Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

Welcome Shrinkydinks!

An article you recently created, HarvardTHUD, does not have any sources and citations and so cannot remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your page to draft space (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can work on it with minimal disruption. When you feel that it meets our notability and neutrality requirements, and is thus ready for mainspace, please submit it using the Articles for Creation template on the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of notable YouTube diss tracks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable YouTube diss tracks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I made significant edits to the article on 6 November and 8 November in an attempt to address concerns about notability and significant, credible external coverage. —Shrinkydinks (talk)
• Update: Article was relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus on 13 November 2019.
• Final update: On 20 November, the consensus determined it should be merged with List of diss tracks. Thank you to all editors who chimed in with the AfD; I learned a lot! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bill Hare, mixing and mastering engineer (Grammy Award-winning) and stalwart of the a cappella industry for the last 30 years. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Stanford Counterpoint, founded in 1979, the first all-female a cappella group on the West Coast of the United States. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was out of town. I'll take a look later tonight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem! Thanks for the note here. I'll reply on the GA review page. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it! Thank you. Updated the GA review for round 2. Nearly there! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shrinkydinks/ToDo

Special:Prefixindex/User:Shrinkydinks

I think the WikiProject Acapella proposal has garnered the minimum support needed to get started, do you want to go ahead and start, or wait for more people? I can create the main page of you want, your choice. Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 20:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puddleglum2.0: Let's go ahead and start it! Then we can invite any editors who might be interested to join an actual project. Can't wait to get started with a list of articles under the purview of the WikiProject and a list of things to do! Would you do the honors of opening the page? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll just go ahead and do that! You want to close it? :) Puddleglum ^2.0 01:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puddleglum2.0: Sure can do. Will link to Wikipedia:WikiProject A Cappella. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, page creator here isn't working properly, go ahead and start the page please. I can add more to it. :) Puddleglum ^2.0 01:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That blue link looks fantastic! Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 01:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently informing editors who supported at the proposal, will then find some more. I've listed some goals, do you want to list some articles for improvement in the proper section? Puddleglum ^2.0 01:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure can! Will do. Sounds great on the notifying. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC),[reply]

Y OK, users notified, will start helping... Puddleglum ^2.0 01:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a section header "Articles we are collaborating on," those should be articles That we as a project are working on getting to GA or FA status. Is that good? As stated in the page, I think our goal should be to get at least 10 GAs and 2 FAs. Thoughts? Puddleglum ^2.0 02:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puddleglum2.0: I agree with your goal idea—sounds like a reasonable place to start! It'll be challenge for our small team, but it also sounds attainable. That section sounds like a good idea, too. Maybe in that list we can give a brief ~2 sentences describing ongoing work and proximity to GA/FA status! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, sounds like a plan! Puddleglum ^2.0 03:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC),[reply]

I had a person at the technical lab to create a tab for the Project, you can head over there and see if you like it! (If you want to see a different one for reference, Wikiproject Music has one.Puddleglum ^2.0 10:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a userbox for the Project? If so, I can get one. Puddleglum ^2.0 16:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering, do you want me to nominate for DYK and you can get others done. That way, I can be dealing with the DUO process and that would probably be a little bit of a load of your shoulders. (for only a cappella related stuff, of course. You can get credit, too. :) just a thought anyway, Puddleglum ^2.0 23:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dr. Dre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brentwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shrinkydinks

Thank you for creating HarvardTHUD.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for this new article, but note that other editors have raised some important issues, particularly on the matter of whether this group has enough reliable media coverage to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. For pointers, follow the links in the notice at the top of the article. If these matters are not addressed, future editors could call for the article to be deleted.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stanford Fleet Street Singers you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stanford Fleet Street Singers you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Stanford Fleet Street Singers for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stanford Fleet Street Singers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stanford Fleet Street Singers for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stanford Fleet Street Singers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made {{WPBLM}} for ease, should you wanna to use it.  EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much! Added a few dozen articles earlier today; will keep that in mind for the next few dozen. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor notes while doing the DYK review (these don't break the review, but might be worth looking at):

• The statement Fleet Street has released 13 full-length albums introduces a list of twelve albums.
• Fleet Street alumni (who are also, in general, alumni of Stanford University) include An alumnus is a former student, whether or not they graduated. Though I suppose there are some who leave the group while still students, that'd be a fairly minor proportion at any time.
• Would it be worth mentioning in the lead paragraph where Stanford University happens to be located? I feel that for a general international readership, a little specificity might help, and would give context for the later "national television ... and radio programs".

Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you made some changes to WP:Time Between Edits for Excel compatibility. File:Time Between Edits Graph Jul05-Present.png is now 29 months old, do you fancy updating it? If so perhaps it would be more intuitive inverted and displayed as "edits per day". ϢereSpielChequers 19:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there WereSpielChequers! Yes, I'm actually in the middle of updating it! About to upload an updated+cleaned version of the same plot already there. Edits per day might be a bit noisy, but an edits per week or normalized edits per month graph might be really good to have. Might go well on the same page! Do you have a data source for that graph? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I uploaded my new one but the file on commons seems to be stuck on the old version? All the smaller previews updated, and the largest/current version even updated its stated dimensions, but I still see the old file rendered. Not sure what's going on. May be a database issue, but I'll give it an hour or so to update (in case that's the problem?) before I worry. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some wikihistorians have a preference for creating new versions such as File:Time Between Edits Graph Jul05-May20.png and then changing the article to show the new image - that way anyone who looked at WP:Time Between Edits as it was in 2019 would see the .png that was in the article then. ϢereSpielChequers 19:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake! The file's official title on WikiCommons is "Time Between Edits Graph Jul05-Present.png" so I figured an update made sense. Moving forward it might make sense to split with specific timeframes; good call. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Stanford Fleet Street Singers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we are still waiting for your response to the reviewer's comments. Please reply now so the nomination won't be closed as stale. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for following up with me! I've replied in the DYK nomination and I pinged the reviewer. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I updated Scott A. McGregor to C-Class. Normally there is a three-paragraph intro (summary of the article) I give a B-class.Filmman3000 (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Microsoft 1984-Scott McGregor, Charles Simonyi, and Gordon Letwin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some statement about a living person, as you did at Taika Waititi. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and material should not be added if it is only gossip or has little longer-term importance, or if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 03:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @KyleJoan: Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia high quality! I saw mention of it in two different sources which is why I added it, but I'll start/reply in discussion on that page's talk page to get consensus before changing anything again. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate that. Please also keep in mind that per WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia is not written in news style. Presenting information with descriptions such as "according to reports" does not meet that policy or the BLP policy. It is sufficient to neutrally state the separation without the gossip-y qualifiers. If reliable sources don't specify a separation year, then work with that rather than work out an estimate; if reliable sources don't include statements by Waititi or Winstanley, then don't do so in the article. The materials you included about his Māori heritage are excellent, though. Good work on that! KyleJoan^talk 01:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have since opened that talk page discussion! Here it is: Talk:Taika Waititi#Dating & attribution of relationship status —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the 90... commentator. Since my last posting, I found myself at the head of Voicelab in this gig, primarily because I had some knowledge of the style, African Highlife, with a bonus that William Onyeabor had been inspired by Kraftwerk and Mike Olffield, whose careers were started by a team at University Radio Loughborough I was part of. We'd learned the dots, but hadn't worked with the bands, and when on the night we had the full context, it was clear we needed choreography, so I added it offstage, the shuffle dance you see at the end. It added to the gig, almost too much, because we were going too fast to stop! David waved a go-around, the Choir Director missed it, and because no loop point had been declared, she paniced, so I had to guess, thankfully correctly. That's how we got our own bow! The next project was to reinforce the blokes, as you'll see we're weak. That wouldn't normally have involved me, until I had a phone call from Southbank, asking me to mentor the beginners' choir from within. The project leaders were Shlomo, the World Champion beatboxer, and Dom Stichley, a Natural Voice choir director. That went fine, my experience in Peacemaking helping Shlo past a block he had in composing March Peace for them. I also found the countertenor in the ranks, which made the work. All fine thus far, then Simon Rattle wanted to return and was promised an acoustic to work in. Southbank is a temporary structure erected in 1950 with a life expectancy of 5 years: it's backstage is a fire danger and the downstairs rehearsal rooms have Thames mud infiltration. We were therefore notified of a year off, but no sooner had it started than HM Treasury got to hear of it and the project was cancelled, leaving Southbank stuck with the architects fees, well into 8 figures. Functionally bankrupt, there was no money for project work, so the Head of Artists resigned, taking the women from the choir with her to Women of the World. I ended up with the sticky end as far as the guys were concerned. Other things were going sour in my life, culminating in the 2019 LACF, where the acappella groups from Imperial College and University College turned the entirevspirit sour, with an American Collegiate faceoff. 2020 was a flop, so many people had reacted like me, 2021 cancelled because of lockdown, and there's no real spirit for 2022, locally. Choirs are at the absolute tail end of approvals, although some have decided not to wait and are singing anyway. 2022 looks like it's not happening either. My meltdown was caused by CPTSD developing from other social dynamics, which I've now fixed, but it left me looking at a trail of failed choral involvements. So... I was trying to place a local Choir Director in the annals of the Swingles, effectively, when I saw you'd added a proposal for a project. To be frank, I'm too much of a generalist to be your man, and I'm also neurodiverse, making me ideosynchratic: I'd propose asking either Bill Hare or Deke Sharon in the US. On the other hand, my breadth of vision may offer stability. I'm heavily against the American competitive spirit, as I indicated, because shows like Got Talent and The Voice reinforce the rootless modern diktat of A&R, producing just one winner and 8 billion losers. I was guided by Sir Geraint Evans' lady wife Brenda when young, which places my in classicism, very much at odds with that circle: they've worked the mine dry and need to come back to roots, but are too dogmatic to do so. Singing's about community attunement, something they despise: they can't control the mob then. Anyway, if you want some pointers, it's just possible I can get something working for you. One major issue's going to be NPOV, as individual ambitions try to commandeer the entire style: objectively, acappella predates all instruments. Monody certainly dates back in at least 5 traditions - Celtic, Judeo-Christian, Afro-Islamic, Chinese and American - to an era before instruments were available. Therefore, the project must reflect this. I'm rahere com mail - or something like it.

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I see you recently made some copy edits to the Sequoia Capital article. I recently posted a request on the article's Talk page concerning some potential revisions to the History section that I'm hoping you can look at. As you'll see, I've been taking feedback from editors there to get the wording and content correct, and I think additional eyes would be beneficial. Due to my conflict of interest (I work for Sequoia Capital) I will not make any changes to the article myself. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. VS for Sequoia Capital (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @VS for Sequoia Capital: thanks for your note and your good faith participation in Wikipedia! No promises on either what my edits will look like or my timeline, but I noticed the page looked underdeveloped so I'll be happy to take a look. The biggest thing that would help the article would probably be high quality sources--sources that comprise significant coverage (ideally covering Sequoia broadly and/or in detail), and are reputable and independent. I think the best articles on Wikipedia are supported by fewer high quality holistic sources (e.g. a handful of excellent sources that might cover the history of Sequoia), rather than dozens of sources each supporting one individual factoid each. Haven't taken a look yet (so you may have a bunch of those high quality sources already), but I will do so over the weekend or next week! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your help on this. An editor on the Talk page looks to be moving forward with a revised version of the History section, but I'm going to post another request about the Investment section soon. You can see my proposed structure for the entire article in my user space. Please note that I do cite several of the same book sources repeatedly, especially VC: An American History by Tom Nicholas (in the History section) and Fundamentals of Entrepreneurial Finance by Marco Da Rin and Hellman Thomas (in the Investments section). Several obituaries of founder Don Valentine are also cited repeatedly, as they provide a useful overview of Sequoia's history and notability. VS for Sequoia Capital (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again, User:Shrinkydinks. Just checking to see if you've had a chance to review my request at the Sequoia Capital Talk page. If it's helpful context, you can see my proposed structure for the entire article in my user space. Would love to get your thoughts! VS for Sequoia Capital (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]