Wikibreak
The days of <radiology elective> were long and beautiful and free, and felt like they could last forever.
Unfortunately, it was not to be. And the large flat hard wall of <actual grades> and <actual effortful work> came swiftly upon him.
Peace, love, and fun where fun is duly weighted by reliable peer-reviewed sources. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 08:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Jesse D. Bloom: WP:PREPRINT
Hi, regarding your edit to Jesse D. Bloom where you removed a paragraph on the basis of WP:PREPRINT, I just wanted to confirm my understanding. That paragraph is sourced from a Variety article that on any view is RS. The particular statement on the page does relate to a preprint, but the statement is not sourced from the preprint, so while I completely agree that preprints "are not reliable sources", the statement on the page that you have deleted is from a reliable source. So I'm a bit confused as to the policy basis for its deletion? Thanks for your time. Cabrils (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Talk page comments
I’m at a loss to be able to communicate this to you any more clearly than I already have. You seem intelligent and to have been around for while, so I hope that it’s simply your strong views on the article subj that are clouding your judgement in this one instance, and that you don’t act this way all the time. The /Sources part of the Azov talk page is still an article talk page, and subject to the behavioural guidelines. As per Wp:TPO, do not move my comments. I’ve put them where I believe appropriate, and that placement does not breach the general guidelines and does not contravene Wp:RFC guidelines. I’m flattered that you think the two sentences that I wrote would be so influential as to damage the impact of the framework created at the top of the RFC by this table, or whatever other reason you have to keep moving it. Regardless, please refrain from repeatedly doing so. In the spirit of fully observing the talk policies that we have for a reason, I’ve not moved your prefacing comment, which you may want to move back. Kindly do the same courtesy. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: TPO actually permits moving comments to the appropriate location, explicitly:
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments are:
- Move. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page.
- Why is this not an example of that? When every other editor who has had concerns about the source review has commented elsewhere?I'm not quite sure why you think I'm "close to the topic." My only interaction with that page has been to make the source review, and to collapse the dozens of SPA threads who are showing up for one side or the other. I have no strong opinions on the RFC and have changed my view on it several times based on the sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- My reference to strong views was in seeking an explanation, assuming good faith, for why an experienced user was repeatedly ignoring behavioural policy. If you say that’s not the explanation I believe you. As to your implicit suggestion that my comment was
off-topic
, I’ll not comment, out of politeness. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)- Oh I think you misunderstand when I refer to your comments being "off topic." I just mean that they were in the wrong place. Everyone else who has commented on the source review has done so somewhere else. So, by its very nature, that is not the "on topic" place to do so. I understand why you're concerned about the source review. I understand you believe your comments are on topic where they are. I honestly don't care enough to talk about this any further. Please do not continue to post on my talk page, thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- My reference to strong views was in seeking an explanation, assuming good faith, for why an experienced user was repeatedly ignoring behavioural policy. If you say that’s not the explanation I believe you. As to your implicit suggestion that my comment was
The Signpost: 29 May 2022
- From the team: A changing of the guard
- News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections
- Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections
- In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more
- Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited
- Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis
- Featured content: Featured Content of April
- Interview: Wikipedia's pride
- Serendipity: Those thieving image farms
- Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed
- Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows
- News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced
- News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?
- From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia
- Humour: A new crossword
Editing newsletter 2022 – #1
Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list
The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.
23:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
RFC Close notification
Just thought I'd notify you as the RFC starter that I have closed the discussion on the case and death count section in Talk:Chinese_government_response_to_COVID-19#Alleged_under-counting_of_cases_and_deaths. Feel free to discuss it in my user talk page. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:FB MSBS Grot on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Flag of the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)