keep expanding Draft:U cumbitu to see if we have a viable standalone article, but a merge may otherwise be in order (probably with [Draft:U cumbitu]] as a subsection of lagane e ceci. By the way, commons:File:Lagane e ciciari ara cusentina.jpg can be added to that article's infobox. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 20:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lagane_e_ceci&diff=prev&oldid=1218248367). JacktheBrown (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't and wouldn't have done it without you! :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but this time you did it all, I only got the source and little else. Thanks to you! JacktheBrown (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

Hi, I added a new reference (BOOK) to the Carbonara page, how do I change the page? It's no. 75. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check I've added it to the right book! Usually, go to the template documentation and find the name of the relevant parameter. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work, also because I took the source from the spaghetti alla puttanesca page and there was no page number; I would also like to add this book to the pasta alla gricia page. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused what you're trying to do. Is it the 2007 or the 2013 book that should have page 75? In the wikicode, the parameter that needs adding/changing is "|p=75", so simply remove "|pages=" if that parameter exists and swap it for "|p=75", or add "|p=75" if the "|pages=" parameter doesn't exist yet. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 13:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply took the source from the spaghetti alla puttanesca page; anyway, 2013. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't this edit work then? With that edit, the citation read (emphasis mine):

Zanini De Vita, Oretta; Fant, Maureen B. (2013). Sauces & Shapes: Pasta the Italian Way. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-393-08243-2.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you, the page from which I took the source (spaghetti alla puttanesca) doesn't provide this parameter, so there should be another way. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I think I understand what you mean. You want the book (without the page number) to be in the bibliography, then you want an inline citation that links to the book and specifies the page number. Note that this will be inconsistent with what the article currently does for the 2007 book. Is that what you mean?
The inline citation you want to add is {{sfn|Zanini De Vita|Fant|2013|p=75}} in the desired place in the article body. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soppressata and sopressa are the same food, yet we have two different pages; how do we solve this problem? https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soppressata. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of any reason at all why an editor would object, WP:MERGEINIT. Otherwise, skip to WP:PROMERGE. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 13:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have never proposed a merge, because I have never been in this situation; I haven't quite understood how to do it. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I'm very glad that there is another person who cares enough about Italian food on en.wiki, you make me feel less alone in this (Talk:Cotechino#Merger from Cotechino Modena); thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you! One thing I find helps the loneliness is tracking my pageviews, which returns the pageviews of every page wikilinked to this page that I maintain. Here is a query for every wikilink in List of Italian foods and drinks. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 15:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are English, could you please help me with this sentence? "Although there may be many variations of the same Italian food, and though there are certainly many variations under the umbrella of the term zuppa toscana, classic zuppa toscana's main ingredients are cannellini beans, potatoes, and kale." (zuppa toscana). I have already used "Although" (here: "although in Italy it is called "minestra di pane", meaning 'bread soup'.") and wouldn't like to repeat it; I know that in English there is also "even tought", although in writing it's not formal enough; do I use "despite"? JacktheBrown (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of superfluous words that don't really, in my view, add anything to that very long sentence. I also don't think a general comment about Italian food is apposite. I would simply write: "While there are many variations of zuppa toscana, its classic ingredients are cannellini beans, potatoes, and kale". IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 19:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! If you want you can edit the sentence (by the way, I didn't write it, it was already there). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, I'm currently working on the vastedda page; I think it can be expanded. If you want to help me, we could start improving the sentences already there. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from GMH Melbourne[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope, Tennessee. Hello, I recently nominated Pope, Tennessee for deletion. I am messaging you as I thought you might be interested in the matter. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates[edit]

Why have you added so many duplicate sources? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piada_dei_morti&diff=prev&oldid=1227180014. JacktheBrown (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I think the question you're asking is: "Why do you use multiple sources to support the same statement?" Two reasons:
  1. Firstly, and less commonly, sometimes, I report two separate statements in the same chunk of text that are collectively covered across two sources, and so the one chunk of text requires two citations. For example, one source might say "John the dog is green" and a second source might say "John the dog is fluffy", so the statement "John the dog is green and fluffy" will require two citations. (I provide inline citations only after punctuation marks.)
  2. Secondly, and more commonly, I generally prefer to provide the two strongest citations for every claim/sentence I report in an article. This is purely editorial practice, not a matter of policy, but I do not believe any Wikipedia policy disallows this; indeed, WP:OVERKILL suggests that several citations are sometimes preferable to a single one. My rationale is that two citations mean that if one citation is challenged (for example, it becomes a dead link, or there is a dispute about its reliability), the second citation is readily available for readers and editors to consult/someone has already done the hard work of finding an alternative source, without having to add a "citation needed" template. This increases trust in Wikipedia's reliability, and comes at an acceptable cost to readability, whereas three citations would disrupt readibility much more. It also highlights claims/sentences that, being supported by only one citation, may not be widely supported/commonly discussed in sources on the topic.
I see you've reverted your edit already, for which I am grateful, as I would have asked you to consider whether removing citations was really a helpful revision to the article. In general, I think WP:OVERKILL is inapplicable unless we're talking about 3+ more citations for uncontroversial claims/sentences. While I'm not encouraging other editors to take up my editorial practices, and recognise I uphold a minority viewpoint, I think it would be a misdirection of your time to go about culling my citations; there are very important contributions to the encyclopaedia, for which you are skilled, that are more deserving of the generous time you offer to improve Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 22:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IgnatiusofLondon: in fact, I have left it, also because it seems to me a very good thing in this case what you have done; however, for example, as regards pages with only two or three references (not created by you) that always repeat these same references every line, I have removed the multiple citations. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, I tend to do that too, e.g. if a paragraph contains only the same inline citation multiple times in a paragraph, I remove them and just put one citation at the end of the paragraph. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy One Year of Editing[edit]

I wanted to take a moment to recognize and appreciate all your incredible work on Wikipedia. Your edits have improved not only English Wikipedia but also Wikipédia français and Wikipedia italiana. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @TheSpacebook, I appreciate it! I hope you are well! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 20:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you think this sentence is good or should be improved? "is a variety of gelato, consisting of milk-based gelato with fine strands of drizzled chocolate stirred through it." JacktheBrown (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on the topic, as it's not my favourite flavour of gelato! It strikes me that "milk-based" may be redundant. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 20:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But "milk-based" is only written once. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would think "gelato" suggests milk? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, you're right ("60–80% milk"). JacktheBrown (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the sentence better now? JacktheBrown (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]