User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wugapodes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Don't worry, I'm not doing this to everyone - I've just seen you around, and always puzzled a bit over your username; I just read the explanation on your talk page, and since I have a professional interest in the development of language in children (I'm a primary school teacher), I couldn't resist. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Awwww man. You mean we're all not going to get thank-spam. Bummer Girth. I'm jealous Wug. — Ched (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Ah, a number of many-legged thanks! Not listed there, but perhaps more funny (at least for me) is that it's actually a back-formation. Octopus being octo- "eight" and -pus "foot", the plural octopodes is in fact "eight-foot-plural". Like alcohol+ic being back-formed as alc+oholic (e.g., there's no such thing as chocohol, but we have choc+oholic+s), the generalized plural -podes would be just as incomprehensible to the Greeks as it is to English speakers.

Anyway, there's been a lot of bad opposes based on usernames recently (AA88 strikes me as one of the wildest), and the ones on your RFA would be entertaining if they weren't serious. You've handled them amazingly which if anything shows you'll be great with the tools. Change your username if you want, I'm a big supporter of renames, clean starts, etc, but don't do it because some people can't see past "haha weiner". People are attached to names, and that's pretty cool, so don't throw away one that means something to you. If I ever ran an RFA I'm sure someone will oppose because I have a terrible and esoteric sense of humor. Some people, for some strange reason, don't like seeing a 0 in the oppose column. I think it's nice to see the community rally around someone, and am glad you get to be one of them! Wug·a·po·des​ 19:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lana Del Rey. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

16:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Don’t worry, no trouble :)

(Note: I’m only familiar with you from reading your postings and interacting with you in the various community discussions I’ve been following.) Have you considered standing as a candidate in WP:ACE2019? All things being equal, you’d have my vote. –xeno^talk 11:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Well good to know I'm not in trouble, though standing for ArbCom sounds like a good way to find some! I appreciate the suggestion and will give it some serious thought. My first reaction was to give a Shermanesque statement, but I, like Ike, don't think it's wise for someone "to state, categorically, that he will not perform any duty that his country might demand of him" (mutatis mutandis for an online encyclopedia). I already am spending less time than I'd like on mainspace contributions, don't have a ton of free personal time to volunteer, and have seen better people than me burn out very quickly on the committee. Those are the reasons I'd rather not volunteer. However, there's 2 weeks until nominations close so I have time to think it over. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe this as a consolation. –xeno^talk 17:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ouch! You may want to look at this sandbox for consolation. I'm busy, at the moment, but like all things, will be back to make incremental improvements as I find time. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad it's in consideration. –xeno^talk 18:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Civil Air Patrol. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

• Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove the linguistics category?--Brett (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brett: It as already in Category:Grammar which is an immediate child of linguistics and Category:Grammar frameworks which is further down the tree. Wug·a·po·des​ 15:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I see. Thanks!--Brett (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

16:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I just read about the indigenous languages edit-a-thon that you and L235 had in October! Fabulous! I'm not sure if you've heard about the Language Diversity (the former Indigenous Languages) group, but please join us. We also have a Telegram group that might be of interest. Depending on what languages you're working with, the oral knowledge group, might be of interest too. And finally, we had an indigenous meetup at WikidataCon last month (which we are planning on talking more about in Finland's GLAM newsletter this month). Feel free to spread the word about these projects and to let us know when you're planning something new! -Yupik (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Brigades. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I pluralized octopus as octopodes today. Just thought you'd want to know. --valereee (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

My master plan is working. Soon phase 2 will begin: octopus will become octopode by analogy and the delatinization of English will be well underway. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

22:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That was nicely done on the Chomsky review. At present there appears to be some long-term delay on my nomination for Herman Melville which is approaching one year in the review process carrying over from last year. Any chance that you might be able to step things up and help to move them along toward completing the review that was started there? CodexJustin (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I pinged the reviewer there. Sorry that review has taken so long; improving vital articles is some of the most important work on Wikipedia, but reviewing them is hard work so their nominations tend to sit around for a while. Hopefully we can get the Melville review moving soon. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The Melville GAN review is now rolling over from 2018 as we approach 2020. Is there any chance you might nudge the review forward in a friendly way by maybe doing one or two of the unreviewed sections in the article? CodexJustin (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I'm a little swamped for the next 24-ish hours with a submission deadline, but I should be able to read through the article later this weekend. Hopefully we can get this wrapped up soon! Wug·a·po·des​ 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: Sorry for the delay. I've blocked out time tomorrow evening to work through the article, so I promise comments soon! Wug·a·po·des​ 06:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Mustafizur Rahman, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoschool (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up...

The "Contents" link on the sidebar menu that appears on every page of Wikipedia is for this page, but it still leads to the old title "Portal:Contents" which is now a redirect. Just thought you would want to fix the sidebar link to lead directly to the current title.

Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   11:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: Good job on overseeing the moving of the set of contents pages. Nicely done.

The talk pages were kind of mess though. Lots of corrections needed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: I appreciate the sentiment, but as Liz points out I wouldn't characterize it as "nicely done". Many people have been very kind and proactive in fixing my mistakes which is the only reason things look well done. If I ever intend to move that many pages again (unlikely) there are many things I would do differently. Chief among them is coordinating with others beforehand so that it's more of a barn raising than a barn repair. @Liz: Thanks for fixing the talk pages. dcljr has been fixing double redirects, so I'm going to help with that and double check the subpages of Portal talk:Contents for bad targets while I'm at it. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

See, you are on top of things and sticking with it. That takes the right attitude. And the Contents link is fixed too. Kudos. Thanks for a job well done, and keep up the great work.    — The Transhumanist   07:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S: To spot redirects more easily, here's a tip to make them appear green: Wikipedia:Tip of the day/March 17. Cheers.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julian Assange. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

20:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I think your comments here, were well said. I think they got right to the heart of the matter. Paul August ☎ 14:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

	Barnstar of Awesomeness
	I hereby award you the barnstar of awesomeness! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you! As an aside, have you read the file page for that image? i drew this because i didn't know how to give out wikipedia barnstars is a pretty awesome description/history. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah! I think it's the best barnstar! Very exclusive! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you awesome? Actually I noticed you making sensible statements at ANI and the WP:AC page, stuff about civility that I agree with and am trying to promote as best practices. Hence the barnstar— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa and Xeno: Glad to know others are working to uphold our fourth pillar. Ad Orientem posted a few days ago, maybe at RFARB or ANI, about community failure to follow RPA in the portal fiasco and it lit a fire under me. So they deserve at least as much praise. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

+1. Nice to see Wikipedia:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values are alive and well. How ‘bout that RfA? Heck, you don’t need it. Where’s that +sysop button again... –xeno^talk 10:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message in your revert edit summary. If you're wondering about my motivation, please see: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 23#Category:Linguistics, Language,_and the Public Award recipients.

Aside from that issue, I have a separate question for you. A separate article implies far more weight than a section of a larger article (compare an article about a city versus the mention of the city in an article about the county or the state; composers without the notability to deserve articles may be mentioned in articles regarding a genre they where notable in), and if so, would only create a bigger problem regarding undue weight. You could easily create that article with the content I created at Linguistic Society of America. Hyacinth (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: about to take off again so will say more later; thanks for the cfd link. I'm a little concerned about notability of the list, but looking through the opinions there it may be worth making. I also thought maybe a catch-all list like List of Linguistic Society of America awards and recipients would be a good way of preserving that information and expand the others without taking up tons of space in the article. Some of the extant articles could be merged in as well. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Coddling of the American Mind. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

16:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

	Barnstar of Navigation
	Thank you for making it easier for people to solve their technical problems by creating Help:Troubleshooting broken scripts. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): thanks, though I'm pretty sure it was Izno and Xaosflux who came up with the idea and target. I just turned the redlink blue. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

They're awesome, aren't they? VPT has such a good collection of helpful people.

Thank you for being the one who turned that idea into reality. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

against the recommendations at WP:AN [12]

This section: [13]

Can you reinstate and allow @Ymblanter: to do it when they are ready to do so, please? Thanks Leaky caldron (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: oh, sorry, thanks for linking me to the AN thread. I would reinstate, but it looks like @Ymblanter: has modified the hat while I was sleeping so it seems moot. You're always welcome to revert my refactors since its usually faster than asking for a self revert, but given the AN thread I can see how that could have gone over poorly with the others. Anyway, thanks for letting me know, and drop me another message if there's still something that needs worked out. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea what the rules are. Too many people who like to jump on every mistake made :(. Anyway, it's resolved! Leaky caldron (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Really enjoying User:Wugapodes/Capricorn. Just wondering, on the next update is there any possibility that a hyperlink to the redirect target could be preserved when the script is enabled? When reviewing new redirects for obscure things it's useful to see exactly where they're redirecting, and of course to flush out any G3 cases. Best, SITH (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse: Thanks! That's next up on the list. The current workaround is clicking the "read" or "article" tab and it will follow the redirect, even if still looking at the page. I think Brandon in the thread up top suggested making the arrow the hyperlink which I liked and will probably do. When it's deployed I'll either send out a mass message or put a note in Danny's script newsletter that I think exists. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

16:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 17). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Just a half hour after you added the closure process template, I finished a chart briefing the sourced offered in the discussion, which I started before the template was added, like it was in the Venezuelan uprising article, and I was about to add some final comments. Do you think, pretty please, that it is possible to include said comments to the proposal before closing? Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Feel free to add your comments; closing templates are just polite requests. I doubt I'll get around to finishing the close for a day or two just given the size of it and other obligations I have, but yeah, I'll remove the archive box and just leave up {{closing}} so it's not as imposing. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! All set and done :) --Jamez42 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

	Happy Noam Chomsky Day!
	Hi Wugapodes, wishing you a Happy Noam Chomsky Day. Thank you for the work you have put into maintaining the Noam Chomsky article throughout this year and on its road to GA. Our resource helps 1.7 million annual viewers learn about a living humanitarian who's done so much to promote human rights and understanding. Happy editing, czar 08:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Why this relisting was necessary? I only see 7 supports for the moving page while only 4 opposes for the moving page. Notice how all supports are based on the dependence on WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME while opposes are mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POV. What actually made you think that opposing comments hold any water? NavjotSR (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@NavjotSR: Consensus is not a vote, and WP:NPOV is based on the second pillar of Wikipedia so putting it on the same level as WP:IDONTLIKEIT is disingenuous. The editors in opposition point out that those in support do not understand that per WP:NPOVNAME, NPOV ought to take precedence over COMMONNAME. Opposers provide evidence that the support argument that a non-neutral name is the COMMONNAME is false. If I were to have closed it, I would have closed it as no consensus to move since the support arguments have been thoroughly rebutted, but preferred to see if additional comments would clarify consensus. If you'd prefer I can close it as not moved. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Lam Son 719. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Heyo. I must request a change to Capricorn, can it please add a link to the target page when editing? This seems like a problem to me and I could not find a link to the target. Thanks! dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 07:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dibbydib: you're not the first to suggest this. I'm a little swamped at the moment, but I'll get to work on this ASAP. Can't promise anything, but I'll hope to have something rolled out by the end of this year. Wug·a·po·des​ 10:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

​ Wow, thanks! dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 04:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

20:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Thank you! I hope you have a happy season as well. Wug·a·po·des​ 09:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

{{UTRS-unblock-user}} Range block doesn't allow talk page editing so UTRS failed to add this template. Using my intermittent cell data, I'm adding it manually. Cannot guarantee the ID is correct, but I'm pretty sure it is. — Wug·a·po·des​ 15:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for one week. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes, there have been responses to the issues you listed in your review here. Please return when you can to continue the review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Seasons greetings for the New Year. That was really good of you to do both the Chomsky article and the Melville article this year. CodexJustin (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: No problem! I used to do a lot of GA reviews, but do fewer now than I would like. If you're ever in need of a review or copyedit just drop me a line! — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)