User talk:Samwalton9

Tech News: 2016-49

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• You can choose to see users from specific user groups in Special:ActiveUsers. [1]
• Everyone can now see Special:UserRights. Previously only those who could change user rights could. Other users got an error message. [2]
• ORES can now show how likely an edit is to be damaging to the wiki with different colours. This only works for languages that have trained ORES to recognize damaging edits. [3]

Changes this week

• You will now see categories with 0 pages in Special:Categories. Previously you did not see empty categories there. [4]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 December. It will be on all wikis from 8 December (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 6 December at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey will decide what the Community Tech team will work on next year. You vote for wishes on the survey page until 12 December. You can see what has happened to last year's wishes on the 2015 results page.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Sam -- I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your help during our recent dealings with Wikipedia. We were highly impressed not just with your responsiveness but also with your humanity. Wikipedia is lucky to enjoy your service. We thank you. 108.171.130.161 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD concern - DeAndre Brackensick

Hi - I'm interested in restoring the article DeAndre Brackensick, which was redirected to American Idol (season 11), following an an AfD that you closed. I'm not sure that WP:Deletion Review would be the proper venue for discussing this, as I don't have any issues with how you handled the matter. The conversation that took place was clearly in favor redirecting, so I feel that you interpreted the consensus correctly. Unfortunately though, the editors who voted in the discussion failed to notice some pertinent information about the article's subject. The consensus to redirect the article was based on the incorrect notion that Brackensick had only received significant news coverage for his appearance on American Idol. At the time of the AfD though, Brackensick had already been signed to a label and released a single. Several high profile publications, such as Yahoo!, SFGate, The York Dispatch, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (among others) wrote articles discussing this single. Although the single was mentioned in our article about Brackensick, none of these reliable sources were. I'm not sure how all of the editors who voted in the AfD failed to notice that these sources had been published, but I'm not interested in pointing fingers. I'd just like to have the article restored. Would you support this? WP:Redirects for Discussion says that editors who "want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article" should just Be Bold and do so. But if you feel that some other form of action should first be taken, then I'm certainly willing to go through the appropriate channels. --Jpcase (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jpcase: Perhaps the best idea would be for you to copy the old article over to Draft space (Draft:DeAndre Brackensick), work on improving it with the sources you've found, and then we could ping some of the users in the discussion to get their thoughts. Sam Walton (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I actually got a little ahead of myself last night and tried restoring the article with the newly discovered sources (and an explanation on the talk page), but was reverted by another editor, who was uninvolved with the AfD. That editor suggested going to WP:Deletion Review, but as mentioned above, I'm not sure that would be the proper venue. I'll go ahead and ping the involved editors on Brackensick's talk page, which I realize I probably should have done in the first place. Hopefully we can get this resolved. --Jpcase (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've pinged the involved editors - one has responded, reiterating their support for having the article redirected. Another has yet to explicitly state their view, but has urged me to open a discussion at WP:Deletion Review. A third editor - the one who I mentioned in my last comment - has also continued to advise that this be taken to that forum. I'm not entirely sure that this kind of issue is what WP:Deletion Review is intended for, but since that's where I'm being told to go, it seems like the best way of handling things. I'd like to get your thoughts first if possible, but I'll probably open a discussion there sometime tonight. --Jpcase (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've opened the discussion (WP:Deletion Review#DeAndre Brackensick). I hope that this is okay! :) --Jpcase (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm not sure how much attention you paid to the DRV - I know it was long, and I probably talked too much - but I'd like to get your thoughts on how to best move forward. None of the original AfD's participants explicitly supported having the article restored, although Bearian originally voted to have the article kept and seems to have maintained that position, while Unscintillating seems open to the idea of possibly restoring the article, although I'm not sure that he / she is entirely on board with doing so. I never heard your opinion regarding the sources that I've shared. If you'd rather not offer one, then I can understand that, but you're certainly welcome to weigh in.

I hope everyone understands that I'm not trying to be argumentative or force a point. I just have an interest in the topic and genuinely feel that a standalone article for Brackensick would be supported by Wikipedia policy. I can be stubborn at times - probably too stubborn for my own good - but I am open to changing my mind on this matter. I'm familiar with WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:ONEEVENT. I offered my explanations for why I feel that Brackensick deserves a standalone article, under the criteria laid out in those policies - but then I never received any followup. I understand that not everyone has time for getting down into the weeds, especially when there's a lone editor arguing in favor of a position - but if I'm misinterpreting any of those three policies, then it would be helpful to know where I'm getting things wrong.

I plan on opening an RFC at the American Idol (season 11) article, as that's the course of action that's been advised to me. If you feel that there would be any reason not to do this though, let me know. I don't deal with this side of Wikipedia very often - I've been involved with a good number of AfD discussions, but rarely get into policy disagreements - so I'm sure that I've made some missteps. I probably should have waited to hear back from you before opening the DRV - and apologize if I moved too fast on that - so I'll give you more time to respond before proceeding. --Jpcase (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw that someone else posted on your talk page about three minutes after I left the above message, so just making sure that this didn't get lost in the shuffle. No need to respond, but I'll give you another day to weigh in if you'd like. --Jpcase (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jpcase: Sorry, I keep putting off looking through this. It does seem like the best course of action would be to discuss a standalone article at Talk:American Idol (season 11). FWIW I have no problem with a new article being created if users can agree with you that such an article would demonstrate the subject's notability. Sam Walton (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to lend an ear throughout this process. I've opened an RfC at American Idol (season 11)#RfC on DeAndre Brackensick standalone article. --Jpcase (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey again (he said sheepishly)...I'm sorry to keep bothering you. I know that you have other priorities that you'd rather be dealing with. You've already been extremely considerate in listening to me thus far. But you seem to be a neutral party in this, and I could use some guidance. As I said earlier, policy disagreements aren't my forte on Wikipedia. I'm trying to be respectful of everyone and only take actions that others feel to be appropriate. And I'm also aware that I've probably made some mistakes in my conduct; in the rare cases that I have been involved with prior policy disagreements, I've always accepted consensus - but I often get very caught up in trying to defend my position. I can understand how my recent actions may be seen as excessive by some, and I'll try to learn from this. The only reason I opened an RfC though, is because the DRV's closing administrator seemed to indicate that doing so would be a reasonable next step for me to take. Even then, I felt that it would be worth double-checking with you, expressly because I didn't want to upset anyone. I don't know if you've paid any attention to the conversation that's played out over at the RfC...but things have been tense. I'm not asking you to do anything, but some advice would be welcome. Even though I would still like to see the DeAndre Brackensick article restored, I'm 100% willing to close the RfC, if you feel that doing so would be prudent. --Jpcase (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jpcase: You've only received feedback from one user at that RfC so far; let it continue for more time before you close it. Sam Walton (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• To clarify my stance: I am not against a smerger esp. of sources. I'm now less convinced than ever of a "keep" Bearian (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ERRORS

I see you said "done" here. Did you fix it or did you just remove my comment, only I see no attempt at all to fix the lop-sidedeness of the main page in the history of the page? Please let me know what you considered that you'd done to resolve my report. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I saw this edit, which appeared to fix the issue. Did that not re-align things? Sam Walton (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-50

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Users who have Yahoo email addresses could not use Special:EmailUser to send emails. This has now been fixed. Emails will now come from a @wikimedia.org address. Users who get an email from you will still reply to your email address and be able to see it. [5]
• You can now see how many categories and pages there are in the categories in Special:TrackingCategories. This is to help you find pages that could need attention. [6]
• Markup colours for reviewed and pending revisions in the page history and recent changes and logs now match Wikimedia standard colours. The "You have a new message on your talk page" notification will have a slightly different colour. [7]

Problems

• Because of work on cross-wiki watchlists global renaming is not working. The plan is to turn it on again on 16 December. Global renaming was turned off for a while in late November and early December as well. [8]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 December. It will be on all wikis from 15 December (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on December 13 at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting

Thanks for doing that test. Syntax highlighting was tried, and proved insufficiently performant, especially on large articles/people without super-fast computers, to be worth deploying right now. But there's still hope that it will happen someday, at least as a toggle-able option. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, it's replaced my Edit Source everywhere. Interesting. Thanks for letting me know; Syntax Highlighter might be my favourite gadget, and it's always annoying when it can't load for performance reasons. Sam Walton (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed some "virtual reality" categories

Hi Sam. You seem to be well-versed in this area and I just wanted to check something: I removed the virtual reality category from about a half dozen or so massively multiplayer online games like this, explaining that while they are virtual worlds, the articles make no mention (aside from the category) of these being actual virtual reality, i.e., requiring some sort of immersive or haptic interface. I think there's been some confusion about the different uses of the word "virtual," but I just wanted to make sure I'm not confused. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shawn in Montreal: That seems to make sense! When I was trying to categorise The Foo Show I struggled to find the right VR category, so thanks for working on this! Sam Walton (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear that. I think the next natural sub-cat will be something like Category:Virtual reality software, or even VR interface hardware beyond Category:Virtual reality headsets‎. I've never so much as put on one of these VR visors, but it did seem to me to be a nascent category in need of some diffusion. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

But I'm not sure what the difference might be between 3D computer graphics software and "virtual reality" software, so I'll tread lightly and leave that aside, at least for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess the distinction is 'how does the user interact with the software' - through a monitor or VR headset? Sam Walton (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess. Yes, a CGI creator using 3D graphics software would probably need to use the 3D graphics software in a different and defining way to create a "flat" 3D world or an immersive virtual one? So yes I think that might work. I won't tackle it today, though. thanks for your help, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Samwalton9: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you Class455! Sam Walton (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

• Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 9 January 2017.
• The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2016? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us! You can write in your language. Thank you!

Recent changes

• Administrators and translation administrators can now use Special:PageLanguage on wikis with the Translate extension. This means you can say what language a page is in. The Translate extension will use that language as the source language when you translate. Previously this was always the wiki's default language. This was usually English. [9]
• Wikis connected to Wikidata can now use the parser function {{#statements: }} to get formatted data. You can also use {{#property: }} to get raw data. You can see the difference between the two statements. There are also similar new functions in Lua. [10]

Problems

• Some abuse filters for uploaded files have not worked as they should. We don't know exactly which filters didn't work yet. This means some files that filters should have prevented from being uploaded were uploaded to the wikis. MediaWiki.org and Testwiki have been affected since 13 October. Commons and Meta have been affected since 17 October. Other wikis have been affected since 17 November. [11]

Changes this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week. There will be no new MediaWiki version next week either.

Meetings

• The next meeting with the VisualEditor team will be on 3 January at 20:00 (UTC). During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. See how to join.

Future changes

• The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is done. It decides what the Community Tech team will work on during 2017. You can see the results.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

• Year in review: Looking back on 2016

• News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results

• Special report: German ArbCom implodes

• In focus: Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

• Op-ed: Operation successful, patient dead: Outreach workshops in Namibia

• In the media: In brief: Coverage of gender gap initiatives, banner fundraising, and more

• Featured content: The Christmas edition

• Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results

• Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues

• Blog: Wiki Loves Monuments contest winners announced

• Recent research: One study and several abstracts

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Samwalton9!!
	Hi Samwalton9, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Davey2010. Merry Christmas to you too. Sam Walton (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Berlin – Anis Amri

This isn't the place for suggesting such a major change.

We get the not-an-error brushoff constantly when trying to suggest improvements to ITN blurbs at WP:ERRORS. Then, if we try to pursue it at WP:ITN/C, we're often told to take it up at WP:ERRORS. Catch-22.

I posted my suggestion at WP:ITN/C and got no response. I give up on trying to stir interest in a timely blurb about this huge story. (Yes, I know all about "not a news ticker," but readers are constantly expecting ITN to be reasonably up to date.) Mele Kalikimaka. Sca (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

PS: This ITN blurb was posted on German Wiki very soon after Amri was killed:

Der mutmaßliche Attentäter von Berlin, Anis Amri, ist bei einer Polizeikontrolle im Mailänder Vorort Sesto San Giovanni erschossen worden.

Sca (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sca: I'm fairly certain that re-writing the entire blurb, or adding an extra sentence to it, should be discussed at ITNC; WP:ERRORS is for things that are wrong with the main page, rather than for additions or full rewrites. Try pinging a few editors who supported or discussed the initial candidacy. Sam Walton (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Sam Walton (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bah, humbug! It's already getting stale. (Please see my post at the end of this discussion.) Sca (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Samwalton9: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you K6ka, Merry Christmas to you too :) Sam Walton (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The Foo Show

On 26 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Foo Show, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Foo Show is an interactive virtual-reality talk show? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Foo Show. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Foo Show), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on A7 and G11

Hi Sam. I am noticing a recurring issue at CSD with well intentioned editors slapping non urgent (A7 and G11) CSD tags on articles within minutes and sometimes seconds of creation. This seems inappropriately hasty to me and could be bitey for new editors. I am toying with the idea of posting a proposal to preclude these two tags from being applied to newborn articles for a given period of time, maybe thirty minutes or even an hour. Your thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an issue that a number of editors, myself included, have complained about in the past. Because you can sort New Pages from the most recent, patrollers are looking at pages that have just been created and tagging them straight away. That's not a problem for copyvio and the like, but I agree the less serious CSD tags (i.e. the ones that are fixable in time), shouldn't be applied so quickly, though I don't know how that would be enforced. If you're going to propose this you should look at previous discussions, which I was able to find here, here, and here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I tend to decline those if I think there's even a small chance the article will be worked on, and warn the tagger not to tag so hastily. Sam Walton (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We could probably modify the CSD A7 and G11 templates to include something similar to what we see in G13 tags where there is a box indicating whether or not six months have passed since the last edit. That should alert both the tagger and reviewing admin if the tag has been applied too quickly. I will take a look at the linked discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for being a helpful and thoughtful editor. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@And Adoil Descended: Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Samwalton9. Permit me to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Huh, so it is. Thanks! Sam Walton (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this may be a first for me. A few moments ago, I was adding various editors to the appropriate calendar date pages and I found that your First Edit Day was actually today! Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

And then it happened again a few minutes later. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Lepricavark (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Outstanding contributions recognition

	Outstanding Contributions Award
	Sam, your efforts at motivating and nominating editors for RfA is absolutely commendable. While others editors talk, you're walking the talk. For these nomming efforts and much more, you're an outstanding contributor. Keep up the great work Sam! :) Lourdes