User talk:Mdann52

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
22 April 2015

That wasn't me that made that edit, my friends were playing around with my phone and they probably edited it sorry though

Tech News: 2015-17[edit]

15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI[edit]

Hey, Mdann52,
Is there a reason you are archiving cases from WP:ANI? There is a bot that is set up to do that automatically, after a certain period of time of inactivity. Liz Read! Talk! 18:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: yes, but it is quite iffy - for example, there are threads over 4 days old on there, as the bot will skip archiving if a certain number of threads are not archived (as from what I remember). Also, the bot seems to archive occasionally. Also, some sections are best archived and left to die (for example, the top thread, which the only additional comment in it was saying not to reopen). I also like to keep the page length down - it's half a mb at the moment, which presents an issue for those on restricted data connections. Mdann52 (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Un-archive the discussion I started to where it was. I requested admin closure. Kristina451 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kristina451: Unfortunately, no user has commented on this other than the two involved, and therefore it appears inactive and was archived. As this was a sockpuppetry allagation, can I suggest taking it to WP:SPI, or to request protection on pages, WP:RFPP? These will likely get a quicker resolution than ANI. Mdann52 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I've seen this template being used at ANI, and getting the case resolved. Please un-archive to where it was. Kristina451 (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kristina451: to quote from elsewhere Inactive cases, resolved or not, should be archived. In this case, the thread was inactive, so got archived. You could restore it, but from experience, it may be best to bring it up at the other venues I mentioned, as this sort of case often goes uncommented on at ANI
Sorry, Mdann52, according to Flo, you've archived ANI cases before and the admins find it useful. I had just never seen an editor do it before, I had assumed it was all automated, archived by bot. Thanks for the explanation and taking my question in the spirit it was intended! Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: no problem - I read the other thread (the last ping failed for some reason...), and that summarises why I do it. I appreciate it is a tad unusual, hence why I'm willing to explain my rational. Of course, some are unresolved, however as the noticeboard is for urgent action, and many of these cases have no or little participation, it seems pointless to keep them up when no admin action is forthcoming. I will sometimes close instead, but in some cases, even that is not worthwhile. Mdann52 (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please note in the SPI the sock started about me, another editor pointed to the open ANI section. [13] A CheckUser placed the SPI on hold to look into what I said at ANI. [14] Since people are looking into it, I'd like to ask you to stop edit-warring me over the admin close I requested. You aren't an admin and I think your involvement so far has been unhelpful and only created extra work for others. Kristina451 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Pulkovskiy Meridian" type/Stende redirect[edit]

Hi Mdann52. Here's a few additional sources as you requested over at the AFC/R page. The joys of Soviet bureaucracy and competing designation systems.

http://www.albinomoran.com/am2/am.asp?page=3a1&n=0&lang=en

http://www.shipstamps.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13064

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1595627

http://transparentsea.co/images/f/f0/Russia_nursing_$20_billion_newbuilding_plan_for_fishing_fleets.pdf

To confuse matters even further, the Stende/Dalniy Vostok also came under the general BATM (Bolshoy Avtonomniy Trawler Morozilniy [Big Autonomous Trawler Reefer]) classification as mentioned in this news report/opinion piece. That though should go in a separate redirect, or else be mentioned in the article on the disaster (I'm leaning towards the later but haven't made up my mind fully yet). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ceannlann gorm: my comments were based on what was presented - you are free to create this yourself per WP:REDIRECT. I looked for the request, but couldn't find it in the archive, although I'll have another look later. Mdann52 (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Redirect now live. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the request?[edit]

Please go back to WP:AFC/R on the "Redirect request: Affections, Doctrine of the; Affects..." section. Are you saying that the Library of Congress source that I provided is not valid? In other words, the Library professionals made a mistake in listing several of these as alternate Library of Congress Subject Headings? Even if they did, everyone using the Library of Congress Subject Headings has these terms listed as alternate usages; create them as redirects-from-misspellings, because they're so plausible that librarians all over the United States have been making this mistake for a long time without noticing. 65.210.65.16 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I declined the ones I did is because I don't see a source showing that that name was in common use to search with - we generally do not use heading in the format you said (ie. last, then first), as people generally do not search like that. I note that I created the rest not in that format. Mdann52 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirects from surnames[edit]

Hi Mdann52, I hope you don't feel like I'm stepping on your toes, but I'm going to go ahead and create the requested GrugmanRafael Grugman. {{R from surname}} is "used because Wikipedia has only one biographical article of a person by this surname, or because one individual is ubiquitously known by this surname", so the former criterion fits. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead - I wasn't aware of this ! Mdann52 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth...[edit]

...did you create this? 82.132.229.130 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb problems[edit]

Dear Mdann52, I hope it is ok to ask about this here. An ip has added

His daughter-in-law is the British historian and television presenter Suzannah Lipscomb.

to Stephen R. Lawhead. I have tried deleting this but it has been restored and I just added a citation needed template to it. I foolishly made the page on Lipscomb and had not realised what a mess it would be. I feel some sense of responsibity and am not sure what the real problems are but I think it hinges around the issue refered to here. I don't know about the current marital status and what the right thing to do is. Do you know or have any advice about how, if at all, to proceed here? I ask because I think you were involved in some way connected with OTRS stuff. I have added some extra useful sources on the talk page to show goodwill. Sorry to bother you and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC))

@Msrasnw: aparently, my actoins here may have overstepped the line (as in I can't lock down articles like I did, it seems not to be the done thing despite what I was told at the time....) In any case, I'll keep an eye on this. Mdann52 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC))

Course date change[edit]

I'm confused by this. I mean, I appreciate helping out of course, but I had just responded to the thread. We commonly set the date a short while beyond the technical end of class because inevitably there are things that come up just after (whether it be grading, students who want to check each other's work, or some other reason). I know of no downside (except when, for example, the date inaccurately bleeds over to the following term). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: "confused" isn't the right word. I can gather you figured I didn't know the end date. And it's true; I didn't look it up. :) She just said May so I set it to be good through the end of May just in case (since, as above, I always add at least a week to the end date anyway). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ryan (Wiki Ed): Apologies - wasn't aware of this! I've self reverted, lets see what they want to do. Mdann52 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The dates that are part of the course page system (the ones at the bottom when you "edit" the course page directly as opposed to the dates in the timeline or the dates in the sidebar) are really there for technical reasons rather than in-class organization, so it's not something I feel obliged to consult with instructors about. The technical impact of the course page end date expiring and the implications for usability are not obvious and not things I would expect a professor to be thinking about. If someone makes an explicit objection for this or that reason, I'm happy to change it, but that's never happened. What does happen a few times each term is that students or instructors can't find the page when they need it because the end date caused it not to show up in the course list. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)