User talk:Sdkb: Difference between revisions

Williamchan2‘s mentor Martin Urbanec is away.

Hi Martin, I would like to know what is a semi-protected page and how to know if my account has the privilege to edit that semi-protected page. —Williamchan2 (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Williamchan2! Yes, you can edit semi-protected pages because you are autoconfirmed (your account is more than 4 days old and you have made 10 or more edits). Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 09:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello there i am Phoebe Phoebe24rfbn, (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Doober doob‘s mentor Ixtal is away.

Hii can you help me with some basic knowledge about editing because i was planning to create articles about people who are on red link in deaths in 2025, thank you in advance <3 (also would love to know about my mentor as well! Introduction, flexes about how good at editing you are) —Doober doob (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello respected mentor, i was wondering if you’re still there <3 Doober doob (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doober doob! Apologies I missed your earlier message.

For basic help on editing, I recommend Help:Introduction. It is much easier to start by editing existing articles than to try to create new ones, but if you are interested in creating new articles you can check out the advice at Help:Your first article. For red links at Deaths in 2025, I would check to make sure that the person’s article was not previously deleted, since if so they may not be notable enough according to our rules to warrant a Wikipedia article.

To learn more about me, feel free to check out my user page or some of the interviews I’ve given.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 22:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice respected mentor! I’d check them all out for sure! Take care <3 Doober doob (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdkb! I added all the citations to Tiffany Lily Walker’s draft page and wanted to ask if there’s anything the page needs for a speedy acceptance. Thank you for your time. —StarviewResearch (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do I create a page —Davidpinkstonjr (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidpinkstonjr, see Help:Your first article. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 13:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

---

hi why are my drafts being deleted for no reason while im trying my best it doesnt sound promotional in any way. —Raja Khurram Khan (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Raja Khurram Khan! Thanks for reaching out; I’m conferring with other editors about the deletion.

In the meantime, I’d suggest you look at Wikipedia:Autobiography. Also, regarding our notability standard for publishing an article, please note that trivial mentions, such as the one in Dawn, do not contribute, so it is necessary to have multiple reliable sources covering a topic with significant coverage.

Best, Sdkb ^talk 16:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey @Sdkb it wasnt really a trival mention to begin with i wanted to put it as an major event that occured, that was led by him second of all they keep saying its promotional on the next draft i removed everything that even had a hint of looking promtional and when we talk about notability isn’t president of supreme court bar association, a person whos incharge of all the lawyers in the region of kashmir notable? its actually pretty saddening as i spend so much time on this and someone keeps deleting it if you could help me fix it or somehow help me get it restored i will be very grateful to you. Raja Khurram Khan (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Sdkb i just saw that my draft page is back, i was wondering if you could help me improve it a bit or tell me if it requires any improvements, i will be very grateful to you! Raja Khurram Khan (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raja Khurram Khan, it looks like many of the promotional language elements have been fixed; glad to see that.

When the reviewer comes by, they will be looking to see whether the sources in the article establish notability under the WP:NBIO standard. Particularly, they will be looking to see that there are at least two sources that each meet all of the following criteria:

Are there two sources in the article that you think meet that standard? (It’s alright if they’re in Urdu.)

One concrete suggestion I’d make is, if the newspapers used as sources have their own articles, link to them within the references. (If they only have an article in Urdu, you can use the {{ill}} template or ask me for help by providing a link to the Urdu Wikipedia article.)

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 17:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb, Thank you so much i have applied the necessary changes,if you could take a moment to view them it woild be very nice. again thank you so much you have helped me improve alot. Raja Khurram Khan (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the change in license sticks at Commons, that’s fine with me. If they revert, we’ll have to figure out something else. But I note you didn’t remove the c:Template:MIT license template, so now the image there claims to be both public domain and MIT-licensed. Anomie⚔ 19:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, although I think someone would be very hard-pressed to argue that File:OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg rises above commons:COM:TOO.

Regarding the MIT license, I recently encountered a situation where there was an argument for keeping redundant licenses, so I’ve been a little more cautious about removing them. But I think you’re right that, in this case, if it’s PD it’s PD and there’s no need for any backup license. Sdkb ^talk 19:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. I wish the WMF people making all these new icons would look for when they’re PD from the start, or just CC0 them all instead of MIT, so we don’t have to run into this sort of thing. But I’m not going to try to argue it out with them. 🤷 Anomie⚔ 19:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that c:Template:PD-ineligible allows you to do something like {{PD-ineligible|MIT}} to specify what license it would be if not PD-ineligible. Other templates such as c:Template:PD-shape and c:Template:PD-textlogo don’t seem to have that functionality though. Anomie⚔ 14:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you also noticed the issue with the Commons logo licensing. That came up recently here, and I’ve been meaning to follow up off-wiki with some WMF folks about that.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah (re the bit you deleted in Special:Diff/1316838030), I don’t want to get involved with possible licensing discussions on Commons, I got tired of people there years ago. I’m happy for you to do it if you want. 🙂 What’s behind all those edits is that I recently rediscovered that the Commons license templates, and most of ours too, have metadata licensetpl_attr_req and licensetpl_link_req that indicate whether the license needs the link-back. And with fresh eyes I realized I could fix my old User:Anomie/unattributed-image-finder script to actually work reliably by reading that metadata directly, so I did it. Anomie⚔ 19:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ping me if there are any other licenses that should be PD; I’m happy to help with that at Commons.

Overall, glad we’re coming into compliance with licensing, but also this is such an annoying thing to have to comply with, since links to icon file pages are firmly detrimental to usability. Hopefully this is a chance for us to identify overly restrictive licensing on Commons that should be commons:template:PD-simple (and for us to update any outdated iconography to modern flat design that’s less likely to be above the TOO). Appreciate your diligence!

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 20:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll do that. Thanks!

Personally I’m not a fan of the flat style, I find it ugly, brutalist, and too reminiscent of Corporate Memphis and other corporatese design. Anomie⚔ 20:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m somewhere in the middle — I think it can work for very simple applications (such as icons like in {{please ping}}) but don’t like it for anything more complex. For better or worse, we seem to be reentering a gradient era. Sdkb ^talk 20:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tiny icons you can’t do much else with and still be recognizable. When we have people pushing for flat style on 40×40px message box icons though, ugh. Personally what I think it comes down to is that design in general attracts the kind of people who like to follow fashion trends, they’re always looking for how they can be trendy and different at the same time. I, on the other hand, have been using the same desktop environment with the same wallpaper and such since 1999. 😀 Anomie⚔ 20:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s one for you for today 🙂: c:File:Disambig.svg has GFDL, two versions of CC BY-SA, and a public domain claim all on it. Anomie⚔ 21:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Also File:Ionicons_duplicate-sharp.svg looks like it might be PD. Anomie⚔ 21:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed both! Sdkb ^talk 21:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Cameroon.svg, File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg, File:Complex-adaptive-system.jpg, and File:Flag of Togo.svg have both PD and non-PD licenses where the PD claims seem possible. File:Flag of Queensland.svg is iffy, depends on whether the October 2018 update (or an earlier change by that user) really did add copyrightable SVG code. Same for File:Flag of Victoria (Australia).svg and the December 2018 update. As for File:Coat of arms of San Antonio.svg, the PD tag there is probably wrong as the SVG certainly wasn’t published before 1977. Anomie⚔ 16:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:OOjs UI icon edit-ltr.svg could use the same treatment as File:OOjs_UI_icon_edit-ltr-progressive.svg. Anomie⚔ 15:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The various colors of File:Codex icon check color-success.svg and File:Codex icon close color-error.svg should probably be marked as PD too. Anomie⚔ 22:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More that seem simple enough they might be PD, as they’re basic symbols on a pretty basic colored oval: File:Symbol rename vote.svg, File:Symbol possible vote.svg, File:Cancelled process mini.svg, File:Symbol Translate.svg. Anomie⚔ 03:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Not facebook not like thumbs down.png has conflicting licenses, both a PD-simple and a CC BY-SA. Anomie⚔ 03:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Information icon dark green.svg could probably be PD to match File:Information icon4.svg. Also, are you regretting offering for me to ping you with all of these yet? 😅 Anomie⚔ 04:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not regretting it, just busy recently! Will get to it, likely after this weekend. Sdkb ^talk 05:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came across File:Puppeter template.svg which is labeled both CC BY-SA and public domain. Unclear what the real deal should be: back in February 2007 one source image was (apparently incorrectly) labeled CC BY-SA, so it may be that this inherited the license from that. But maybe the uploader really did intend CC BY-SA. Anomie⚔ 18:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:OOjs UI icon caretDown.svg is another basic symbol. Also all the icons at Template:Rfd top#Context awareness (except which is already CC0). Anomie⚔ 17:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more that can probably be PD: File:VisualEditor citoid Cite button-en-gb.png, File:Transparent bar.svg, File:Journal Icon.svg. Anomie⚔ 19:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echo chat icon.svg has both PD-ineligible and MIT tags. Seems likely the PD one is correct. Anomie⚔ 19:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, File:NoCommons.svg seems to have an incorrect PD template, as it’s derived from a non-PD source image. Anomie⚔ 19:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg is confusing. Apparently the current versions (since 2013?) are PD, but the earlier ones are CC BY? Anomie⚔ 23:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, you might be interested in Template talk:Taxobox#Linking to CC-BY images and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Icon image licensing. Anomie⚔ 23:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the images on Template:Color classifications, I have no idea why File:CyanIcon.png / File:Color icon cyan.svg, File:MagentaIcon.png, File:Shades of spring green.svg, and File:Shades of azure.svg aren’t PD while the rest are. Anomie⚔ 14:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all of the little icons on Template:Metabolic metro/caption. Unless the overcomplicated SVG code qualifies? Maybe File:interactive icon.svg too. Anomie⚔ 14:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Star half.svg somehow is not, even though File:Star full.svg is. Anomie⚔ 23:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sdkb my draft still hasnt been reviewed by anyone, as its my first time im not sure how much time it takes, if you could tell me how much time it would take so i could get started on writing some other drafts too, i would be really grateful to you. Raja Khurram Khan (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raja Khurram Khan, as the notice says, there isn’t any defined timeline, since it depends on when a reviewer takes it up. But it’s fairly normal for it to take a few weeks or longer, so patience is helpful! Feel free to start other drafts in the meantime, though. The more news coverage a topic has about it, the easier it’ll be to get the article published. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 16:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you know about editing —Felixmgx (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Felixmgx, I do! Feel free to ask questions. Sdkb ^talk 13:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb!
I really happy to have someone like you to ask questions! So I signed up in July and announced that I’m a paid contributor.

Since then, I’ve been able to get one page updated on behalf of my employer. (Yay!) However, one edit request has been pending since 24 September — I’ve seen the request number drop during that time and now it’s higher than what it was when I first submitted it. (I took a screenshot then and it said 199, now it’s 200.) It follows the same COI template I used for the page that got approval, except duplicated for 5 requested changes.

This is the request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alien:_Earth#Five_edit_requests:_Producers,_Production_Company,_Filming,_Design,_Production

Is it a thing for editors to pick and choose which request they respond to? If so, is there something I can do to get them to read my (admittedly very long) request? I did my best to be straightforward and organized about what was needed for approval.

Thanks so much! —Tetrameles (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tetrameles! The requested edit backlog is unfortunately often, as you’re experiencing, quite high; it’s a result of there just not being enough of us editors able to handle it all. Larger requests do tend to take longer.

But the good news is that the things you can do to increase the odds of a quick review — namely being specific about the X to Y changes you’re requesting and providing concise rationales for each — are things you’ve already done. All requests do eventually get reviewed, so if you continue to be patient you will eventually get a response. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 05:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the quick response! I figured as much, but I had to ask 🙂 Cheers! Tetrameles (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users’ IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user’s browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account’s name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won’t be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67’s IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if “reasonably believed to be necessary”. (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can’t be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account’s activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British barrelled name has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. U-Mos (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @U-Mos! Is there a reason you’re notifying me about this? I don’t appear to have ever edited that template. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 15:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb, as you created Template:Family name footnote and were instrumental in establishing that and Template:Family name hatnote as wrappers of Template:Family name explanation, which overlap the usage of the template in question, I thought you may wish to have an input into the discussion. U-Mos (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense; thanks! Sdkb ^talk 16:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

---

Hello. The page for Gibbons Ruark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_Ruark) needs to be updated. Ruark, my father, died on October 19. I tried to submit a request via the Talk page that his date of death be added, but that was nearly a month ago. (Here is his obituary: https://www.delawareonline.com/obituaries/pdov1311590.)

It would also be appropriate to change verb tenses as follows in the first section:

WAS a contemporary American poet. Known for his deeply personal, often elegiac lyrics about his native North Carolina and beloved Ireland, Ruark HAD poetry in such publications as The New Yorker, The New Republic, and Poetry. His collections include Rescue the Perishing, Small Rain, Keeping Company, Reeds, A Program for Survival, Passing Through Customs: New and Selected Poems, Staying Blue, and, most recently, The Road to Ballyvaughan. He WON numerous awards including three Poetry Fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts, residencies at the Tyrone Guthrie Centre in Ireland and a Pushcart Prize.

It would also be helpful to relabel the “Currently” section “Later Years,” and revise the verb tenses like so:

Ruark’s poetry WAS selected to appear in a number of anthologies. His poem “A Vacant Lot” appeared in The Pushcart Book of Poetry: The Best Poems from 30 Years of the Pushcart Prize. Five of his poems appeared in The Book of Irish American Poetry, From the 18th Century to the Present and two appeared in From the Other World: Poems in Memory of James Wright. Ruark retired from the University of Delaware in 2006, returning to Raleigh, North Carolina WITH his wife, Kay.

(It seems to me that section could end there, as all his publications are listed below that.)

I would deeply appreciate any help you can offer. ~2025-34636-42 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences on your loss and thanks for reaching out, @~2025-34636-42. I have updated the article and begun adding a few references to it to aid with verifiability. Myself or other editors may improve it further by adding/incorporating additional sources in the future (my subscription is currently lapsed but it looks like there are some articles in Newspapers.com’s archives about him). Best, Sdkb ^talk 20:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-34636-42, I have added some additional references to the article from Newspapers.com. You may find it interesting to read some of the cited coverage, which can now be found in the article’s references section. Best, Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I had a situation earlier today. I have first hand information about a person in an article. I edited it, added proper citation and everything, and the AI flagged it and removed it. —JanetLByars84 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JanetLByars84, and thanks for your contributions! First-hand info is (perhaps counterintuitively) considered original research here and is not allowed because it cannot be independently verified. Are there also external sources that could be used to cite the info you’re trying to add? If so, I’d try again and include those (the AI is much less likely to revert edits with citations, although lmk if you still have any trouble). I don’t see citations in your prior edits — info about how to include those is here. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 00:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Blockbuster (film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 20 § Blockbuster (film) until a consensus is reached. I am RedoStone (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is “Francis Amasa Walker“.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Gramix13 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Camkeoke‘s mentor Snowmanonahoe is away.

Hello, I have added a section to an axolotl page that could be questioned about why I put it there. I explained pretty when I published my change, but would there be any way I could make another comment on the section I changed. —Camkeoke (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Camkeoke! If the change you make isn’t reverted, there’s no strong need to make any additional comment on it. But if you wanted to, you could do so either by dropping a note at the talk page or by making a dummy edit and adding the explanation to the summary of it. You could also add a hidden comment to the article explaining whatever you think needs explaining. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 03:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sir I am trying to create this page but i cannot —Julia Dobkine (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Julia Dobkine, see Help: Your first article Sdkb ^talk 14:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Cleo Abram when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance.
Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08, that article was sitting in draft state for quite a while; the only recent change I made was publishing it to mainspace after it acquired NBIO-requisite sourcing. Some of the parameters that were present when it was initially created may have since changed, which may have been what you noticed.

Without going all DTTR on you, I might posit that the notice you delivered above wasn’t really tailored to the situation at hand (there hadn’t been new parameters introduced, and I’m not a new editor who would be unaware that parameters must be defined). It might be helpful for you to do a bit of an audit of recent times you’ve delivered this notice to ensure that it’s reaching its intended audience. Ideally an educational notice like this should be designed so that it does not go to extended-confirmed-plus editors, although I’m not sure if Twinkle is capable yet of that sort of restriction. Sdkb ^talk 21:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not going off on me regarding DTTR… I am usually better about this. I looked at the page history and saw you had created it and extensively edited it so I felt that it was a fair reminder to send. If you were in fact not the one to add the unknown params I do appologize! If it was you, know I meant no offense and certainly didn’t mean it as hey dumba$$ you effed up but instead as a genuinely friendly reminder. In any case, hope you can take it in the spirit I intended it. Keep up the good work! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleo Abram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Sdkb ^talk 13:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

Valereee

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

---

Note: Accountity‘s mentor Alyo is away.

hi, how do i add a userbox to my own userpage, and add an image inside of the id section? (take Catfurball for an example) —Accountity (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Accountity! WP:Userboxes has info about them. Some userboxes have a |image= parameter that’d let you add an image inside the ID section. Userboxes are a type of template, so if you haven’t used/edited templates before, then reading Help:A quick guide to templates may be helpful. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Accountity (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb. Here I asked if you could watch for possible actions that go towards orphaning Module:Params, especially if done without reasons, because they would certainly cause regressions. This might be the first example. Without the regression writing {{subst:space separated entries|A|B|C}} produces the following wikitext: A B C, whereas with the regression we have A B C. Maybe if you asked the user why they do what they do all will be clarified? When I ask I usually don’t have productive conversations. Thank you. —Grufo (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the thing has been clarified and there is no need for further actions. —Grufo (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that Gonnym may have preferred the arguably cleaner code of the older version, even if it means having the uglier #32 spaces outputted. You are correct that this wasn’t really explained in their revert, although restoring your change starts to risk getting into an edit war. I guess we’ll see if Gonnym does/says anything further.

My advice for having productive conversations, given the history between you two, would be to adhere extra scrupulously to AGF/civility. If that is not enough to resolve the behavioral side of things, then, as much as I hesitate to recommend the drama board, I think the external perspectives of editors there might be needed to help sort things out. Hopefully it won’t come to that. Best wishes with your editing, Sdkb ^talk 19:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sdkb. I completely agree and I’ll do my best. —Grufo (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ozzie10aaaa! While I appreciate the sentiment, per the editnotice on this page celebrating Christmas is not part of my personal cultural tradition. The documentation of {{Seasonal Greetings}} lists some more inclusive options and recommends those for any editors whose preference you do not know; those may be useful for other editors you wish to send a greeting to. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 15:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you who is supposedly an admin suggest TFD a valid template. They have uses, where an article absolutely requires that section to be valid. They aren’t placeholders though and should be discouraged as much as possible. A page created with this template would not be moved to main space if created as a draft. Its lazy editing, that you seem to wish to encourage.

This section is not critical in any way to the article. Look forward to seeing how long that template is on an article. It has already been two years, and I would suggest if you care about the article that you resolve the situation and edit the encyclopaedia. Blethering Scot 22:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out here, @Blethering Scot (link to the edit for anyone else interested). I have that article on my watchlist but don’t particularly care all that much about it; I moreso care about {{Empty section}}. You seem to have the view that they should not be used as placeholders, but I’m not sure what else they could be used as. As the documentation there says, Content tends to follow sectioning on Wikipedia, as editors naturally will tend to fill in sections over time. Therefore, using this template to set up good placeholder sections at the start of an article’s lifespan can aid its development over time. I’ve found this to be true — knowing how to structure an article and what types of content belong in it can be a difficult task for many editors (especially newcomers) and requires familiarity with high-quality articles in a topic area. Appropriately tagged placeholder sections aid with that, providing an easy entry point for editors who wish to contribute. That hasn’t happened yet with Tatte (a low-traffic article) but it may in the future.

Regarding lazy editing, yes, it’s always better to write out a section than to mark a placeholder, but that requires a lot more effort, and we’re all volunteers with limited capacity. Regarding whether or not the section is critical to the article, I’d say a “Food” section describing the type of cuisine served is something I would absolutely expect to find in any FA on a restaurant (and the one restaurant FA I could find at a glance does have one). It’s the same as with any other company, where we devote some space to covering their products.

I hope all that helps clarify my view, and that it persuades you not to remove other placeholder sections in the future. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 22:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove them when not required and place better templates. They aren’t placeholders and are lazy editing. If that’s the admin you wish to be, then so be it. But its a poor view that fails to encourage standards. Blethering Scot 22:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the CIA have information about World Rugby Nations and their win loss draw points for and against records. The reason why I’m asking is they are an information gathering organisation. I would like to find a more comprehensive list about this subject. Also the greatest national teams in sport. Their records as well please. Thank you ~2025-42011-41 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to help you with questions about editing Wikipedia. For other questions, please see the reference desk. Sdkb ^talk 18:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/International Documentary Association top 25 documentaries has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HI there, I wanted to add a more recent photo of the subject. can I replace the old one or just add a new one? and how do I do that!
thanks —AnneMartinLondon (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AnneMartinLondon! Is the new photo freely licensed and already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? Could you share a link to the new photo and to the existing article? Sdkb ^talk 03:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sdkb ^talk 20:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—⁠andrybak (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and cool fix! Sdkb ^talk 07:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]